From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 1 00:19:23 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:19:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Joyce In-Reply-To: <47A26036.9040800@lineone.net> References: <47A26036.9040800@lineone.net> Message-ID: On Jan 31, 2008 3:56 PM, ben wrote: > What the hell??? > > Either i'm really missing something here, or somebody else is. Y'know, them squiggles don't mean nothing, 'cept what you read into 'em. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 1 00:47:19 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:47:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Joyce References: <47A26036.9040800@lineone.net> Message-ID: <056f01c8646c$07cb2ae0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> ben writes > > > How do you feel about Bach's Cantata 140, "Sleepers wake"? > > > > Or, to take a big-selling example of fiction (shudder), L. Ron > > > Hubbard's "The Invaders Plan"? (In that case, granted, it's > > > anyone's guess.) > > > What the hell??? > > Either i'm really missing something here, or somebody else is. Nah, I think everyone is on board now. > Bach's : Belonging to, or 'of' Bach. > Sleepers : more than one sleeper. > ... > Simple enough, surely? Quite right. > So i can only conclude that "Finnegans wake" must be about an attempt to > rouse a number of people all called Finnegan from their slumber. And he > missed the pling off. Er, "pling off"? > (or, just maybe, it should have an apostrophe!) > So, am i wrong? No, quite right. Obviously to first think of "Finnegans Wake" as meaning Finnegan's Wake is tempting, because the latter much more likely is meant in vocal use. (And I believe JC pointed out that there was, historically, such a use.) So the unapostrophed version was at least partly just more word-play. And as for the list being quiet, I will rouse myself shortly, I hope, to discuss extropian poetry. Lee > Is the classic illiterate greengrocer's sign "Plum's ?1 a pound" really > making a bold and heroic statement about the nature of man? From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 1 01:10:08 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:10:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Joyce In-Reply-To: <056f01c8646c$07cb2ae0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <47A26036.9040800@lineone.net> <056f01c8646c$07cb2ae0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080131190754.02341ae0@satx.rr.com> At 04:47 PM 1/31/2008 -0800, Lee wrote: > > missed the pling off. > >Er, "pling off"? I read it as what an Aussie journalist would call a shriek: ! And by Jove, here's google: (But in this case, pling.) Damien Broderick From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Feb 1 00:51:51 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:51:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] EXTROPIANS, WAKE Message-ID: <380-2200825105151346@M2W015.mail2web.com> YAWN (pause) hu? oh - just let me know when its over - zzzzz -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From nymphomation at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 01:49:16 2008 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:49:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] EXTROPIANS, WAKE In-Reply-To: References: <47A12894.3080204@posthuman.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080131163833.02210418@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0801311749n607a7bbal52c7922a88a8b4cb@mail.gmail.com> n 31/01/2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008 2:40 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Has the dreaded James Joyce debate driven everyone into hibernation? > > They may have capsized due the wake... I heard they died and had to begin again..? Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation "We're from the private sector and we're here to help you." From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 01:43:04 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:43:04 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] EXTROPIANS, WAKE In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080131163833.02210418@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <704318.20019.qm@web50608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick escreveu: > Has the dreaded James Joyce debate driven everyone > into hibernation? > (Or estivation, for those of a southerly climate.) > lol.. I was about to leave the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling E-Group. ;) Seriously :p > Damien Broderick > Tony. Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Feb 1 01:54:03 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:54:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Female Sperm Male Eggs Message-ID: <00d701c86475$53050bd0$6601a8c0@brainiac> Female sperm breakthrough: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23141103-5006301,00.html DAILY MAIL, LONDON February 01, 2008 12:15am BRITISH scientists are ready to turn female bone marrow into sperm, cutting men out of the process of creating life. The breakthrough paves the way for lesbian couples to have children biologically their own. Gay men could follow suit by using the technique to make eggs from male bone marrow. Researchers at Newcastle upon Tyne University say their technique will help lead to new treatments for infertility. Critics warn it sidelines men and raises the prospect of babies born through entirely artificial means. The research centres on stem cells - the body's "mother" cells, which can be turned into any other type of cell. According to New Scientist magazine, the scientists want to take stem cells from a female donor's bone marrow and transform them into sperm through the use of chemicals and vitamins. Newcastle professor Karim Nayernia has applied for permission to carry out the work and is ready to start the experiments within two months. The biologist, who pioneered the technique with mice, believes early-stage "female sperm" could be produced inside two years. Mature sperm capable of fertilising eggs might take three more years. Early-stage sperm have already been produced from male bone marrow. Taking stem cells from an adult donor - possibly a cancer patient - removes the ethical problems associated with using embryos.e race to find a cure for infertility is global. Greg Aharonian, a U.S. analyst who is trying to patent the technologies behind female sperm and male eggs, said he wants to undermine the argument that heterosexual marriage is superior because it is aimed at procreation. "I'm a troublemaker," he said. Researchers at the Butantan Institute in Brazil, meanwhile, claim to have turned embryonic stem cells from male mice into both sperm and eggs. They are now working on skin cells. If their experiments succeed, the stage would be set for a gay man to donate skin cells that could be used to make eggs. These could then be fertilised by his partner's sperm and placed into the womb of a surrogate mother. Irina Kerkis, a researcher at the Brazilian centre, said this development was possible but raised ethical questions. Laboratory-grown sperm and eggs offer hope for those left infertile by radiotherapy treatment when they were young. The experiments also could provide an invaluable insight into dealing with infertility. Scientists warn, however, that the research is still in its infancy and any treatment is still many years away. There also are fears that children born from artificial eggs and sperm will suffer severe health problems. Children created from sperm from women would be able to have girls only - because the female sperm would lack the Y chromosome needed for boys. Josephine Quintavalle, of the Comment on Reproductive Ethics campaign group, said: "We are looking at absurd solutions to very obscure situations and not addressing the main issue. Nobody is interested in looking at what is causing infertility - social reasons such as obesity, smoking and age." ``All these things would provide solutions which wouldn't grab the headlines, but a lot more people would get the response they want - which is to be able to have their own children.' Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute faith group, said the Newcastle project flies in the face of research showing that children do best when raised by a married mixed- sex couple. "Children need male and female role models in their lives," he added. 'Yes, there are children raised by single parents through all sorts of circumstances, but when you are talking about deliberately creating children in that way, that is morally wrong.' Debra Matthews, a U.S. bioethicist, said: 'People want children and no one wants anyone else to tell them they can't have them.' An update of Britain's ageing fertility laws is going through Parliament and is likely to allow the use of artificial sperm and eggs in IVF treatment - but only for heterosexual couples. The Newcastle research also paves the way for a woman to grow her own sperm and use it to fertilise her natural eggs, creating a child to which she is both mother and father. Similarly, a man could be both father and mother to a child created with his own sperm and a lab-grown egg. Such children would be at high risk of genetic abnormality. - Daily Mail Also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/31/scisperm131.xml And: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19726414.000-are-male-eggs-and-female-sperm-on-the-horizon.html From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 02:52:37 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:52:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project Message-ID: <200801312052.37973.kanzure@gmail.com> http://heybryan.org/transhuman/biohack.html Torrent: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1142741 Facebook: http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10201960134 The open biohacking kit project contains information on important protocols in genetic engineering, stem cell research, microbiology and other fields of related interest. Additionally, the archive file -- ready for immediate distribution and diffusion -- contains numerous articles and designs for cheap DIY hardware such as incubators, centrifuges, oligonucleotide machines, microarray chip schematics, and so on. An integral part of the entire package is a cached copy of the BioBrick Foundation and synbio websites, such as OpenWetWare and the Parts Registry -- some may know about these groups from the International Genetically Engineered Machine competitions. Short introductory files are also being included regarding methods of artificial gene synthesis, using online bioinformatics databases, transfections, running ecoli farms, synthetic biology (synbio), ES cell harvesting procedures, quick "where to buy" guides, and one-page documents introducing newbies into the arts. The project is in the spirit of 'open' in the sense of open source, as such I am welcoming any permutations and combinations of this information, any revision of the zip file, any contributions whatsoever. Please note that this is an **amateur** work made for other **amateurs** (and to some extent professionals) and therefore the contents of the zip file remain mostly as a creative work and have not yet matured into a final product; admittedly, any project at this stage is going to be immature and will only grow to the extent that people will help it on its journey. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 03:28:52 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:28:52 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] The system In-Reply-To: <642753.83319.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <575028.1235.qm@web50603.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- Tom Nowell escreveu: > People have made various comments about "the system" > (in its many varieties) and whether they hope it > will > change, or whether the system is fact amazing. I > apologise in advance for the length of my post - > however, given the entire news articles and pages of > James Joyce people have been quoting, I feel in good > company. Because I've got a fair bit to say, I'm > breaking what follows into three parts: > hahaha :) i dont know if its apropriate, but somehow i found that amusing. > This has > caused many of my generation to be a little cynical > about politics Thats probably everyone.. > and whether anyone without the cash > to > bribe - sorry, effectively lobby - politicians could > do a thing. .. and I think its probably on purpose, so you install the belief that "you're impotent to change anything" in people. > > 2) The system: we all like to visualise "the system" > as the way the world works, in ways that our society > is familiar with. However, "the system" does change > over time. I may be a subject of Queen Elizabeth the > Second, but she doesn't lead our armies into battle > like monarchs of old, Yet, more people have died in wars lately than ever before summed up (dont know the exact numbers, but i would guess from 1950 against all wars from ever before.. not counting indirect effects, like if the resources was spent actually doing something good) > and I get a vote in our > elections while she doesn't. Which seconds ago you admitted dont make a difference anyway.. > The Tsars were swept > away > by communism, which went through Stalinism and > finally > faded away with perestroika, to be replaced by > unfettered go-go capitalism for a few years, now to > be > replaced by autocratic Putinism. France has had > several republics in the same period of history that > the USA has only needed one to fill. > In the 1930s, FDR's "New Deal" made America more > socialist than it had been previously, and Britain's > "Welfare state" wasn't invented until after 1945. > Our > grandparent's "system" and ours are radically > different. but better? > Now, people have been posting about whether "the > system" works in several areas. With respect to > healthcare, many deplore how the USA has so little > care for the poor while spending so much on > healthcare > overall, while Spike admires the amazing technology > developed by the profit motive. Which I gave up to insist that it wont solve anything.. if you pay someone -- who consider money all that important, let me add -- "TO solve" a problem, they are forever going "TO solve" it.. Until of course, you open your eyes, and pay for "THE solution". OR use a system that dont create a conflict of interest between survival(which most people associate with money, but let us not get too philosophical whether is ethical to eat brand new cars) and righteousness. Being teaching it since childhood or dissociating truth from any kind of reward outside of itself(like happiness against money).. probably many systems might work, even inside the capitalist mindset. > For everyone in Europe, while it is a shame that so > many individual Americans have to suffer, we should > appreciate the free ride we get. I wonder to where? > US drug companies > research a lot of drugs. Which are the 3rd killer of their country, i would actually say the 1st, but lets stick with the facts that THEY THEMSELVES admit.. lol, let alone they ALSO ADMIT they dont count everything in that figure.. so how many are going to the first 2 other causes of obit? And since most drugs dont kill immediately this is pretty easy to do. Yes, dont forget the misery they cause all the way until they are (NOT)counted.. hahahahaha... (which, btw, i find worse than death, but thats me, im not THAT obsessed with life i guess ^^ specially when its surrounded by people that actually do that on purpose) > For a few years, American > consumers are milked for all they're worth until oh yes, i forgot that :) > another company discovers a similar enough compound which is probably a lot of time, since they must be very careful not to bankrupt the competition AND themselves, by curing anything.. no "friendly" motive anymore after that. Hopefully find a dependency drug: take-> get "fairly" well(how good is your wellness fair to them btw?), stop taking-> back to sickness.. How many drugs you know that have already arrived at this point? oh, they can still improve on that, cant they? they can always make you better quicker? or, maybe not.. let us just change the side effects, hopefully you will want to buy another drug then! yey \o/ > that gets around the original patent, and then > competition brings down the price a little. > Meanwhile, the Canadians and europeans with their > big > healthcare systems negotiate a price they think is > reasonable. The big drug companies can either agree > a > price, or they can face having very few customers in > a > given country. The cost to people outside the US is > a > good degree less. Our new drugs are subsidised by > our > US friends worrying about the huge premiums on their > health insurance. and they probably take stress reducing pills :) mwahaha > We also get other free rides to where again? you better start asking before you get the wrong bus.. again.. > - everyone who's > wearing > cotton clothes, thank Uncle Sam for his generosity. > Huge subsidies paid to US cotton farmers make the > world price of cotton ridiculously low. Farmers in > west africa, trying to pay people a dollar a day, > have that makes me want to burn my shirts.. > difficulty competing with American farmers who get > bribed by US politicians hoping for a friendly vote. > Thank you for my cheap T-shirts, American taxpayers. hehehe, nice quote for a T-Shirt ;) .. made in Africa! huahahaha priceless.. err pun intended :D > Of course, sometimes this works the other way - > subsidies for bioethanol from corn has driven US > maize oh.. now you're getting interesting.. there is always the downside =/ they never seem to lose, do they? arg! :) > prices up, which in turn increases the costs of > tortillas in Mexico and corn meal across the world. BTW im making some tomorrow, everyone's invited. they are cheap here.. i guess, could probably be much cheaper, i agree with you.. > Still, we should be thankful that the US's > experiments > in unrestrained healthcare capitalism can provide us > with useful products. > indeed... :) lol.. ok, there are plenty of good things.. but they wont get much of a solution, unless they can "compensate" somehow.. =/ > 3) A radical change in "the system": looking about > transhumanist websites, you get to see many > viewpoints > on the world. Yes, im giving up talking about this, it wont get us anywhere, and there are already much talk from immemorial times. There is too much fundamental work to be done before anything past the basics of those talks can actually be put to test, and most everyone know what those(fundamentals) are.. so no point going further before the basic is done, those talks can be done after that (if we ever get there, so its a waste of time anyway, even worse if we dont, and as it seems.. we wont) > citizens so they can all have an income from the > state. The idea when extended to western > civilisations > is to give everyone a handout sufficient to cover > their basic needs. This replaces welfare, pensions > schemes, sickness benefits, etc. > The combination of the two has been advocated by > some > libertarians as allowing people to earn what they > want, while also given people freedom from being > forced to work. If someone's idea of life,liberty > and > the pursuit of happiness is sitting down watching > soap > operas all day, they can. This combination also > works > from a socialist view - "From each according to > their > earnings;to each to cover their basic needs", while > allowing eager capitalists to earn extra cash and > allowing the profit motive to exist. > Say this particular innovation gets adopted by a > political party in a developed economy, and is > implemented one day. What will happen? We will see in the next chapter! Stay tuned! (got to the bottom to answer, and look at that!) > People will probably do one of three things: some > may > want to earn as much as possible to add to their > minimum income. In the US, people work more hours > than > they did in the 1970s, but the amount of stuff they > own is much greater than their 1970s predecessors. > In > France, they've achieved a 35 hour working week, and > people working longer hours each week get time off > in > lieu. The French equivalent of the wall street > banker > gets 45-50 days paid leave a year in return for > working so hard during the week. > A second group of people will give up working. As > Spike said, there's many people in the US motivated > by > === message truncated === MESSAGE TRUNCATED!! F***!!! Stupid yahoo.. =/ See you next week in this same hour, and in this same channel! yey \o/ \o> *shoots head* Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 03:32:36 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:32:36 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 52, Issue 27 In-Reply-To: <650185.30287.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <853065.32642.qm@web50602.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- Tom Nowell escreveu: > Van Gogh's > sunflowers > and the Mona Lisa both went for recycling though. > This is an outrage!!! LOL I hope nobody reads this out of context ^^ Tony. Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 04:40:59 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:40:59 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] The system In-Reply-To: <642753.83319.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <856528.10331.qm@web50604.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ========= Continuing ======= In the last episode... /**************** The first good example I saw of minimum income was in "Visit Port Watson!", the finest piece of Utopian SF I ever read. Set in the remotest islands of the pacific, it's a fictional travel guide to an imaginary republic. The ruler set up an offshore banking and finance centre, and divides the profits up amongst the citizens so they can all have an income from the state. The idea when extended to western civilisations is to give everyone a handout sufficient to cover their basic needs. This replaces welfare, pensions schemes, sickness benefits, etc. The combination of the two has been advocated by some libertarians as allowing people to earn what they want, while also given people freedom from being forced to work. If someone's idea of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness is sitting down watching soap operas all day, they can. This combination also works from a socialist view - "From each according to their earnings;to each to cover their basic needs", while allowing eager capitalists to earn extra cash and allowing the profit motive to exist. Say this particular innovation gets adopted by a political party in a developed economy, and is implemented one day. What will happen? *******************/ ta na na na! /******************* People will probably do one of three things: some may want to earn as much as possible to add to their minimum income. In the US, people work more hours than they did in the 1970s, but the amount of stuff they own is much greater than their 1970s predecessors. In France, they've achieved a 35 hour working week, and people working longer hours each week get time off in lieu. The French equivalent of the wall street banker gets 45-50 days paid leave a year in return for working so hard during the week. A second group of people will give up working. As Spike said, there's many people in the US motivated by a fear of not having health insurance who would otherwise retire early. Likewise, people who currently claim unemployment benefits might just give up looking for work. **************************/ But who would then get my garbage, or cook my food?! This trash pile up rather quickly you know? After all if everybody in the world consumed like the average american, we would need about 6 earth to sustain us!.. The government would do it? But who would they hire?? they are paying everyone not to work.. so, i guess those salaries would soar! And then we would need universities to avoid everyone from becoming a garbage man, and make them study for years the anatomy of garbage, memorizing useless stuff... So they can legally think they are elite, yes, think, after all they are still garbage man. Yes, there is a lot of people wanting to be them, but.. ok.. let their dream live.. hmm.. maybe not actually salaries, since we wont be needing companies anymore, i mean, who would work for anyone else.. rather we will get mercenaries, who would then charge huge ammounts for 'protection'.. yeah, garbage can be very dangerous you know? they can actually appear from nowhere, in the mid of the night, piles and piles.. By the way, a change of mentality is out of the question. (Watching soap opera all day are too tiring a work (i cant stand a few seconds), and get people to busy to actually recycle their own garbage, or send to the proper place) /*********************** A third group of people might take this as their chance to do what they really want to do with their lives - pursue hobbies, practise arts, perform academic research into what really interests them, work for charities. These people would no longer be limited by the need to pay the rent. ************************/ But they would want some of that great green stuff type 1 has! after all, there are other groups producing things THEY want also.. and they aint giving it for free, after all there was a lot of work to invent it and produce it, compared to how much work they should actually be doing (i mean, i could be watching soap operas), it would make them sick and those medice researchers charge pretty damn much! I dont blame them though, they must pay for garbage protection. In this situation, I dont see much sharing of knowledge between researchers.. there would be a lot of competing rival factions, throwing garbage at each other's lots.. I wonder though where do type 1 people get all that money, exporting? Maybe they collect garbage... maybe they export garbage! type 2 would get rich then, just by sitting on their b**** watching as they pile grow higher, then lower.. higher.. then lower... oh joy.. /************************* The unanswerable question is to what proportion people will fall into these categories. *********************/ Im not trying to say it wont work but.. :) at the very least, a lot of would be type 2's would be forced to work... it seems most people will be forced to do stuff they dont want to.. and I think thats the way it should be! if you dont have the discipline to recycle your garbage, cook your food, dont overheat your planet till meltdown.. well.. i guess you should be enforced by law to do your part, to the benefit of everyone else that does. This system might work then. /************************ We could try doing surveys, but people may not answer particularly truthfully. We can try predicting from national trends (ie we'd guess the US would have more type 1 people than other countries, but I couldn't tell you what extent). The trick would be to have enough people in the first category to generate the cash **********/ generating cash from thin air? what are they selling? what are they buying? to whom? type 3 is producing the good stuff, are they not? Maybe farming? please dont say garbage again. yes.. farming.. but.. government is providing all the needs arent they? so.. government gives tax money to people so they can pay for food.. but.. type 2 dont pay tax.. type 3 neither (in your original idea).. so, essentially type 1 is paying themselves to feed the people! \o/ this could work if a change of mentality would take place, but then what wouldnt? Everyone doing what they can and like and need.. we wouldnt have to design much of a system, it would all fit together in an obvious way.. no need to enforce anything.. many people call that idealism, and most of them, dont believe it. I do \o> thats why i bother to type all this. please kill me. seriously :p /***************** to keep the other two groups going. Huge numbers of people would fall into category two. If the third category was big, it could trigger a renaissance of unimaginable proportions. ********************/ well.. i wonder what minimum changes in mentality would be needed for this to work.. As always, I think the least change we make in the current system the better (not that we wont make more later, on the contrary the idea is gradual change).. it is easier to predict what impact it will have, it wont be so abrupt to cause vital dynamics (nutrient flow, waste excretion.. yes GARBAGE!) to halt.. human mentality tends to adapt slowly, so to get the "my grandpa systems was drastically different than mine" effect, we need to change slowly, otherwise the same mentality would fall back, snap back (probably better word), to what its used to.. /************* Natasha has alluded to these possibilities when talking about her papers on "Homo Ludens". People are starting to look at the concept of a life without the need for work seriously. With the increasing automation of many jobs, do we need to keep finding new ways for people to add to the economy? Will those old predictions of "in the future, robots will do 90% of work" come true? Would the cutting down of human work be the start of a golden age of civilisation, or our first step in becoming decadent lotus eaters? /*********************/ Hopefully so! All of those and some more.. but i predict low jobs will last a long time yet, the elite is too lazy to let go of their willing slaves. Unless a change of mentality takes place, this wont happen.. and the confort zone isnt being challenged very much. But well.. nothing that a few volcanoes, or a few inches of water cant do, uh? lets hope. /******************* I'd like to see a nation try, just to help the rest of the world prepare for the future and consider other ways of living. **************/ Im not a voy..... ..eurrrrType2 but that would indeed be fun to watch. "consider other ways of living." That would be very useful!!! I hope thats not too late though ^^ Mark. Tom Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Feb 1 04:50:50 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:50:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] EXTROPIANS, WAKE In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080131163833.02210418@satx.rr.com> References: <47A12894.3080204@posthuman.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080131163833.02210418@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <47A2A52A.6050706@kevinfreels.com> Everything worth saying for the moment has already been said....... Damien Broderick wrote: > Has the dreaded James Joyce debate driven everyone into hibernation? > (Or estivation, for those of a southerly climate.) > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 1 05:55:03 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:55:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "Cheap Hydrogen"--this might be promising Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080131235308.02470fa0@satx.rr.com> [what's stupidly wrong with it, Eugen? :) ] http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/ Thursday, January 31, 2008 Cheap Hydrogen A new process uses sunlight and a nanostructured catalyst to inexpensively and efficiently generate hydrogen for fuel. From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 1 07:12:04 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:12:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Earth is doomed. Mars is OK, though. Message-ID: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4031 Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited Authors: Klaus-Peter Schroder, Robert C. Smith (Submitted on 25 Jan 2008) Abstract: We revisit the distant future of the Sun and the solar system, based on stellar models computed with a thoroughly tested evolution code. For the solar giant stages, mass-loss by the cool (but not dust-driven) wind is considered in detail. Using the new and well-calibrated mass-loss formula of Schroder & Cuntz (2005, 2007), we find that the mass lost by the Sun as an RGB giant (0.332 M_Sun, 7.59 Gy from now) potentially gives planet Earth a significant orbital expansion, inversely proportional to the remaining solar mass. According to these solar evolution models, the closest encounter of planet Earth with the solar cool giant photosphere will occur during the tip-RGB phase. During this critical episode, for each time-step of the evolution model, we consider the loss of orbital angular momentum suffered by planet Earth from tidal interaction with the giant Sun, as well as dynamical drag in the lower chromosphere. We find that planet Earth will not be able to escape engulfment, despite the positive effect of solar mass-loss. In order to survive the solar tip-RGB phase, any hypothetical planet would require a present-day minimum orbital radius of about 1.15 AU. Furthermore, our solar evolution models with detailed mass-loss description predict that the resulting tip-AGB giant will not reach its tip-RGB size. The main reason is the more significant amount of mass lost already in the RGB phase of the Sun. Hence, the tip-AGB luminosity will come short of driving a final, dust-driven superwind, and there will be no regular solar planetary nebula (PN). But a last thermal pulse may produce a circumstellar (CS) shell similar to, but rather smaller than, that of the peculiar PN IC 2149 with an estimated total CS shell mass of just a few hundredths of a solar mass. Comments: MNRAS 2008, in print (accepted Jan. 23rd, 2008) Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph) Cite as: arXiv:0801.4031v1 [astro-ph] Submission history From: Klaus-Peter Schr\"oder [view email] [v1] Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:13:29 GMT (34kb) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 1 07:21:17 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:21:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] EXTROPIANS, WAKE References: <47A12894.3080204@posthuman.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080131163833.02210418@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003701c864a3$0a047410$2bb91f97@archimede> "We are not yet born, we are not yet in the world, there isn't yet a world, things have not yet been made, the reason for being has not yet been found." -Antonin Artaud http://www.antoninartaud.org/home.html From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 1 09:17:08 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:17:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] "Cheap Hydrogen"--this might be promising In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080131235308.02470fa0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080131235308.02470fa0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20080201091708.GI10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:55:03PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > [what's stupidly wrong with it, Eugen? :) ] Assuming their claims of producing hydrogen cheaper than methane reforming are true (unconditionally, that's not true, since you'd need direct sunlight, and plenty of it) that's a pretty low standard to compare against. Thin-film elements a la http://nanosolar.de are claimed to have an energy ROI of weeks, and 0.3$/W in production, sold for 1$/W. Their current claims is electricity cheaper than coal plant electricity. You can expect these prices to fall further, while cost of natural gas will only increase. On the long run, we should see nanowire rectenna-based PV arrays, which can be up to 80% efficient, while as cheap and durable as thin-film spin-coated or printed panels. > http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/ Anything involving tracking parabolic mirrors to create high temperatures in focus is always going to remain expensive. No movable elements and solid state is where it's at. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 14:21:21 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:21:21 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project In-Reply-To: <200801312052.37973.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <718118.85916.qm@web50601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Amazing! Thanks! --- Bryan Bishop escreveu: > http://heybryan.org/transhuman/biohack.html > Torrent: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1142741 > Facebook: > http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10201960134 > > The open biohacking kit project contains information > on important > protocols in genetic engineering, stem cell > research, microbiology and > other fields of related interest. Additionally, the > archive file -- > ready for immediate distribution and diffusion -- > contains numerous > articles and designs for cheap DIY hardware such as > incubators, > centrifuges, oligonucleotide machines, microarray > chip schematics, and > so on. An integral part of the entire package is a > cached copy of the > BioBrick Foundation and synbio websites, such as > OpenWetWare and the > Parts Registry -- some may know about these groups > from the > International Genetically Engineered Machine > competitions. Short > introductory files are also being included regarding > methods of > artificial gene synthesis, using online > bioinformatics databases, > transfections, running ecoli farms, synthetic > biology (synbio), ES cell > harvesting procedures, quick "where to buy" guides, > and one-page > documents introducing newbies into the arts. > > The project is in the spirit of 'open' in the sense > of open source, as > such I am welcoming any permutations and > combinations of this > information, any revision of the zip file, any > contributions > whatsoever. Please note that this is an **amateur** > work made for other > **amateurs** (and to some extent professionals) and > therefore the > contents of the zip file remain mostly as a creative > work and have not > yet matured into a final product; admittedly, any > project at this stage > is going to be immature and will only grow to the > extent that people > will help it on its journey. > > - Bryan > ________________________________________ > Bryan Bishop > http://heybryan.org/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 14:48:13 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:48:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Earth is doomed. Mars is OK, though. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62c14240802010648h55ab1497gf27b23276302205b@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 1, 2008 2:12 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Earth will not be able to escape engulfment, despite the positive effect > of solar mass-loss. In order to survive the solar tip-RGB phase, any > hypothetical planet would require a present-day minimum orbital radius > of about 1.15 AU. ... so you're saying that mars is a better option than the moon for those cryogenic dewars. An even better plan might be to have migrated to an extraterrestrial vehicle bound for a younger star by the time Sol goes into a geriatric state. :) From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 14:40:29 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:40:29 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] Earth is doomed. Mars is OK, though. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <637596.36761.qm@web50610.mail.re2.yahoo.com> pretty much :) --- Amara Graps escreveu: > http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4031 > > Distant future of the Sun and Earth Wouldnt the earth be inhabitable much earlier? Mark. Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 15:14:00 2008 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:14:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project In-Reply-To: <718118.85916.qm@web50601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <200801312052.37973.kanzure@gmail.com> <718118.85916.qm@web50601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It would be nice if most of the filenames didn't include spaces. Spaces in filenames are a real pain to work with under Linux and other Unix derivatives. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpicone at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 17:28:07 2008 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:28:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project In-Reply-To: References: <200801312052.37973.kanzure@gmail.com> <718118.85916.qm@web50601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2008 7:14 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It would be nice if most of the filenames didn't include spaces. Spaces > in filenames are a real pain to work with under Linux and other Unix > derivatives. > > Robert > If you're on a debian-based system, I'd recommend the command "rename 's/ /_/g' *" to make them easier to deal with. If not, or if the package isn't installed, you can find the debian rename script here: http://tips.webdesign10.com/files/rename.pl.txt Anyway, to those interested in the topic, you might also want to check out an interesting talk given at this year's chaos computer congress: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6950604815683841321&hl=en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 1 17:26:55 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:26:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <003101c8630f$9818a3b0$41f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > John K Clark . > Subject: Re: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider > > Rick Strongitharm Wrote: > > > The Large Hadron Collider is scheduled to begin operation in a few > > >...The most disappointing result would be if it > discovered the Higgs Boson and nothing else. John K Clark I disagree John. The most disappointing result is if it created a mini black hole, which then started eating atoms around it as it sank to the center of the earth, growing more massive and eventually having the earth collapse suddenly into a marble sized point of mass. The astronauts aboard the space station witnessing the sudden disappearance of the earth would have new insight into Fermi's paradox but would be most disappointed in any case. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 18:40:00 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:40:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <003101c8630f$9818a3b0$41f04d0c@MyComputer> <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802011040j38d6af9and4162d23cde2fe77@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 1, 2008 6:26 PM, spike wrote: > I disagree John. The most disappointing result is if it created a mini > black hole, which then started eating atoms around it as it sank to the > center of the earth, growing more massive and eventually having the earth > collapse suddenly into a marble sized point of mass. No, wouldn't you think this would be a very interesting phenomenon? :-) Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 1 18:18:41 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:18:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Joyce In-Reply-To: <007701c86316$b12bfee0$41f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200802011845.m11IjPtn003203@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > John K Clark > ...the song is called Finnegan's Wake. Yes it had an > apostrophe. If I am correct about that (and believe it or not > I have been known to be wrong) then my third grade English > teacher would still give Mr. Joyce an F for a title like that. > > John K Philistine My fifth grade English teacher assigned the victims to write about their summer vacation. I titled mine Greg's Trip [subtitled] Greg with a Catastrophy S. Mrs. Risticelli loved it, told me it was the best intentionally funny essay she had seen to date. That started my career in comedy writing. spike From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 1 18:51:43 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:51:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <003101c8630f$9818a3b0$41f04d0c@MyComputer> <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080201185142.GZ10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 09:26:55AM -0800, spike wrote: > I disagree John. The most disappointing result is if it created a mini > black hole, which then started eating atoms around it as it sank to the > center of the earth, growing more massive and eventually having the earth > collapse suddenly into a marble sized point of mass. The astronauts aboard > the space station witnessing the sudden disappearance of the earth would > have new insight into Fermi's paradox but would be most disappointed in any > case. http://www.amazon.com/Thrice-Upon-Time-James-Hogan/dp/0671319485 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 1 18:25:35 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:25:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] riffing on the first second. was Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802011852.m11IqJ6V029433@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > BillK hath queried > ... > What was matter like within the first second of the Universe's life? Well BillK, we didn't have all the stable-matter luxuries that you kids take for granted these days. spike {8^D From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 19:12:29 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:12:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] riffing on the first second. was Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <200802011852.m11IqJ6V029433@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802011852.m11IqJ6V029433@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2008 6:25 PM, spike wrote: > Well BillK, we didn't have all the stable-matter luxuries that you kids take > for granted these days. > I bet you oldies had other fun things to do in the first second of the Universe's life! Crowding round the incandescent ball of fire, warming your extremities, telling stories about the good ol' days in the previous universe..... But it must have been a surprise when it expanded so quickly..... Hardly have time to say 'Oops!' BillK From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 1 20:12:01 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:12:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802012038.m11KcjWg026890@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Robert! Where the heck have you been man?! Welcome back. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:14 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project It would be nice if most of the filenames didn't include spaces. Spaces in filenames are a real pain to work with under Linux and other Unix derivatives. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 1 20:51:17 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:51:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <580930c20802011040j38d6af9and4162d23cde2fe77@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802012051.m11KpLIQ002169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >... On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > > On Feb 1, 2008 6:26 PM, spike wrote: > > I disagree John. The most disappointing result is if it created a > > mini black hole... > > the earth collapse suddenly into a marble sized point of mass. > > No, wouldn't you think this would be a very interesting > phenomenon? :-) Stefano Vaj It would be interesting perhaps to see the earth suddenly disappear, but disappointing for those aboard the station. Think of possible comments: Awww damn. And I bought a bunch of Intel at six and a quarter... or So then, I guess this means no super bowl this year... or Well, at least now we don't hafta worry about global warming or overpopulation... or If we cut to half rations now, we could live another three weeks... or This orbit will be stable until the sun goes red giant... spike From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Fri Feb 1 21:00:24 2008 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:00:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <200802012051.m11KpLIQ002169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Snip: Spike said: Think of possible comments: "Um Houston, you have a problem." "I need another Diaper." and of course, when all other words fail: "Fuck!" (or if it's someone from Quebec: Tabernacle!) From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 1 21:35:48 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:35:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Earth is doomed. Mars is OK, though. Message-ID: "Mike Dougherty" , Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:48:13 -0500 >... so you're saying that mars is a better option than the moon for >those cryogenic dewars. An even better plan might be to have migrated >to an extraterrestrial vehicle bound for a younger star by the time >Sol goes into a geriatric state. :) Yes and you better start planning for it, since it will happen in about 7.59 Gy. ;-) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 22:47:51 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:47:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project In-Reply-To: References: <200801312052.37973.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802011647.51862.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 01 February 2008, Robert Picone wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 7:14 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It would be nice if most of the filenames didn't include spaces. > > ?Spaces in filenames are a real pain to work with under Linux and > > other Unix derivatives. Yes. I apologize for this. Ironically, I do all of my work on a Debian installation. It is Opera who was saving the files, and I who did not go through and change the file names. Perhaps the next release (which I imagine might be in a week with the extra supplements I have been collecting) I will be sure to do this. :) > If you're on a debian-based system, I'd recommend the command "rename > 's/ /_/g' *" to make them easier to deal with. ?If not, or if the > package isn't installed, you can find the debian rename script here: > http://tips.webdesign10.com/files/rename.pl.txt Thank you. > Anyway, to those interested in the topic, you might also want to > check out an interesting talk given at this year's chaos computer > congress: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6950604815683841321&hl=en I recommend this video as well -- saw it a week ago. :) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From benboc at lineone.net Fri Feb 1 22:36:54 2008 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:36:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A39F06.7080407@lineone.net> "spike" exclaimed: > > John K Clark . > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider > > > > Rick Strongitharm Wrote: > > >> > > The Large Hadron Collider is scheduled to begin operation in a few >> > > > >...The most disappointing result would be if it > > discovered the Higgs Boson and nothing else. John K Clark > I disagree John. The most disappointing result is if it created a mini > black hole, which then started eating atoms around it as it sank to the > center of the earth, growing more massive and eventually having the earth > collapse suddenly into a marble sized point of mass. The astronauts aboard > the space station witnessing the sudden disappearance of the earth would > have new insight into Fermi's paradox but would be most disappointed in any > case. > spike If it created a mini black hole, wouldn't that make a fantastic energy generator? And wouldn't it take thousands of years, or longer, to start making any appreciable difference if it did fall to the centre of the earth and start gobbling it up? I Am Not a Physicist (by a long chalk), but i seem to remember reading that if a very small black hole had a spin, it could be controlled with electrical and/or magnetic fields? So if we accidentally made spinning tiny black holes (not sure how big they'd have to be not to disappear instantly), surely that would be a most desirable result? And if we lost a few along the way, that would simply act as an incentive to make sure we could get off the planet sometime in the future. Probably in black-hole-powered spaceships. Ooh, here's an interesting exercise for those of you who get excited over such things: What would the orbit of such an accidentally-created black hole be? Or what would the range of orbits of a range of such black holes be, from the smallest hole that would be stable enough to complete at least one orbit, to the maximum mass hole that could be reasonably formed from the LHC? (When i say orbit, of course, i mean orbit inside the earth, around it's centre of mass). Is that an interesting problem? Or is the answer boringly obvious? I don't have a clue. Or am i being suckered into a silly speculation here? Surely any stable black hole would have to mass a few tonnes at least? Just how powerful is this LHC supposed to be?! ben zaiboc From xuenay at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 22:59:19 2008 From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:59:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <003101c8630f$9818a3b0$41f04d0c@MyComputer> <200802011753.m11HrjNG001231@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0802011459y325f08a4nc7c90c7ea4bf39b1@mail.gmail.com> On 2/1/08, spike wrote: > > John K Clark > >...The most disappointing result would be if it > > discovered the Higgs Boson and nothing else. John K Clark > I disagree John. The most disappointing result is if it created a mini > black hole, which then started eating atoms around it as it sank to the > center of the earth, growing more massive and eventually having the earth > collapse suddenly into a marble sized point of mass. The astronauts aboard > the space station witnessing the sudden disappearance of the earth would > have new insight into Fermi's paradox but would be most disappointed in any > case. I'm not really sure if "disappointing" is the word I'd use to describe this situation. ;) -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 1 23:24:02 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:24:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <47A39F06.7080407@lineone.net> References: <47A39F06.7080407@lineone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> At 10:36 PM 2/1/2008 +0000, ben wrote: >And wouldn't it take thousands of years, or longer, to start making any >appreciable difference if it did fall to the centre of the earth and >start gobbling it up? Apparently. This has been discussed a bit on rec.arts.sf.science; e.g. some random grabs: And that's asteroid mass, not LHC morsel. etc. Damien Broderick From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 1 23:28:15 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:28:15 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Open Biohacking Project In-Reply-To: <200802011647.51862.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <184005.29079.qm@web50611.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- Bryan Bishop escreveu: > > > Anyway, to those interested in the topic, you > might also want to > > check out an interesting talk given at this year's > chaos computer > > congress: > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6950604815683841321&hl=en > > I recommend this video as well -- saw it a week ago. > :) > > - Bryan I was having difficulty downloading from google servers, it kept halting at 3.3%, tried 2 download managers and the google video interface itself, to no avail. Got it here though: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2329.en.html In a better format(mp4) btw.. its also encoded in matroska.. There are plenty of interesting lectures there, not just on biology! I specially liked the moto: Volldampf voraus! Tony. Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 2 01:19:25 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:19:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Damien Broderick > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:24 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider > > At 10:36 PM 2/1/2008 +0000, ben wrote: > > >And wouldn't it take thousands of years, or longer, to start > making any > >appreciable difference if it did fall to the centre of the earth and > >start gobbling it up? > > Apparently. This has been discussed a bit on > rec.arts.sf.science; e.g. some random grabs: > > onto Earth. It's a billion tonnes, very hot and tiny. > What happens? The cross section is tiny and material near it > will be heated up to a great degree: could it suck up > significant amounts of material at all? > > > And that's asteroid mass, not LHC morsel. > > to hold onto it with the electromagnet that J.Forward uses in > the story. > If it had that much charge, the immense potential near the > horizon would pull in opposite charges quickly, neutralizing > the hole. > > > etc. > > Damien Broderick I have tried to do these calcs but have not been very successful in convincing myself that they are true or represent reality. I derive of the event horizon radius of a black hole as a function of its mass, and get R=2GM/c^2. G is about 7e-11 and c is about 3e-8, so about 1.5e-27*M. The radius of a proton is about 1.5e-18, so a black hole would need a mass of a billion Kg in order to be the size of a proton. I can be sure that no collider is going to accidentally create a particle with a mass of a million tons. If a black hole is accidentally created, it would be too small to devour any particle. Then I theorized that a tiny black hole could absorb electrons since usual notion of dimension is not necessarily applicable to electrons (the Compton radius is not directly analogous to what we think of as a radius, at least not in all applications.) In any material there are free electrons, but not free protons. Therefore the black hole inside a planet would take on a negative charge and hold it. Then it would attract surrounding matter, not with the very weak gravitational force but by electromagnetic force. Reasoning: it gobbles up the nearby electrons, causing the surrounding material to become positively charged. Then the radius of the event horizon becomes effectively much larger than it would be if everything were neutral. If that line of reasoning is correct, I suppose a very tiny black hole could eventually devour a planet. But I suspect something is very wrong with that line of reasoning. I hope so. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 03:05:36 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:05:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Earth is doomed. Mars is OK, though. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62c14240802011905k50e60a98m1cc581eb56e4b939@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 1, 2008 4:35 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > "Mike Dougherty" , Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:48:13 -0500 > > >... so you're saying that mars is a better option than the moon for > >those cryogenic dewars. An even better plan might be to have migrated > >to an extraterrestrial vehicle bound for a younger star by the time > >Sol goes into a geriatric state. :) > > Yes and you better start planning for it, since it will happen in about > 7.59 Gy. ;-) With simple compound interest, I might have enough money by then. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 2 05:02:47 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:02:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> A FAREWELL TO ALMS A Brief Economic History of the World By Dr. Gregory Clark University of California, Davis This is one of those books that changed my world view, in the same class as Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene, Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation, William Calvin's The Cerebral Code, Robert Wright's Moral Animal, Robert Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation and a hand full of other books mostly on evolutionary psychology. It's not that it replaces any of these, just fills in a big knowledge gap and is highly complimentary to my work on the origin of war. Economics, particularly historical economics, never made much sense to me. Dr. Clark's work does and it might be called "evolutionary economics." It makes a case for intense genetic selection leading up to the great leap of the industrial revolution that allowed England and a small number of other countries to escape the "Malthusian Trap." and it makes a case for why this didn't come about in other parts of the world and isn't likely to. Like nanotechnology, AI and evolutionary psychology, I think the material in this book is essential to informed discussion on this and related mailing lists. At the least list members should read this short version: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf It's hard to have any idea of where we are going without an idea of where we came from. Keith Henson From aleksei at iki.fi Sat Feb 2 07:39:59 2008 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:39:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1db0b2da0802012339o5fb1da7etb5e94ffc3fceec40@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 2, 2008 7:02 AM, hkhenson wrote: > It makes a case for intense genetic selection leading up to the great > leap of the industrial revolution that allowed England and a small > number of other countries to escape the "Malthusian Trap." and it > makes a case for why this didn't come about in other parts of the > world and isn't likely to. Would his argument being correct imply that we should find higher average IQs in Caucasian populations than in e.g. East Asian populations? In actuality, East Asian populations seem to have higher average IQs... -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 2 07:47:08 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:47:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Science in the 21st Century, Sept 8-12, 2008, Waterloo, Ontario Message-ID: Sabine Hossenfelder with Michael Nielson and the Perimeter Institute are hosting a conference: "Science in the 21st Century", an interdisciplinary meeting of the technological developments that influence how science is performed today. Details here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/02/science-in-21st-century.html and http://www.science21stcentury.org/index.html Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 10:38:24 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:38:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2008 5:02 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > A FAREWELL TO ALMS > A Brief Economic History of the World > By Dr. Gregory Clark > University of California, Davis > > This is one of those books that changed my world view, in the same > class as Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene, Eric Drexler's Engines of > Creation, William Calvin's The Cerebral Code, Robert Wright's Moral > Animal, Robert Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation and a hand full of > other books mostly on evolutionary psychology. It's not that it > replaces any of these, just fills in a big knowledge gap and is > highly complimentary to my work on the origin of war. > > Economics, particularly historical economics, never made much sense > to me. Dr. Clark's work does and it might be called "evolutionary economics." > > It makes a case for intense genetic selection leading up to the great > leap of the industrial revolution that allowed England and a small > number of other countries to escape the "Malthusian Trap." and it > makes a case for why this didn't come about in other parts of the > world and isn't likely to. > I find myself uneasy with the sweeping conclusions in this book. I don't think genetics changes the population quickly enough to be the *sole* cause of the Industrial Revolution in the UK. He is effectively claiming that the UK race is genetically bred to rule the world. Isn't that what they call 'racism'? The UK population grew slowly up to about 1800 when the IR happened. This was due to disease and lack of food. About 1740 four-field crop rotation was introduced and more food became available. Hygiene and medicine improved and the population increased rapidly. With the help of cultural and economic institutions, the first countries to get guns and technology became world powers. ("Guns, Germs and Steel"). I think people should read the critics of this book before jumping on board. There are holes in his argument and exceptions in other countries. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 2 14:26:13 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:26:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Earth is doomed. Mars is OK, though. In-Reply-To: <62c14240802011905k50e60a98m1cc581eb56e4b939@mail.gmail.com> References: <62c14240802011905k50e60a98m1cc581eb56e4b939@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080202142613.GE10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:05:36PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > With simple compound interest, I might have enough money by then. I'm sure cowry shells or deutsche reichsmarks will mean a lot over geological time scales. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 2 16:33:52 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 09:33:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1201970071_36770@S3.cableone.net> At 03:38 AM 2/2/2008, BillK wrote: >On Feb 2, 2008 5:02 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > > > A FAREWELL TO ALMS > > A Brief Economic History of the World > > By Dr. Gregory Clark > > University of California, Davis > > > > This is one of those books that changed my world view, in the same > > class as Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene, Eric Drexler's Engines of > > Creation, William Calvin's The Cerebral Code, Robert Wright's Moral > > Animal, Robert Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation and a hand full of > > other books mostly on evolutionary psychology. It's not that it > > replaces any of these, just fills in a big knowledge gap and is > > highly complimentary to my work on the origin of war. > > > > Economics, particularly historical economics, never made much sense > > to me. Dr. Clark's work does and it might be > called "evolutionary economics." > > > > It makes a case for intense genetic selection leading up to the great > > leap of the industrial revolution that allowed England and a small > > number of other countries to escape the "Malthusian Trap." and it > > makes a case for why this didn't come about in other parts of the > > world and isn't likely to. > > >I find myself uneasy with the sweeping conclusions in this book. >I don't think genetics changes the population quickly enough to be the >*sole* cause of the Industrial Revolution in the UK. I don't think you can discount the effects of strong selection on a population average in 24 generations. Lactose tolerance genes spread very rapidly in cultures that raised dairy animals. And consider how few generations it took and how simple it was to breed tame foxes. "Cause" in Dr. Clark's view is selection in favor of "accumulators" (the rich) in Malthusian, settled, stable agrarian societies. He makes his case from records starting in the 1200s but makes it clear that the selection started earlier and was not confined to north western Europe, but didn't happen everywhere either. Literacy, numeracy, and willingness to work ridiculously long hours by hunter-gatherer standards were pulled along by this selection. Culture and genes fed back on each other with the cultural environment leading to selection for genes that made further cultural advances possible or even inevitable. I have made a case elsewhere that 5000 plus years of cold winters were a factor in selecting people who were never satisfied with how much firewood or hay they had. Along comes an extra cold or extra long winter and guess whose offspring repopulated the farms of those who froze or starved? >He is effectively >claiming that the UK race is genetically bred to rule the world. Isn't >that what they call 'racism'? You make it sound like there was a breeding program. There wasn't. Just generation after generation of the strivers who managed to become well off having twice as many surviving children as the poor. Defining this as racism and slapping the stench of "politically incorrect" on it doesn't help us understand the underlying reality. We need to understand reality if the human race is going to survive. >The UK population grew slowly up to about 1800 when the IR happened. >This was due to disease and lack of food. About 1740 four-field crop >rotation was introduced and more food became available. Hygiene and >medicine improved and the population increased rapidly. With the help >of cultural and economic institutions, the first countries to get guns >and technology became world powers. ("Guns, Germs and Steel"). Those "first countries" are almost entirely gone from Sub Saharan Africa. The people in those areas are still in the Malthusian trap, in fact, in much worse shape than they were pre contact. Why? (More than a hand waving argument please.) And the big question is why the industrial revolution didn't start sooner or in a different place? >I think people should read the critics of this book before jumping on >board. There are holes in his argument and exceptions in other >countries. I think discussing holes and exceptions would be of great utility. We might even get Dr. Clark to join in if it got interesting enough. But a warning. This discussion is going to be politically incorrect. I found this lately which bears directly on the problem. The Evolutionary Psychology FAQ Edward H. Hagen, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin Why couldn't humans have evolved during the last 10,000 years? They could, but not much. Evolutionary psychologists downplay the possibility of significant cognitive evolution in the 10,000 or so years since the advent of agriculture (a period of time known as the Holocene) for reasons of both science and political correctness. Scientifically, 10,000 years (500 generations) is not much time for natural selection to act, and it certainly is not enough time to evolve new, complex adaptations?sophisticated mechanisms coded for by numerous genes. It is possible, however, that humans could have evolved minor cognitive adaptations during the Holocene. Just as some populations whose subsistence relied on herds of domesticated animals evolved to digest lactose as adults, populations could have evolved simple cognitive adaptations that their hunter-gatherer ancestors did not possess. For this to occur, there would have had to have been environmental conditions that were (1) new, (2) constant over most of the Holocene, (3) relevant to reproduction, and (4) required novel cognitive abilities. Many of the changes experienced by humans over the Holocene, however, have been so rapid that natural selection just couldn't keep up. Further, we know that very little has changed physiologically in the last 10,000 years?Australian aborigines were more or less isolated from other populations for perhaps 40,000 years, yet are essentially identical physiologically to other human populations?so probably very little has changed psychologically. Politically, EPs are understandably desperate to avoid any association with past racist attempts to essentialize population differences that are best explained by culture. If it were possible that human cognition had undergone significant evolution during the Holocene, then it would be theoretically possible to ascribe significant differences in behavior between different populations to genes, and that would be EP?s worst nightmare. http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/holocene.html Let's look at his list. (1) new, Settled agriculture was new--very different from the previous hunter gatherer existence. (2) constant over most of the Holocene, 8,000 years is 80% of the Holocene. (3) relevant to reproduction, A two to one advantage is certainly that. and (4) required novel cognitive abilities. Literacy, numeracy, low time preference and the other traits Clark discusses are certainly novel cognitive abilities compared to what are observed to be the traits, particularly violence, that gain reproductive advantage in hunter gatherer cultures. It's not that hunter gatherer peoples don't have these traits to some degree, it's just that the distribution center of these traits has been seriously shifted in some populations by selection. As an informed guess, researchers could sort out what genes are involved. From the introduction: "In this paper I argue that there is evidence that the long Malthusian era in stable agrarian societies actually changed human preferences, perhaps culturally but also perhaps genetically. To show this I demonstrate first that for England the rich had a reproductive advantage at least from 1250 onwards. I also show that this advantage was likely inherited by their children. Finally I show that in the same interval there are signs that preferences were changing in the pre-industrial economy. In a time when the rich were taking over genetically people were becoming more middle class in their orientation: time preference rates were lower, hours of work longer, and numeracy and literacy increasing. Thus the long delay between the Neolithic Revolution of 6,000 BC which established settled agriculture and the eventual Industrial Revolution may in part be explained by the time necessary for the formation of preference consistent with modern capitalism." I think Dr Clark's word choices of "middle class" and "capitalism" in this paragraph might be less than ideal because of the excess baggage they carry but since he is an economics professor I can see how those terms would seem appropriate. (And I am not sure what terms would be better.) Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Sat Feb 2 17:26:58 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 12:26:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider References: <47A39F06.7080407@lineone.net> Message-ID: <003201c865c0$fe48cfd0$10ef4d0c@MyComputer> "ben" > If it created a mini black hole, wouldn't > that make a fantastic energy generator? It would make an astronomical amount of energy for its size, but by our macro world standards it would be trivial. The only way The Large Hadron Collider could hope to create a mini black hole is if there are small (but not too small) additional dimensions, then gravity would become stronger than anticipated at small (but much larger than Plank level small) distances; then it would be easier than we think to make a Black Hole. Any Black Hole the Large Hadron Collider could hope to produce would only weigh a dozen times as much as a proton at most and be inconceivably tiny; and it would only last a billionth of a billionth of a second or so before Hawking radiation radiated it away to nothing. But the signature of that radiation would be unmistakable and we would have proof that there are other dimensions and they are small but not super small. The danger from such a thing is zero, and if the LHC can make them then certainly cosmic rays can too yet we're still here. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 2 16:55:31 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 09:55:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1db0b2da0802012339o5fb1da7etb5e94ffc3fceec40@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> <1db0b2da0802012339o5fb1da7etb5e94ffc3fceec40@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1201971370_15@S4.cableone.net> At 12:39 AM 2/2/2008, you wrote: >On Feb 2, 2008 7:02 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > It makes a case for intense genetic selection leading up to the great > > leap of the industrial revolution that allowed England and a small > > number of other countries to escape the "Malthusian Trap." and it > > makes a case for why this didn't come about in other parts of the > > world and isn't likely to. > >Would his argument being correct imply that we should find higher >average IQs in Caucasian populations than in e.g. East Asian >populations? > >In actuality, East Asian populations seem to have higher average IQs... If you read the book, East Asian populations were subjected to similar though perhaps less intense selection. He also says: This is not in any sense to say that people in settled agrarian economies on the eve of the Industrial Revolution had become "smarter" than their counterparts in hunter gatherer society. For, as Jared Diamond points out in the introduction to Guns, Germs and Steel, snip The argument is instead that it rewarded with economic and hence reproductive success a certain repertoire of skills and dispositions that were very different from those of the pre-agrarian world: such as the ability to perform simple repetitive tasks for hour after hour, day after day. There is nothing natural or harmonic, for example, in having a disposition to work even when all the basic needs of survival have been achieved. ********** Though, as I have argued, those who would not quit till the barn was totally stuffed were the ones who survived the exceptionally bad winter. Keith From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 2 20:12:17 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:12:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] IEEE Spectrum: Cool Article Heaven! Message-ID: IEEE Spectrum is making all of their articles available for free, online. There used to be a part available only for paid IEEE members and a part of other articles for free, but they appear to have changed that policy. (Physics Today, are you listening?) Go here: http://spectrum.ieee.org/ And the menu "Past Issues" gives you articles to middle 2006. But there are more! In this post, I give a sample (of my interests obviously :-)). In the Archive http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/thearchive "In The Archive We're moving the back issues and Web-only articles to the new Spectrum Online, but we've begun by moving reader favorites. All articles will be moving, so if you don't see the piece you're looking for, it's just a matter of time. Links to readers' favorite articles from April 2005 and earlier issues are here." They have more online than what is listed on that page, apparently not indexed yet. If you don't see what you're looking for, type the month and "magazineindex". For example: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul05/magazineindex And if it is not there, type the magazine article's title into Google to get the article number (to attach to the URL address), and the article number might pop up. Special Report: Prosthetic Arms http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5958 Greenhouse Gas Trends A tale of two perspectives http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan08/5826 Visualizing Electronic Health Records With "Google-Earth for the Body" IBM researchers develop 3-D visualization tool for electronic health records http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan08/5854 Winner: Make Your Very Own Virtual World with OLIVE Forterra's OLIVE software makes the business of virtual-world environments real http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan08/5838 Playing Dirty Automating computer game play takes cheating to a new-and profitable-level http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec07/5719 The R&D 100 Spectrum's Top R&D Spenders http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec07/5742 * And they have an interactive R&D Calculator here! http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec07/rndcalc Controlled Chaos We need to exploit the science of order and disorder to protect networks against coming generations of superworms http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec07/5722 Terraforming Mars Proposals to terraform the Red Planet abound, but are any of them feasible? http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5676 Arthur C. Clarke Rembering Sputnik http://spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5584 Secrets of Sputnik http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5589 All A-Twitter But the major buzz in microblogging centers around Twitter (http://twitter.com) a site that combines social networking and microblogging. It periodically asks members a simple question: "What are you doing?" http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5563 A Hoist to the Heavens (Space Elevators) http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690 The African Hacker (about the first large software company in Africa) http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1699 "This Looks Like a Job for...SUPERATOMS (Who says quantum weirdness can't also be practical?)" http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1701 Engineering Everquest http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul05/1561 Software Patents Don't Compute How the U.S. patent system attempts to draw a dividing line between patentable machines and unpatentable mathematics-and why the system is failing. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul05/1557 The Nanotech Patent Trap ? (waiting for online article, should be in issue jul05) All the Tech in China http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun05/1224 China's Tech Revolution How technology is driving the country's economic boom, and what that means for the world http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun05/1231 Running Against the Wind A double-leg amputee and his high-tech prosthetics are blazing a trail into able-bodied sports. Will they be welcomed? http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun05/1217 Bubble Power Tiny bubbles imploded by sound waves can make hydrogen nuclei fuse-and may one day become a revolutionary new energy source http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may05/1119 How Venture Capital Thwarts Innovation (The tech bubble saw an explosion of VC-funded start-ups-and a dearth of orignal ideas ) http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/apr05/1300\ Writing NASA's Marching Orders (book review) How White House Insiders forged a new space policy http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar05/2048 And appealing to the writer in me: Words in the Wind "The tech sector is a marvelous linguistic factory that ships out truckloads of new words and phrases every year. In this month's column, I'll introduce you to a sampling of new terms that have crossed my path in recent months." http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/apr05/1101 Life Bits A grab bag of terms floating in the techno-ether. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may05/1132 Have Fun! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 20:36:33 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:36:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] IEEE Spectrum: Cool Article Heaven! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802021436.33504.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 02 February 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > IEEE Spectrum is making all of their articles available for free, > online. There used to be a part available only for paid IEEE members > and a part of other articles for free, but they appear to have > changed that policy. ?(Physics Today, are you listening?) This is fantastic. Now I won't have to go leech off of Apple stores. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From korpios at korpios.com Sat Feb 2 16:19:10 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:19:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com> <200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 2/2/08, BillK wrote: > I find myself uneasy with the sweeping conclusions in this book. > I don't think genetics changes the population quickly enough to be the > *sole* cause of the Industrial Revolution in the UK. He is effectively > claiming that the UK race is genetically bred to rule the world. Isn't > that what they call 'racism'? Caveat: I haven't read the book (yet ? just dropped it on my to-read list). Assuming its conclusions are invalid (merely for sake of the instant discussion), I'd be inclined to call it "bad science" rather than "racism". "Racism" is a cognitive "stop word" that tells us "stop thinking". Whether or not there are differences between "races", and furthermore whether or not we can even meaningfully describe what a "race" is ? these are *factual* questions, not moral ones, and they should be studied with an open mind. Neither a racial supremacist nor an "enlightened" scientist does the world any favors by ignoring evidence that contradicts their ideals. I haven't read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" yet, either, but it strikes me as a more appropriate way of approaching the issue: offering an alternative argument that may be better supported by the data currently available. Of course, for all I know, any of these arguments ? _Alms_, _Guns_, etc. ? may have been written in bad faith, with an intended conclusion in mind before research began. (Such is the way with much "science", I'm afraid.) From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 2 20:45:57 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:45:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Event: Freezing Time - Central Station Message-ID: <20080202204558.NCMB24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> A simple concept but nonetheless awesome and trippy: http://current.com/items/88830919_time_stops_at_grand_central Natasha Natasha Vita-More, BFA, MS, MPhil University Lecturer PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Sat Feb 2 21:40:14 2008 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:40:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Event: Freezing Time - Central Station In-Reply-To: <20080202204558.NCMB24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: Natasha, thanks for posting this link. For a different take on "Improv Everywhere" the group that did this "Mission" people might want to check out: http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=286 (specifically Act 2 at the 12 minute mark). or the improv everywhere web site for more of their "missions". http://www.improveverywhere.com/ I've often thought this kind of "guerrilla theater" would be an interesting way to introduce people to unfamiliar concepts. Josh >From: Natasha Vita-More >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, ART-tac at yahoogroups.com, >Wta-talk at transhumanism.org >Subject: [ExI] Event: Freezing Time - Central Station >Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:45:57 -0600 > >A simple concept but nonetheless awesome and trippy: > >http://current.com/items/88830919_time_stops_at_grand_central > >Natasha > > >Natasha Vita-More, BFA, MS, >MPhil >University Lecturer >PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of >Technology >School of Computing, Communications and Electronics >Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts > >If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, >then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the >circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system >perspective. - Buckminster Fuller >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Feb 2 22:35:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:35:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Event: Freezing Time - Central Station In-Reply-To: References: <20080202204558.NCMB24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080202163229.022fd820@satx.rr.com> At 09:40 PM 2/2/2008 +0000, Josh wrote: >I've often thought this kind of "guerrilla theater" would be an interesting >way to introduce people to unfamiliar concepts. Sounds like the sort of thing done by Spike and her artists in Samuel R. Delany's "ambiguously utopian" novel TRITON (1976). Damien Broderick From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Sat Feb 2 23:03:26 2008 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:03:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Event: Freezing Time - Central Station In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080202163229.022fd820@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Thanks, I'll check it out. Josh >From: Damien Broderick >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: ExI chat list >Subject: Re: [ExI] Event: Freezing Time - Central Station >Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:35:30 -0600 > >At 09:40 PM 2/2/2008 +0000, Josh wrote: > > >I've often thought this kind of "guerrilla theater" would be an >interesting > >way to introduce people to unfamiliar concepts. > >Sounds like the sort of thing done by Spike and her artists in Samuel >R. Delany's "ambiguously utopian" novel TRITON (1976). > >Damien Broderick > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Feb 3 03:20:11 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:20:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Second Life: Design Wars: Humanish vs. Postbiologicals (Singularity) Message-ID: <20080203032905.SKQT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> SL-Transhumanists are meeting tomorrow for the Design Wars: Humanish vs. Postbiologicals (Singularity) Event in Second Life by Natasha Vita-More SL-Transhumanists are invited to have FUN with the content and context of the "Design Wars" of humanish vs. postbiologicals. A key consideration is the issue of species hierarchy and whether humanity ought to look biological as we merge with smarter-than-human intelligence. "In a perfect world, all species would learn to get along. Due to the Singularity, humanity learns they are not the only life form with consciousness and aesthetic taste." See you here on Sunday, February 3rd at NOON SLT (+8GMT) This event is an open discussion. All SL-transhumanist participants' ideas and/or humor will be included at the LABoral Industrial Design Institute conference in Spain, in the summer of 2008, LABoral Industrial Design Institute http://www2.laboralcentrodearte.org/ "Homo Ludens Ludens" conference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 3 05:49:46 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:49:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider Message-ID: Rick Strongitharm godsdice at gmail.com : >The Large Hadron Collider is scheduled to begin operation in a few months. >Questions: >1. Is it possible that we will have answers to the big questions, the >existence of the Higgs Boson, etc., by the end of this year? See: "The Higgs almost excluded at 160 GeV!!" http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/the-higgs-almost-excluded-at-160-gev/ and also this post: "Lisa Randall: Black holes out of reach of LHC" http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/lisa-randall-black-holes-out-of-reach-of-lhc/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 3 06:00:56 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:00:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1201970071_36770@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802030627.m136RcDq014861@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson ... > I have made a case elsewhere that 5000 plus years of cold > winters were a factor in selecting people who were never > satisfied with how much firewood or hay they had. Along > comes an extra cold or extra long winter and guess whose > offspring repopulated the farms of those who froze or starved? Keith, we can add to your notion by recognizing that evolutionary change progresses relatively quickly in cases of extreme environmental pressure. The textbook examples of environmental pressure would be the Death Valley pupfish, which became adapted to living in extremely warm water, or perhaps Rachel Carson's flies that quickly became tolerant of DDT. Humans are beasts that evolved in warm African climates. It does not strain my imagination that humans would evolve quickly if exposed to a climate wildly different from the home continent, such as northern Asia or Europe. I always try to bring in the other Darwinian mechanism for evolution: mate selection. I can imagine that early Europeans and Asians recognized the work-your-ass-off-all-summer individuals born within their societies, the store-to-absurd-extremes individuals, and considered these desirable mates for their children. Families may have encouraged these to mate early and often, thus transforming the population in a relatively few generations. Of course the century winters that occasionally decimated the families of the lazy would have a dramatic impact on the population. In the most extreme cases these century winters may well have taken out all the population except those who stored to absurd extremes. (I use this mechanism to explain obsessive compulsive behavior.) The fact that our species has spread out all over the planet has put us in extreme environmental pressure, which has led to our evolving much more quickly than a typical mammalian species. Humans have bred dogs for specific traits. It isn't hard for me to believe that we have also bred ourselves for specific traits, and continue to do so. spike From jedwebb at hotmail.com Sun Feb 3 12:02:37 2008 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:02:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why do we all have to wear these rediculous ties? was RE: Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider This was a good post! Thanks, Jeremy Webb _________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463! http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 3 14:07:10 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 06:07:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080201171641.021b4bd0@satx.rr.com><200802020119.m121JTO2017931@andromeda.ziaspace.com><1201928605_30893@S3.cableone.net> <1201970071_36770@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <061001c8666e$3d16f6d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith wrote > I don't think you can discount the effects of > strong selection on a population average in 24 > generations. Lactose tolerance genes spread very > rapidly in cultures that raised dairy > animals. And consider how few generations it > took and how simple it was to breed tame foxes. > > "Cause" in Dr. Clark's view is selection in favor > of "accumulators" (the rich) in Malthusian, > settled, stable agrarian societies. A few decades ago I read of a study of demographics in India where for a number of centuries the well-to-do farmers had more offspring. It was obvious to me that this could have eugenic effects. > He makes his case from records starting in > the 1200s but makes it clear that the selection > started earlier and was not confined to north > western Europe, but didn't happen everywhere > either. Literacy, numeracy, and willingness to > work ridiculously long hours by hunter-gatherer > standards were pulled along by this selection. > Culture and genes fed back on each other with > the cultural environment leading to selection for > genes that made further cultural advances possible > or even inevitable. The attendant cultural changes may be even more interesting, I submit. To recap, Clark argues that a whole suite of traits that we might call "industriousness" were passed down from the rich to the poorer classes 1250- 1800. Certainly these would include intelligence, but that may not be the main effect. And yes, there is no reason that eugenic effects would require more than a few generations. An extremely interesting development that Clark relates is that in the early 19th century certain successful entrepreneurs in England, having made fortunes from their factories, hit upon the idea of repeating their success in India, very close to the biggest market for the goods. But somehow the Indian people proved to be such poor workers that the schemes had to be abandoned. The employees were tardy, talkative, lazy, and generally non-productive, an obvious paradox. I think that I might know what was going on. Consider how incredibly hard many Mexicans work in the U.S. who come from very poor towns and villages across the border. I've heard it said that these very same people, when returning to Mexico, completely drop the work habits they evinced in the north, and go back to two siestas a day and other generally unproductive habits. I'll bet if the same unsatisfactory Indian workers had been sent to England instead, and paid what they thought to be very high wages, one would have seen the same thing. The arriving Indians ---who'd come to get rich---would have immediately adopted the work habits of the people they found themselves surrounded by. If I'm right (and it's probably not a new idea) then this somewhat compromises the genetic effect. > But a warning. This discussion is going to be > politically incorrect. Nothing new there! Now almost all of us cannot help but notice the political or ideological implications of new theories (or even new information!) and will silently cheer or curse. But either you have the fortitude to press on and try to learn, or you have to admit that you're nothing but a partisan unwilling to entertain ideas that might challenge the ones you already have. OF COURSE other traits besides intelligence are going to be passed on when there are significant differential birth rates. Only people born in the twentieth centuryfind this strange (because of the unceasing leftist propaganda we've all grown up with). Animal breeders have known forever that for so very many traits, the F1 will exhibit a regression towards the mean. So the progeny of a pair of IQ 150 people will have an IQ mean of 125 we would expect (assuming h = .5). But surely it's also the case that the F2 and F3 do not converge on IQ 100. Just what it does converge to, I wish I knew. Well, the other traits will behave similarly, that's all. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Feb 3 17:10:47 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:10:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Social Graph visibility akin to pain reflex Message-ID: >From O'Reilly Radar, pertinent to extropian interests. - Jef > In a session at our "Social Graph Foo Camp" discussing yesterday's announcement of Google's Social Graph API, one of the debates is about the danger that the API (and the boost it gives to XFN) will definitively end "security by obscurity" regarding people and their relationships, as well as opening up the social graph to "rel=me" spammers. The counter-argument is that all this data is available anyway, and that by making it more visible, we raise people's awareness and ultimately their behavior. I'm in the latter camp. It's a lot like the evolutionary value of pain. Search creates feedback loops that allow us to learn from and modify our behavior. A false sense of security helps bad actors more than tools that make information more visible. ... From bkdelong at pobox.com Sun Feb 3 17:52:25 2008 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:52:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Social Graph visibility akin to pain reflex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is something I've been arguing for at least the last four years is an improvements in the trust-relationships on social networks. In order for that to happen, grouping needs to be more direct - Livejournal does this very well with "Custom Friend Groups". So I'd have everyone from my Futurist/Transhumanist activities under one or two groups. Each person would then be assigned a trust metric based on my comfort level in sharing information with them. Then each group would be assigned a trust metric as well. The, ideally, I'd be able to use the trust metric to inform my privacy preferences only letting certain people with a trust level above X to see Y information. My trust could/would then be further informed by friends. If I trust one friend Alice n + 4 and trust another friend Bob only n + 2 but they were friends with each other then I'd use Alice's trust metric to at least help inform my own. I should, in theory, be able to set the degree to which a friend's trust metric of another friend will change my trust in that other friend. ;) Unfortunately I am absolutely abysmal at math so this is going to have to be made easy by whatever system managing said social network information. On top of that, I believe to truly protect the privacy of each other we should add a level of encryption to everything. So on each social network, I'd be assigned a key and that key would be used to encrypt each point of data that has a privacy preference with the keys of those I've chosen to allow access to. Ideally, a project like OpenID could eventually be used to have a single key that transverses multiple OpenID-compatible networks. Here's the rub - in order for this to happen, the userbase of these social networks are going to have to push for it. This userbase is already mostly comfortable sharing their information publicly. It's the rest of the huge population NOT on certain social networks and NOT sharing their information because of their lack of trust of these networks. It is these people who would then become social network participants if a robust trust relationship system were in place and seamless enough for them to assign metrics to both people, groups and privacy preferences. Alas. On Feb 3, 2008 12:10 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > >From O'Reilly Radar, pertinent to extropian interests. > > - Jef > > > > > > In a session at our "Social Graph Foo Camp" discussing yesterday's announcement of Google's Social Graph API, one of the debates is about the danger that the API (and the boost it gives to XFN) will definitively end "security by obscurity" regarding people and their relationships, as well as opening up the social graph to "rel=me" spammers. The counter-argument is that all this data is available anyway, and that by making it more visible, we raise people's awareness and ultimately their behavior. I'm in the latter camp. It's a lot like the evolutionary value of pain. Search creates feedback loops that allow us to learn from and modify our behavior. A false sense of security helps bad actors more than tools that make information more visible. > ... > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 3 18:23:20 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:23:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <061001c8666e$3d16f6d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200802031850.m13Io2WV016745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Lee Corbin > ... > > Consider how incredibly hard many Mexicans work in the U.S. > who come from very poor towns and villages across the border. > I've heard it said that these very same people, when > returning to Mexico, completely drop the work habits they > evinced in the north, and go back to two siestas a day and > other generally unproductive habits... Lee Lee I stand in awe of how hard the Mexicans work. This is an artifact caused by the tax structure. Labor is taxed heavily in Mexico, whereas illegal Mexicans in the US pay no tax at all. Under those conditions anyone would work their asses off abroad, then go home for a nice siesta. spike From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun Feb 3 19:04:29 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:04:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Social Graph visibility akin to pain reflex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A6103D.3080605@comcast.net> B.K. DeLong wrote: > > Each person would then be assigned a trust metric based on my comfort > level in sharing information with them. Then each group would be > assigned a trust metric as well. The, ideally, I'd be able to use the > trust metric to inform my privacy preferences only letting certain > people with a trust level above X to see Y information. > > My trust could/would then be further informed by friends. If I trust > one friend Alice n + 4 and trust another friend Bob only n + 2 but > they were friends with each other then I'd use Alice's trust metric to > at least help inform my own. I should, in theory, be able to set the > degree to which a friend's trust metric of another friend will change > my trust in that other friend. ;) > > Yes, the key to everything is reputation and trust. And this is all opinion or POV. In small viliages (or on single sites like eBay) things work great because everyone knows the reputation of everyone in the vileage or on the single site. I.E. you know who you can lend money to, and expect payment, and who not to lend money to or do business with. But in that environment the "sinner" can just move on to the next village and get a new clean reputation. So you've got to have a global reputation system so a trusted person in Nigeria can successfully solicit new business in the California on any network. Another problem is you need to have an efficient way to collect and state POV reputation information from large groups of people, or the entire network, in efficient, concise, and quantitative ways. Trivial 5 star rating system, fixed surveyors, or Thousands of individual testimonials don't work. You've got to group these testimonials into similar POV "camps" and design a system with natural pressures that encourage them to be concise in a collaborative / wiki kind of way, while having the ability to filter out the untrustworthy / poor quality stuff. You can't expect everyone to write a testimonial on everything, but simply joining a POV camp is trivial. Yet another problem is Transhumanists don't trust people Luddites trust, Christians don't trust people Atheists trust, and so on. You've got to have a way to give people the ability to compensate for this. You want to be able to only value trust specified by people in the network with attributes or reputations you choose to trust. If everyone sending e-mail, posting a post, calling on the phone, expressing a moral opinion, knocking on your door as a missionary, soliciting business, selling a product, posting an advertisement (including the products, advertisements... themselves)... has a quantitative and concise POV reputation value, based on people with attributes you chose to trust, then suddenly the world takes a quantum leap in its morality, civility, and efficiency. Suddenly all the spam and scam completely and naturally disappear because the entire network can quantitatively communicate POV reputation information to each individual. This giving each individual in the network the ability to simply ignore all the spam and scam. You no longer need laws, lawyers, big brother type government controls / police states. You just don't do business with, accept e-mail from, download a file from, anyone until they have a good reputation, and you do everything in your power to keep that reputation because if it ever goes, your life becomes hell, until you make a full restitution to those in your negative reputation camp, and win them back over to your good reputation camp. And of course, all of that kind of POV about everything and everyone is our goal at http://canonizer.com From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Feb 3 19:32:22 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:32:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <200802031850.m13Io2WV016745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <061001c8666e$3d16f6d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200802031850.m13Io2WV016745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001d01c8669b$803a7d60$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Spike said : >>Lee I stand in awe of how hard the Mexicans work. This is an artifact caused by the tax structure. Labor is taxed heavily in Mexico, whereas illegal Mexicans in the US pay no tax at all. Under those conditions anyone would work their asses off abroad, then go home for a nice siesta. >> Spike this is a misconception. Many illegal aliens fill out their W2 information when they start jobs using invalid or other peoples social security numbers. Common sense would say give employers a system to validate that number and name prior to letting the person start work but no such system or legal requirement exists. This means that the illegals are paying the same Federal income tax, state income tax and local income taxes as any other AMerican citizen, but it is difficult or impossible for them and illegal in some states such as Kansas and Missouri to receive tax refunds if the information that they filled out on their W2 is not correct. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272061,00.html "The Social Security Administration's (SSA) chief actuary estimates that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security tax, an estimate that makes undocumented workers responsible for about 1.5% of total wages reported to the SSA." http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=724 These workers will not be qualified to ever collect from social security or SSI under the current rules. So they are helping to prop up the retirement and disability programs for the rest of us. And they may be paying more in taxes since in most cases they do not risk applying for refunds. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From bkdelong at pobox.com Sun Feb 3 19:59:42 2008 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:59:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Social Graph visibility akin to pain reflex In-Reply-To: <47A6103D.3080605@comcast.net> References: <47A6103D.3080605@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2008 2:04 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > B.K. DeLong wrote: > > > > Each person would then be assigned a trust metric based on my comfort > > level in sharing information with them. Then each group would be > > assigned a trust metric as well. The, ideally, I'd be able to use the > > trust metric to inform my privacy preferences only letting certain > > people with a trust level above X to see Y information. > > > > My trust could/would then be further informed by friends. If I trust > > one friend Alice n + 4 and trust another friend Bob only n + 2 but > > they were friends with each other then I'd use Alice's trust metric to > > at least help inform my own. I should, in theory, be able to set the > > degree to which a friend's trust metric of another friend will change > > my trust in that other friend. ;) > Another problem is you need to have an efficient way to collect and > state POV reputation information from large groups of people, or the > entire network, in efficient, concise, and quantitative ways. Trivial 5 > star rating system, fixed surveyors, or Thousands of individual > testimonials don't work. You've got to group these testimonials into > similar POV "camps" and design a system with natural pressures that > encourage them to be concise in a collaborative / wiki kind of way, > while having the ability to filter out the untrustworthy / poor quality > stuff. You can't expect everyone to write a testimonial on everything, > but simply joining a POV camp is trivial. > > Yet another problem is Transhumanists don't trust people Luddites trust, > Christians don't trust people Atheists trust, and so on. You've got to > have a way to give people the ability to compensate for this. You want > to be able to only value trust specified by people in the network with > attributes or reputations you choose to trust. This is why standard schemas and metadata are so vitally important - we need a standard set of values to define what someone may perceive to be a personal viewpoint or position on on a particular issue. Of course we may run into permutations like "non-believers" instead of "atheists" but there's got to be some way to handle mapping of those. That may also rely on self-identification of a particular viewpoint. Facebook has done a decent job of allowing people to self-identify of fans of a particular thing and some add-on applications the ability to affiliate with a political party, group or set of beliefs. Ideally, those apps would be using an underlying standard schema to define the various political positions a person is taking so someone else could come in and assign trust metrics to any person who identified as Democrat or "Conservative" or voted a particular way to polling questions. The problem you run into is the amount of time it takes to assign trust metrics in a poll - obviously one can opt-in to do metrics in the first place. > If everyone sending e-mail, posting a post, calling on the phone, > expressing a moral opinion, knocking on your door as a missionary, > soliciting business, selling a product, posting an advertisement > (including the products, advertisements... themselves)... has a > quantitative and concise POV reputation value, based on people with > attributes you chose to trust, then suddenly the world takes a quantum > leap in its morality, civility, and efficiency. > > Suddenly all the spam and scam completely and naturally disappear > because the entire network can quantitatively communicate POV reputation > information to each individual. This giving each individual in the > network the ability to simply ignore all the spam and scam. You no > longer need laws, lawyers, big brother type government controls / police > states. You just don't do business with, accept e-mail from, download a > file from, anyone until they have a good reputation, and you do > everything in your power to keep that reputation because if it ever > goes, your life becomes hell, until you make a full restitution to those > in your negative reputation camp, and win them back over to your good > reputation camp. Sounds like a wuffie-based society to me . ;) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuffie] You make an interesting point. Many corporations are starting to tackle the issue of data classification as a means of better dealing with information protection and protecting against "data breaches". Currently, they don't know what they don't know or have any reasonable means (when say a laptop of stolen) of knowing precisely what was on that laptop. Nor do many have a means of protecting data based on its classification (internal only, confidential, public) because none of it is classified. If people began classifying everything they do at work then it becomes an easier practice to implement in their social (networking) life - especially the more time they spend online or on a computer. -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 3 20:00:10 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:00:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <200802031823.m13INIr4063140@mail1.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <061e01c8669f$fa8a9b00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes >> Consider how incredibly hard many Mexicans work in the U.S. >> who come from very poor towns and villages across the border. >> I've heard it said that these very same people, when >> returning to Mexico, completely drop the work habits they >> evinced in the north, and go back to two siestas a day and >> other generally unproductive habits... Lee > > Lee, I stand in awe of how hard the Mexicans work. Now this is important because it applies to an important example adduced by Clark. There *has* to be both a genetic and cultural component to the alacrity with which the people (forced by the enclosure acts) took to factory work in England. Clark discusses the genetic component, which incidentally does account for the amazing competance of many very poor Englishmen in the 1700s, e.g. the geologic map-maker William Smith. (One bets many of his ancestors had been the well-off rich of bygone times.) And since the towns of the late 1700s and early 1800s into which the people went had little in the way of any existing "factory culture", the genetic changes are suspect. But once this pattern starts, the cultural momentum waxes large. In the example of people crossing into the U.S. to get a lot of money fast, there is no genetic factor. But what exactly is the strength of the cultural factor, i.e., how much is each worker on this side of the border now saying to himself or herself consciously and unconsciously "Okay, this is the U.S., and we do it differently here. You work as long and as hard as time permits. Everyone else is. You get to earn a lot of money." That would be the cultural component. > This is an artifact caused by the tax structure. Then this would be the component of motivation that has nothing to do with culture. This is direct incentive. > Labor is taxed heavily in Mexico, whereas illegal Mexicans in > the US pay no tax at all. Do you (or anyone) have any figures here? We are talking about very poor people. What percentage of small village very low paid wages does the Mexican government confiscate? We have to know this to assess the "personal incentive" vs. "cultural component" of the motivation. Lee > Under those conditions anyone would work their asses off abroad, > then go home for a nice siesta. > > spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 3 21:15:29 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:15:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <001d01c8669b$803a7d60$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200802032142.m13Lg8b9002306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms > > Spike said : > > >>...Labor is taxed heavily in > Mexico, whereas illegal Mexicans in the US pay no tax at all. > Under those conditions anyone would work their asses off > abroad, then go home for a nice siesta. >> > > Spike this is a misconception. Many illegal aliens fill out > their W2 information when they start jobs using invalid or > other peoples social security numbers... I have heard this, altho I do not understand why they would do such a thing. I can take you down to the local hardware store right now and show you half a dozen sturdy looking amigos standing around in the parking lot. Everyone knows why they are there. You can hire them to work at any labor job for 15 bucks an hour, cash only por favor. I am told they are worth every cent, and are a far better deal than hiring the local teenagers for not job that does not require English skills. I can imagine that no taxes are paid, for it isn't clear to me why or even how they would pay. spike From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 3 21:59:51 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:59:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms Message-ID: (Spike) >> Lee, I stand in awe of how hard the Mexicans work. (Lee) >Now this is important because it applies to an important example >adduced by Clark. There *has* to be both a genetic and cultural >component to the alacrity with which the people (forced by the >enclosure acts) took to factory work in England. You make it sound like past tense, Lee. I worked my day job as an Italian government employee (research scientist), and went to my evening/night job teaching astronomy at a private university in Rome, easily working 70 hours per week for a couple of years. I paid more Italian taxes than my Italian colleagues (after taxes, my research salary was 10 euros/hour, my teaching salary was 4 euros/hour) and I was an illegal immigrant (4+ years). The Italian government currently is holding 14,000 euros of my pension money (taken by force from my salary every month for five years) that I might never see again. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 3 22:51:04 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:51:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <200802032142.m13Lg8b9002306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001d01c8669b$803a7d60$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <200802032142.m13Lg8b9002306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> At 02:15 PM 2/3/2008, spike wrote: >I can take you down to the local hardware store right now and show you half >a dozen sturdy looking amigos standing around in the parking lot. Don't forget that people who immigrate may be rather different from the ones who stay behind. Perhaps they are more in tune with the place they immigrate to. And if people don't work as hard when they come back to their native village, perhaps that's because there are no rich guy lawns to mow. Back to the topic. There is little doubt that culture has a big effect especially on people who immigrate. But ultimately evolved brain mechanisms underlie culture. Clark also argues that the culture of settled agriculture set the conditions for genetic selection--tuning up a particular set of brain mechanisms. There is also the cultural effect that it doesn't take a whole lot of entrepreneurs and engineers to make thousands of people more productive. A current consideration is a population wide slide backwards when the selection pressure is released. Rich people certainly don't have twice the number of kids as poor people today. In fact, with female liberation and reliable birth control a lot of the most accomplished people have no kids at all. Pinker is an example. This would be more of a worry if we were not far from the end of the gene. The last part of Farewell to Alms is about the failure of the Industrial revolution to spread in most parts of the world and the exceptions to this rule. How much of that was genetic and how much culture is hard to partition. It sure is interesting, if politically incorrect, data. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 4 00:52:20 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:52:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> References: <001d01c8669b$803a7d60$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <200802032142.m13Lg8b9002306@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080203184917.022e9780@satx.rr.com> At 03:51 PM 2/3/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: >In fact, with female liberation and reliable birth control a lot of >the most accomplished people have no kids at all. Pinker is an >example. This would be more of a worry if we were not *far from* the >end of the gene. (my *emphasis*) Perhaps you meant "if we were not *close to* the end of the [importance of the naturally evolved and selected] gene"? If not, I can't unpack your sentence. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 4 02:42:19 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:42:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms > > ...Rich people certainly don't have twice the number of kids as poor people today. > > Keith Keith, the act of having kids converts us from rich people into poor people. Well, actually that is a bit of a stretch. I have found that having a kid is not all that expensive. When compared, for instance, to the annual budgets of those countries with funny sounding names, such as "Camaroon" and "Baroondy" and "France." spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Feb 4 05:11:16 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:11:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes >> ...Rich people certainly don't have twice the number >> of kids as poor people today. > > Keith, the act of having kids converts us from rich people into poor people. > > Well, actually that is a bit of a stretch. I have found that having a kid > is not all that expensive. When compared, for instance, to the annual > budgets of those countries with funny sounding names, such as > "Camaroon" and "Baroondy" and "France." Heh, heh. I get the joke. Okay, so it's expensive, but that's only because you are pursuing the "wrong" population strategy. As you probably know, in biology we have the K strategy (remember "K" as in "Caring") and the r strategy ("R" as in reproductive). Humans are way over at the K end of the spectrum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection says In stable or predictable environments K-selection predominates, as the ability to compete successfully for limited resources is crucial, and populations of K-selected organisms typically are very constant and close to the maximum that the environment can bear. In unstable or unpredictable environments r-selection predominates, as the ability to reproduce quickly is crucial, and there is little advantage in adaptations that permit successful competition with other organisms... and so on. In the current circumstances, what is the most successful strategy? In other words, what strategy will come to predominate? Two facts are crucial in coming to a conclusion: (1) by definition, r-strategies produce more children than does a K-strategy (2) no child born today in an industrialized country will be allowed to starve, nor to go without basic medical care, and will be provided for until he or she reaches reproductive age, and the cycle can begin again. (As a last resort, the government will feed and care for all children born.) Hence it follows that the population will over time become composed predominantly of those following the r-strategy. At the present time, from a biological standpoint "the more children, the better". Hence those families churning out fifteen or twenty children must come to be the norm. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 4 05:42:43 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:42:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> --- hkhenson wrote: > > selection pressure is released. Rich people certainly don't have > twice the number of kids as poor people today. I don't think this is some relatively new phenomenon. Whereas it has been exacerbated in modern times due to birth control and the other things that you mention, I would argue that historical records do not support the notion of differential reproductive success of the rich. Unlike Genghis Khan and Muslim shieks with harems, the rich as a class of preindustrial England were not known for producing a prodigious number of offspring. Clark seems to ignore the fact that the industrial bootstrap of England happened amidst the Victorian Era and the rich of the period were more than just random individuals who had amassed resources but a closed socioeconomic class of lords and ladies and the oddball merchant or banker. And while the occasional daliance of an earl or count with a maid or mistress may have given rise to an illegitimate child or two, it was a frowned upon exception that would have been scandalous in the Victorian court-- not the rule. I just don't see the early factories and coal mines of England being staffed by the bastard children of English nobility nor do I see the ladies of the Victorian court being kept barefoot and pregnant. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Feb 4 07:45:28 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:45:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Social Graph visibility akin to pain reflex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <744662.86172.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "B.K. DeLong" wrote: Here's the rub - in order for this to happen, the userbase of these social networks are going to have to push for it. This userbase is already mostly comfortable sharing their information publicly. It's the rest of the huge population NOT on certain social networks and NOT sharing their information because of their lack of trust of these networks. It is these people who would then become social network participants if a robust trust relationship system were in place and seamless enough for them to assign metrics to both people, groups and privacy preferences. Alas. Anna writes: Yes, I agree, great point. The problem lies within preferences. > On Feb 3, 2008 12:10 PM, Jef Allbright > wrote: > > >From O'Reilly Radar, pertinent to extropian > interests. > > > > - Jef > > > > > > > > > > > > In a session at our "Social Graph Foo Camp" > discussing yesterday's announcement of Google's > Social Graph API, one of the debates is about the > danger that the API (and the boost it gives to XFN) > will definitively end "security by obscurity" > regarding people and their relationships, as well as > opening up the social graph to "rel=me" spammers. > The counter-argument is that all this data is > available anyway, and that by making it more > visible, we raise people's awareness and ultimately > their behavior. I'm in the latter camp. It's a lot > like the evolutionary value of pain. Search creates > feedback loops that allow us to learn from and > modify our behavior. A false sense of security helps > bad actors more than tools that make information > more visible. > > ... > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > -- > B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) > bkdelong at pobox.com > +1.617.797.8471 > > http://www.wkdelong.org Son. > http://www.ianetsec.com Work. > http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. > http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. > http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. > > > PGP Fingerprint: > 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE > > FOAF: > http://foaf.brain-stream.org > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 10:00:30 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:00:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2008 5:42 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I don't think this is some relatively new phenomenon. Whereas it has > been exacerbated in modern times due to birth control and the other > things that you mention, I would argue that historical records do not > support the notion of differential reproductive success of the rich. > Unlike Genghis Khan and Muslim shieks with harems, the rich as a class > of preindustrial England were not known for producing a prodigious > number of offspring. > > Clark seems to ignore the fact that the industrial bootstrap of England > happened amidst the Victorian Era and the rich of the period were more > than just random individuals who had amassed resources but a closed > socioeconomic class of lords and ladies and the oddball merchant or > banker. And while the occasional daliance of an earl or count with a > maid or mistress may have given rise to an illegitimate child or two, > it was a frowned upon exception that would have been scandalous in the > Victorian court-- not the rule. I just don't see the early factories > and coal mines of England being staffed by the bastard children of > English nobility nor do I see the ladies of the Victorian court being > kept barefoot and pregnant. > Clark analysed the data from old wills to reach his conclusion. The problem with this is that in olden times *everybody* had big families, because they lacked reliable birth control and knew that half the children would probably die from disease or malnourishment. The Catholic Church also ordered them to reproduce. Remember the song 'Every sperm is sacred' from the film 'The Meaning of Life'. But the great majority of the poor were illiterate and had no possessions to leave in a will and they vastly outnumber the will data that Clark analysed. Besides, as someone else pointed out, if the poor were breeding furiously with a very high death rate, doesn't that mean that the selection pressure was being applied with horrendous efficiency to the poor? BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 10:16:14 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:16:14 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 04/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > In the current circumstances, what is the most successful strategy? In other > words, what strategy will come to predominate? Two facts are crucial in > coming to a conclusion: > > (1) by definition, r-strategies produce more children than does a > K-strategy > > (2) no child born today in an industrialized country will be allowed > to starve, nor to go without basic medical care, and will be > provided for until he or she reaches reproductive age, and > the cycle can begin again. (As a last resort, the government > will feed and care for all children born.) > > Hence it follows that the population will over time become composed > predominantly of those following the r-strategy. At the present time, > from a biological standpoint "the more children, the better". Hence > those families churning out fifteen or twenty children must come to be > the norm. r/K selection theory is about evolution, i.e. selection of genetic variants that are more likely to result in r or K behaviour. In modern societies, the decision to have more or fewer children is a voluntary one. I don't see how evolutionary psychology could have foreseen birth control, or how genetically determined brain changes influencing birth control choices could develop in a matter of, at most, centuries. Social considerations such as the fact that more affluent people, for whom the economic burden of having multiple children is not significant, nevertheless choose to have fewer children are much more important. -- Stathis Papaioannou From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 4 14:35:27 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:35:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1202135768_29146@S3.cableone.net> At 10:11 PM 2/3/2008, Lee wrote: >Spike writes > > >> ...Rich people certainly don't have twice the number > >> of kids as poor people today. > > > > Keith, the act of having kids converts us from rich people into > poor people. snip >Hence it follows that the population will over time become composed >predominantly of those following the r-strategy. At the present time, >from a biological standpoint "the more children, the better". Hence >those families churning out fifteen or twenty children must come to be >the norm. Even by the Hutterite standard of fertility that's high. (Page 72 in Farewell to Alms.) I wonder what "designer babies" would be worth? Regression to the mean means that on average high quality parents are going to be disappointed in their children. I don't know if it will happen before people abandon biology for some other kind of existence, but it seems to me there would be quite a market for gene sorting/editing for really high quality children. Alternately clones could become common. Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Feb 4 15:08:12 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 07:08:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Social considerations such as the fact that more affluent people, for > whom the economic burden of having multiple children is not > significant, nevertheless choose to have fewer children are much more > important. It's important right now (that many people are choosing to have few children), but evolution has a way of curing such "defects". Clearly from a biological perspective---how can anyone evade this tautology? ---any decision to have *fewer* viable offspring will simply result in those genes responsible being eliminated from the population. By the exact same token (which speeds the evolution) cultural evolution will go hand in hand. Any culture which supports *not* having extremely large families will become less dominant over time---because of, obviously, the simple, tautologous fact that more biologically successful strategies supplant the less successful. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 4 15:18:53 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:18:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1202138374_29939@S3.cableone.net> At 10:42 PM 2/3/2008, Stewart wrote: >--- hkhenson wrote: > > > > selection pressure is released. Rich people certainly don't have > > twice the number of kids as poor people today. > >I don't think this is some relatively new phenomenon. Whereas it has >been exacerbated in modern times due to birth control and the other >things that you mention, I would argue that historical records do not >support the notion of differential reproductive success of the rich. Stewart, did you read the book? Clark spent a huge effort on looking at the wills of people from the 1200s on. His evidence is very robust on this particular point. >Unlike Genghis Khan and Muslim shieks with harems, the rich as a class >of preindustrial England were not known for producing a prodigious >number of offspring. They didn't have to. In a Malthusian society (a more or less static population) it was the failure of the poor to reproduce that opened the "ecological space" for the offspring of the wealthy. (By "reproduce" I mean to have children who reached the age they could reproduce.) Assuming psychological characteristics are heritable, which the twin studies have shown, then do the math on how many generations it takes for 1% traits to become common given a two to one reproductive advantage for those with the traits. >Clark seems to ignore the fact that the industrial bootstrap of England >happened amidst the Victorian Era and the rich of the period were more >than just random individuals who had amassed resources but a closed >socioeconomic class of lords and ladies and the oddball merchant or >banker. And while the occasional daliance of an earl or count with a >maid or mistress may have given rise to an illegitimate child or two, >it was a frowned upon exception that would have been scandalous in the >Victorian court-- not the rule. I just don't see the early factories >and coal mines of England being staffed by the bastard children of >English nobility nor do I see the ladies of the Victorian court being >kept barefoot and pregnant. Clark's work isn't so much about the period in which the takeoff occurred, but the selection that went on for the centuries, changing psychological characteristics of the population. He even discusses the low level of illegitimate children in the section on fertility. Clark also consulted the historical record and found that the fighting aristocracy didn't do well in terms of reproduction until the level of violence had fallen to near modern levels. At least read the first chapter. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 4 16:54:44 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:54:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> At 03:00 AM 2/4/2008, Billk wrote: >On Feb 4, 2008 5:42 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: snip >Clark analysed the data from old wills to reach his conclusion. > >The problem with this is that in olden times *everybody* had big >families, because they lacked reliable birth control and knew that >half the children would probably die from disease or malnourishment. >The Catholic Church also ordered them to reproduce. Remember the song >'Every sperm is sacred' from the film 'The Meaning of Life'. > >But the great majority of the poor were illiterate and had no >possessions to leave in a will and they vastly outnumber the will data >that Clark analysed. Clark was keenly aware of the potential for bias in his data and did his best to verify that it was representative. He comments that wills became common fairly early, reached way down the social ladder and that many of the will makers were illiterate, signing their wills with an x. His conclusion is robust because you can see in the will data a strong link between the number of *surviving* children and the economic class determined by the assets described in the wills. There is also a link between literacy and assets in these wills. >Besides, as someone else pointed out, if the poor were breeding >furiously with a very high death rate, doesn't that mean that the >selection pressure was being applied with horrendous efficiency to the >poor? To a very close approximation the population was constant. If you show that the rich as a group were more than replacing themselves, and constrain the total population to a constant, then it's a mathematical certainty that the poor were not replacing themselves. If you can see a flaw in this reasoning, please point it out. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 19:16:25 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:16:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2008 4:54 PM, hkhenson wrote: > Clark was keenly aware of the potential for bias in his data and did > his best to verify that it was representative. He comments that > wills became common fairly early, reached way down the social ladder > and that many of the will makers were illiterate, signing their wills > with an x. His conclusion is robust because you can see in the will > data a strong link between the number of *surviving* children and the > economic class determined by the assets described in the > wills. There is also a link between literacy and assets in these wills. There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. > > To a very close approximation the population was constant. If you > show that the rich as a group were more than replacing themselves, > and constrain the total population to a constant, then it's a > mathematical certainty that the poor were not replacing themselves. > If you can see a flaw in this reasoning, please point it out. > It is not the reasoning at fault. It is the mistaken assumptions and inadequate data. The UK population wasn't constant. There were invasions, migrations, wars and civil wars, plagues, famines, etc. From: 'The UK population: past, present and future' Quote: Between 1086 and 1750, the population of England experienced some periods of faster growth and some periods of stagnation and even decline. It is believed that the population grew quickly in the 12th and 13th centuries and reached between four and six million by the end of the 13th century. However, the 14th century was a period where disease and the struggle to produce an adequate food supply prevented further population growth. A sustained agricultural crisis from 1315 to 1322 leading to famine was later dwarfed by the plague epidemic of 1348 to 1350. Commonly known as the Black Death, the latter probably caused the death of over one-third of the English population and was followed by other major epidemics, which kept population growth low. In 1377 King Edward III levied a poll tax on all people aged 14 or over in order to fund the Hundred Years War with France. The records from this tax collection were sufficiently robust to provide an estimate of the population of England in 1377. Depending on the proportion of the population assumed to be aged under 14, the total population is estimated to have been between 2.2 and 3.1 million, considerably lower than it had been at the start of the 14th century. Between 1377 and 1750 the English population grew slowly and unsteadily, with faster growth in the 16th century than in the 15th or 17th centuries. Long periods of civil war during the 15th century (the Wars of the Roses) and the mid-17th century (the Civil War) disrupted food supplies. These periods of political instability were characterised by relatively high mortality, late marriage and low marriage rates keeping fertility relatively low and net out-migration of English people. In contrast, the 16th century was a period of political stability under the Tudors, hence there were fewer socio-economic barriers to population growth. By 1750 the English population is estimated to have been 5.74 million, probably similar to the level prior to the mortality crises of the 14th century. End quote. ------------------------------- Clark is not a scientist. He's an economics historian. The scientific question to ask is 'What specific genes?' make a race of people into businessmen and then test for races with and without them. There are no known genes that have this subtle and complex effect. Here is a good critique: Quotes: So what is wrong with this picture? The possibility of genetic change in fairly recent times cannot be rejected out of hand, although it should not be invoked without a full consideration of alternatives. For that matter, Clark is primarily an economic ?historian of the industrial era and knows next to ?nothing about who elites were in earlier times, still less what the elite cultural patterns were in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. He does not know what made for wealth in that Olde England, a society primarily built upon hereditary landed wealth rather than the work of craftsmen and merchants. The urban ?professionals whose wills and families he analyzes ?represented only a tiny fraction of the social elite. And although those medieval middling classes could and did rise, usually through law or commerce, only a small part of the elite owed its fortune to "patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education." And once the mercantile families had ascended to high status, their children typically adopted the leisured ethos of their landed neighbors, otium cum dignitate, rejecting the vulgar ways of their fathers. At every point, the mores and culture of those authentic traditional elites contradict Clark's picture. Anyone who looks at those landed upper classes as they actually operated in 1150, or even 1450, would see not diligent proto-consumers but a society with mores not unlike those of a Los Angeles street gang. What Tom Paine famously called the roving Norman banditti had a well-developed belief in instant gratification, in sinking wealth into ostentatious display, and in defending personal honor through immediate and extreme acts of violence. The English aristocracy had not advanced too far beyond the credo of its recent Viking ancestors, and they earned their wealth the old-?fashioned way: by stealing it. If the values of the medieval upper classes (rather than just their genes) had spread through the English population, then its members by 1800 would have been too busy beheading each other to start building power looms or forming shopping cooperatives. At every stage, the changes offered by Clark lend themselves to startlingly obvious alternative explanations. Take for instance that undoubted growth of literacy from the sixteenth century onward, measured for instance by the numbers actually signing wills rather than making marks. Any student of history would ask whether anything happened in England during the Tudor and Stuart periods that might at once have led to a greater desire for reading, as well as an urge to supply the means by which ordinary people could satisfy that craving. Some ?readers might dimly recollect something called the Protestant Reformation, which is in fact quite well-documented and widely studied. (Clark mentions the Reformation briefly in an aside that confirms his ignorance of the context.) The Reformation had similar effects on concepts of individualism, personal responsibility, and literacy?not to mention charity. So much for the "farewell to alms." lots more in this vein ---------------------------------- Also, for a geneticist's criticism, see: BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 4 20:50:23 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:50:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080204144858.02227e98@satx.rr.com> At 07:16 PM 2/4/2008 +0000, BillK quoted: >Anyone who looks at those landed >upper classes as they actually operated in 1150, or even 1450, would >see not diligent proto-consumers but a society with mores not unlike >those of a Los Angeles street gang. What Tom Paine famously called the >roving Norman banditti had a well-developed belief in instant >gratification, in sinking wealth into ostentatious display, and in >defending personal honor through immediate and extreme acts of >violence. The English aristocracy had not advanced too far beyond the >credo of its recent Viking ancestors, and they earned their wealth the >old-?fashioned way: by stealing it. EGGzackly! Thanks for digging out these excellent critiques, Bill. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 4 21:07:39 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:07:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sf: SINGULARITY'S RING reviewed Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080204150650.0218ecf0@satx.rr.com> http://www.scifi.com/sfw/books/sfw18100.html From brent.allsop at comcast.net Mon Feb 4 23:35:26 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:35:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <47A7A13E.5030609@comcast.net> This does look like a great book, especially for Extropians. I've been able to follow some of what you guys have said about this, but I, and most people, will not have time to follow everything you guys are all saying about this. So I hope some of you guys will summarize your POV at http://canonizer.com in this "Favorite Books" topic here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/21 Just start a new camp for this book on this topic. Wouldn't it be great to have a quantitative list of the most favorite books of all Transhumanists, and be able to compare this to quantitative list of the general population and so on? And to have concise statement about what most transhumanists thought about all of them? And the same is true for the most Extropian movies, which has already been started in this topic: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/20 Don't let what you are saying get lost in the archives! Get it summarized, shared, quantitatively measured, and saved for all. You don't have to do it all, just get your POV started and let everyone else do the rest. Thanks, Brent Allsop From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 23:38:24 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:38:24 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 05/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > It's important right now (that many people are choosing to have few > children), but evolution has a way of curing such "defects". Clearly > from a biological perspective---how can anyone evade this tautology? > ---any decision to have *fewer* viable offspring will simply result > in those genes responsible being eliminated from the population. Perhaps in the very long run, but you also have to consider how strongly these things are genetically influenced. Cultural/memetic factors would come into play way before genetic factors do. > By the exact same token (which speeds the evolution) cultural evolution > will go hand in hand. Any culture which supports *not* having extremely > large families will become less dominant over time---because of, obviously, > the simple, tautologous fact that more biologically successful strategies > supplant the less successful. Yes, but it might have nothing to do with genetic variation. And it is also possible to define dominance it terms other than mere numbers. The number, total biomass, prevalence, hardiness and species longevity of bacteria is greater than that of humans, for example. -- Stathis Papaioannou From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 5 01:21:13 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:21:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <47A7A13E.5030609@comcast.net> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <47A7A13E.5030609@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 2/4/08, Brent Allsop wrote: > Wouldn't it be great to have a quantitative list of the most favorite > books of all Transhumanists, and be able to compare this to quantitative > list of the general population and so on? And to have concise statement > about what most transhumanists thought about all of them? Somewhat related ? I started a "Transhumanism" group on Goodreads (goodreads.com) yesterday; it might be interesting to see what can be gleaned of transhumanists' tastes in this sort of book-specific database. From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 5 01:25:06 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:25:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 2/4/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > r/K selection theory is about evolution, i.e. selection of genetic > variants that are more likely to result in r or K behaviour. In modern > societies, the decision to have more or fewer children is a voluntary > one. "Voluntary" is a tricky term; what about the psychological pressure to actively *reproduce*, as a goal (vs. mere sex-as-goal), that many people (particularly females) seem to experience? > I don't see how evolutionary psychology could have foreseen birth > control, or how genetically determined brain changes influencing birth > control choices could develop in a matter of, at most, centuries. Drives can be flexible; if the goal is reproduction (vs. sex, as above), it becomes fairly easy for any given subject to route around birth control (even when desired by a given partner!). From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 5 04:22:31 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:22:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> At 12:16 PM 2/4/2008, BillK wrote: >On Feb 4, 2008 4:54 PM, hkhenson wrote: snip >There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. >People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the >population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of >wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of >the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. Elemental sampling theory treats numbers as large as the population as effectively infinite. The statistical error you get out of samples is such that a sample of a few hundred gives decent expected error bounds on the whole population. If it's a leap of faith the Gallop polls make the same leap. Do you agree with Clark's numbers for the will data he had? If you do, what reason do you have to expect the results *not* to apply to the population as a whole? > > To a very close approximation the population was constant. If you > > show that the rich as a group were more than replacing themselves, > > and constrain the total population to a constant, then it's a > > mathematical certainty that the poor were not replacing themselves. > > If you can see a flaw in this reasoning, please point it out. > > > >It is not the reasoning at fault. It is the mistaken assumptions and >inadequate data. > >The UK population wasn't constant. >There were invasions, migrations, wars and civil wars, plagues, famines, etc. > >From: 'The UK population: past, present and future' > snip >By 1750 the English population is estimated to have been 5.74 million, >probably similar to the >level prior to the mortality crises of the 14th century. >End quote. >------------------------------- That's exactly what I meant by a very close approximation. >Clark is not a scientist. He's an economics historian. An economic historian is the only qualified person to investigate this area. I would not denigrate him for doing so. >The scientific question to ask is 'What specific genes?' make a race >of people into businessmen >and then test for races with and without them. There are no known >genes that have this subtle and complex effect. Do you doubt such genes exist? There are breeds of dogs that can be reliably left in the kitchen with raw steak on the table and they won't touch it. Other breeds are on the meat the second the owner's back is turned. Can you ascribe this well known observation to anything other than genes? There are no genes known for a substantial variety of personality characteristics. And yet we know from twin studies that genes exert a large effect on personality traits. The fact that genes are not *now* known only indicates we should consider looking for them. I expect a dozen or more of genes would be involved. "Interest rates fell from astonishingly high rates in the earliest societies to close to low modern levels by 1800. Literacy and numeracy increased from being a rarity to being the norm. Work hours rose between the hunter gatherer era to modern levels by 1800. Finally there was a decline in interpersonal violence." "Economists have thought of time preference rates as being hard-wired into peoples? psyches, and as having stemmed from some very early evolutionary process." So genes for low time preference (an easy thing to test) should be on the list. As spike mentioned in the farming/winter context, genes tending toward obsessive compulsive behavior might also have been favored. To many genes in that direction and you get OCD. Anyone know if OCD differs from one racial group to another? >Here is a good critique: > > >Quotes: >So what is wrong with this picture? The possibility of genetic change >in fairly recent times cannot be rejected out of hand, although it >should not be invoked without a full consideration of alternatives. Of course, now does the reviewer present them? No. >For that matter, Clark is primarily an economic ?historian of the >industrial era and knows next to ?nothing about who elites were in >earlier times, still less what the elite cultural patterns were in the >Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. Does anyone besides me characterize this as "ad hominem"? Where did this review come from? "First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life " huh? Mission Statement First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society. http://www.firstthings.com/bookstore.php Worth looking at. Lots of Catholic books. >He does not know what made >for wealth in that Olde England, a society primarily built upon >hereditary landed wealth rather than the work of craftsmen and >merchants. The urban ?professionals whose wills and families he >analyzes ?represented only a tiny fraction of the social elite. What does Gallop do today? Small samples. He is providing no particular reason for the sample to be biased. >And >although those medieval middling classes could and did rise, usually >through law or commerce, only a small part of the elite owed its >fortune to "patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, >education." And once the mercantile families had ascended to high >status, their children typically adopted the leisured ethos of their >landed neighbors, otium cum dignitate, rejecting the vulgar ways of >their fathers. Clark makes the point that because of their higher effective reproductive rate, their children typically moved down the social ladder. And it shows up in cases where wills of the children were also found. >At every point, the mores and culture of those authentic traditional >elites contradict Clark's picture. Anyone who looks at those landed >upper classes as they actually operated in 1150, or even 1450, would >see not diligent proto-consumers but a society with mores not unlike >those of a Los Angeles street gang. What Tom Paine famously called the >roving Norman banditti had a well-developed belief in instant >gratification, in sinking wealth into ostentatious display, and in >defending personal honor through immediate and extreme acts of >violence. "Instant gratification" and "ostentatious display" strike me as a way to go down the social ladder. A poverty stricken descendant of a historically rich American family once told me that his branch of the family got that way from fast women and slow horses. As Clark pointed out, "extreme acts of violence" in this society was not a way for the genes to be disproportionately represented in the next generation. However, "roving Norman banditti" strikes me a an odd thing for Tom Paine to have written. Google finds a few references "Tom Paine?s Norman banditti still had heirs all over America, in Veblen?s view. The predatory instincts of the rich had declined, so that in addition to degrading labor, these latter-day aristocrats were also extremely competitive. When they entered industry, as ?captains,? they retarded it with archaic devices of exploit and competition, when cooperation and workmanship were the real economic demands of an advanced industrial order. ?Archaism? and ?waste? were remnants of aristocratic virtue, and America could ill afford them.79 It is not always easy to understand why Veblen was so angry." http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/shklar90.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen (Both are interesting, but I am not sure "Norman Banditti" can be properly attributed to Tom Paine.) "In addition to The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Theory of Business Enterprise, Veblen?s monograph "Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution," and his many essays, including ?Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science,? and ?The Place of Science in Modern Society,? remain influential." ?Pig-Sticking Princes?: Royal Hunting, Moral Outrage, and the Republican Opposition to Animal Abuse in Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Britain http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:p9kMq4zfrvYJ:courses.csusm.edu/hist460ae/pig-sticking.pdf+%22Norman+banditti%22+thomas+paine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Can anyone locate an actual primary source for Tom Paine using this phrase? >The English aristocracy had not advanced too far beyond the >credo of its recent Viking ancestors, and they earned their wealth the >old-?fashioned way: by stealing it. If the values of the medieval >upper classes (rather than just their genes) had spread through the >English population, then its members by 1800 would have been too busy >beheading each other to start building power looms or forming shopping >cooperatives. > >At every stage, the changes offered by Clark lend themselves to >startlingly obvious alternative explanations. Take for instance that >undoubted growth of literacy from the sixteenth century onward, >measured for instance by the numbers actually signing wills rather >than making marks. Any student of history would ask whether anything >happened in England during the Tudor and Stuart periods that might at >once have led to a greater desire for reading, as well as an urge to >supply the means by which ordinary people could satisfy that craving. >Some ?readers might dimly recollect something called the Protestant >Reformation, which is in fact quite well-documented and widely >studied. (Clark mentions the Reformation briefly in an aside that >confirms his ignorance of the context.) The Reformation had similar >effects on concepts of individualism, personal responsibility, and >literacy?not to mention charity. Clark (page 183) put it this way: "Protestantism may explain rising levels of literacy in Norther Europe after 1500. But why after 1000 years of entrenched Catholic dogma was an obscure German Preacher able to effect such a profound change in the way ordinary people conceived religious belief?" >So much for the "farewell to alms." > lots more in this vein >---------------------------------- True. It closes this way: "It is an open question whether these virtues outweigh the book?s obvious flaws. Perhaps its most ?worrying feature is that A Farewell to Alms will be used to legitimize biological and genetic approaches to the study of modern history. It may well begin a fad that we can expect to see imitated in studies of other fields and eras, as scholars start explaining cultural changes in terms of recent evolution and genetic diffusion. Welcome back, eugenics." Ah, another thought stopper. Like your use of "racism." Philip Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History at Pennsylvania State University. Hmm. Not exactly. From his web page, "Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and History " Keith From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 5 05:30:56 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:30:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider Message-ID: And see also these papers: Microcanonical treatment of black hole decay at the Large Hadron Collider http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0647 Quasi Stable Black Holes at the Large Hadron Collider http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0109085 Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 5 05:38:19 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:38:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1202189943_232@S3.cableone.net> At 12:16 PM 2/4/2008, BillK wrote: snip >Also, for a geneticist's criticism, see: >http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3886 New Book Makes Dangerous Claim That Inequality Is Genetic by Jesse Reynolds, Alternet.org January 18th, 2008 Jesse Reynolds is the director of the project on Biotechnology in the Public Interest at the Center for Genetics and Society, a nonprofit advocacy organization and a contributor to its Biopolitical Times blog. Geneticist? "Jesse Reynolds, MS, Project Director on Biotechnology in the Public Interest, has been on the staff of the Center since its creation in 2001. snip He has a MS in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management from the University of California, Berkeley, where he studied as a US EPA Fellow. While there, he was a co-founder of Students for Responsible Research, which monitored the impact of large-scale corporate funding for research on genetically modified crop." I think that's a stretch to call him a geneticist. "The genetic reductionism put forth in this book is a troubling trend which, if left unchecked, has dangerous ramifications. As an increasing number of genes are attributed, sometimes inappropriately, to a range of physical and behavioral characteristics, a revival of social Darwinism has become tempting." Stop thinking! Bad book, connected to social Darwinism! "For his part, Clark concludes that the West should give up on international development aid." Maybe you can read that into his observation that aid to these countries doesn't improve the conditions of the people there. He does say that immigrants from poor countries do well when they move. Clark seems more mystified and bemused by his research than out to change policy. Keith From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 05:54:46 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:54:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow Message-ID: <29666bf30802042154p10d74214l4e1cf73f82c6eb77@mail.gmail.com> Today's Column One article is about The Los Angeles Times Homicide Report, an unusual experiment in American newspapers where each and every homicide in Los Angeles County is researched by a single reporter and documented on a website which allows readers to post comments. Often the posters are their friends and families of the victims that our culture would prefer to forget. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/ I have been aware of journalist Jill Leovy's website for some time now and it's a site of great power. But why am I posting it here? Because it demonstrates how the Internet can increase empathy, as opposed to the stultifying effects of many supposed social networking sites, which often only create compatible subgroups already inclined to hold the same world views. The Homicide Report makes the unseen seen and tells their story, even if that story is only the end of the story. It allows the unheard to grieve, their voices heard at last. Take some time and read the comments. They will make you weep. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/2008/01/darione-page-17.html#comments This site flies in the face of the economics of attention, a battle newspapers wages daily in the melee with the rest of the media, ad space fighting for editorial space and the desire of advertisers overriding the desires of the community. It reverses the terrible trend that values entertainment over bearing witness. And the fourth estate does its job -- finally. And as Leovy points out, it reveals to the public the underlying patterns of murder that our society would like to keep hidden. But why is it hidden? Because it doesn't sell advertising or papers or increase real estate values or get politicians elected. Leovy had the hardest job in journalism. I hope the new journalist that is replacing Leovy can do as fine and empathetic a job as she has for the last year. PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homicide4feb04,1,1633862.story >From the Los Angeles Times COLUMN ONE Unlimited space for untold sorrow As a Times reporter's online list of each L.A. County homicide grew, overlooked patterns of race and place evoked anger and empathy. By Jill Leovy Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 4, 2008 This newspaper typically covers about 10% of the homicides in Los Angeles County each year. They are often the most sensational or shocking: a baby hit by a stray bullet, or a celebrity murder. But for the last year, the paper's website, latimes.com, has recorded every homicide. It was my idea. I reported on crime for the paper, and I wanted readers to see all the killings -- roughly 1,000 violent deaths each year, mostly of young Latinos and, most disproportionately, of young black men. The Web offered what the paper did not: unlimited space. So the Homicide Report, as it was called, began with the simplest of journalistic missions: exposing a painful, largely unseen problem.The first list of homicide victims, published just over a year ago, contained the names of 17 people. Eight were Latino. Six were black. Two were of Cambodian descent -- killed in a double homicide. None were white. Most were in their 20s. Readers responded strongly. "Oh my God," began one of the first posts by a reader. "The sheer volume is shocking," wrote another. "Almost like they're disposable people," wrote a third. Two or three homicides occurred in the county per day, on average. As the report developed, I filled notebooks with police jargon, scrawling the same details over and over. "Male black adult" or "Male Hispanic" -- accompanied by addresses in Compton, Florence, Hawthorne, Boyle Heights or Watts. The coroner provided a basic list of victims. But much of the information about the killings had to be wrung from police agencies spread across 400 square miles, or from crime scenes or victims' families. I worked mostly out of my car, fanning to the south and east of my office. Many agencies were not used to releasing details. One police press official was surprised to learn that victims' names were public information: No reporter had ever asked him for that, he said. When I first presented a list of victims to the state Department of Motor Vehicles for photos, the clerks were baffled. Twenty young people every week? "What is this?" one asked. "Did a plane crash?" One could know the numbers in the abstract yet still be unprepared for the sheer volume, similarity and obscurity of the victims. Los Angeles County's homicide rate was on the decline, and 2007 was destined to be one of the least violent years in a generation. Yet the concentration of killings remained the same -- a pocket epidemic of violent death among black and Latino men in neglected corners of society. There was Manuel Perez, 17, whose homicide I chanced to hear mentioned in a detectives' staff meeting. As soon as I put his name on the site, a comment was posted: "I miss you so much, Manuel." There was Fernando Tello, 15, Latino, stabbed, who took a week to die at a hospital. Isaac Tobias, 23, black, had no DMV record. Valdine Brown, 28, also black, seemed to have disappeared altogether: The coroner had a record of his death in a hospital, but the detectives had never heard of him. Eventually it was revealed that Brown's killing was filed under one of his many aliases. At a crime scene in the Los Angeles Police Department's Newton Division, lifelong friends of a victim said they knew him only by a nickname. At another scene, a family had no recent photographs of their 19-year-old son. For some of those victims, a police mug shot was the only record of their presence in the world. A detective in Watts once asked me to run a photo of an elaborate norte?o-style belt buckle, the only clue to the identity of a victim whose body had been burned. Detectives routinely admitted that the names and ages they had recorded for victims were, at best, conjecture: Many victims, including illegal immigrants or career criminals, had lived entirely underground. Sweeping characterizations about homicides, so prevalent in media coverage and public discourse, fell apart. A term such as "gang-related" had a dozen meanings. Once, three police officers, all working in the same division and all claiming personal knowledge, gave me three assessments of the same young man. One described him as a violent gang member; the second said he was a gang member who had committed no serious crimes; the third said he wasn't a gang member at all. Each death, however, limned ruined lives and ravaged communities. "This is killing me," a slight woman named Althea Mizell sobbed during an interview in October. Her son, D'Angello Mizell, 36, had been killed a year before in the LAPD's 77th Street Division. He was a textbook unsympathetic victim, a gang member who had never been out of prison more than a year in his adult life. Since the slaying, his mother talks to almost no one and rarely leaves her tiny apartment. She eats, sleeps and agonizes. Though a religious woman, she has reconciled herself to going to hell because she harbors so much anger, so much lust for revenge. It's worth it, she said. About her son, she has no denial. He is the failure she can't recover from. When the interview ended, she said: "Think of me sometimes." In June, Vicky Lindsey, whose 19-year-old son was killed in 1995, helped organize a vigil for one of the more anonymous victims on the Homicide Report: Anthony Jenkins, 46, a black man killed by gunfire, whose relatives authorities were slow to locate. The organizers came together for a man who was a stranger to them because they too feel unseen. "It is as if we are buried with our children," said Lindsey, who has a sticker on her car that reads: "My son was murdered." The vigil took place at dusk, at the place where Jenkins was shot. They lit candles and taped to a wall a printout of the Homicide Report chronicling Jenkins' death. Passersby watched, talking among themselves about murder, the police, the media. "Ain't no one coming to help us 'cause they just say, 'They killin' each other,' " a man remarked. A black man in a long brown Cadillac slowed down to look, then drove off. The group began to pray. A few minutes later the same Cadillac pulled up to the curb. The driver emerged, weeping. His 21-year-old son had been killed recently, he said. "I went up the road and the tears just started and I couldn't keep going," he gasped. Memorial messages stacked up on the blog's comments section. They were often written in the form of a letter to the deceased, sometimes in Spanish, once in Armenian. "Every night I dream about the different ways I could have said, 'Please don't go,' " wrote one victim's sister. "Where did you go? Why did they take you? What did they do to you? Why? Why?" The more the killings stacked up on the blog, the more absurd the old media criteria for selecting one homicide over another seemed. Thirteen-year-old boys nearly always made the headlines of The Times' print edition, but 14-year-olds were a tossup. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds were more likely to make the cut if they were girls. In February, Joseph Watson, a 17-year-old black youth who was a running back on his high school football team, was slain in Athens. According to his parents and police, he had long fought to avoid being "jumped in" by his neighborhood gang. His killing attracted no media attention, other than on the Homicide Report.Swept under the same rug was Timothy Johnson, a 37-year-old black man, nicknamed "Sinister." His death in Watts in November closed another homicide investigation in which he was the primary suspect. The March stabbing death of 17-year-old Alex Contreras-Rodriquez was big news because it happened on the campus of Washington High School, but two double homicides committed a few feet from school grounds were not. One of those happened in May. Two Latino men, each 23, were working on a gutter across the street from Elizabeth Street Elementary School in Cudahy while classes were in session. It was execution-style, a girl of 9 or 10 explained to me at the police tape. They had tried to run, leaving their ladders in place. One of the men had once been a documented gang member. But the day he died, he was working for hourly wages, wearing long sleeves to cover his tattoos. Shortly after the killings, schoolchildren watched as the parents of one of the victims were led to the coroner's van to view his body. The father, an elderly Latino man in paint-spattered work boots, made it back to the car, then collapsed. The children behind the police tape stood motionless, their faces blank. Sheriff's Capt. Mike Ford vented his frustration to me about media coverage of homicide. "Certain incidents capture the attention," he said. "But how do you value one life over another? You shouldn't." Media coverage matters. In September, news broke that a 23-day-old baby had been killed by a stray bullet in the LAPD's Rampart Division. More than twice as many detectives were assigned to work that one case than to the division's 15 other 2007 homicide cases combined. Arrests were quickly made in the baby's killing. But as of January, some three-quarters of those other Rampart cases remained open. The Homicide Report made no distinction between a celebrity and a transient. Each got the same typeface, the same kind of write-up. If you were the victim of a homicide, you made the blog. The report included the race of each victim. Newspapers traditionally do not identify homicide victims by race. But failing to include race also served to disguise the disproportionate effect homicide has on blacks and Latinos. I had met many people -- most of them black -- who had been bereaved not once, but twice -- and, in a couple cases, three times -- by the slaying of an immediate family member. Giving readers anything short of a full and accurate picture of this surfeit of bereavement seemed indecent. Some readers, though, were critical. The practice "just feeds into stereotyping of minorities," one wrote. The blog's readership slowly grew. The death of "Sinister" drew more than 100 emotional posts at the end of the year as readers segued from grief and anger into an impassioned debate about race and murder. Police agencies gradually grew more cooperative. A sheriff's deputy who throughout the year had been exceptionally helpful sent an e-mail in December praising the effort. He closed: "My younger brother was murdered . . ." In December, The Times asked me to turn the blog over to a colleague, Ruben Vives, and move on to other things. The Homicide Report has been a humbling experience. None of the more ambitious stories I'd previously done for the paper seemed quite as effective as simply listing victims, one by one by one. The Homicide Report did not seek to distill its subject into a digestible shape or explore some angle of an issue to help people understand it. It was just about facts, about reporting homicides -- 845 of them recorded so far for 2007 -- in a straightforward, comprehensive way. One reader complained that the project had provided no depth, no explanation, of the problem it revealed. So many slayings documented, yet still "I don't understand it," he wrote. Maybe, in sum, the report has merely skimmed a problem whose true depths couldn't be conveyed. And in anintimate sense,too, the coverage nearly always felt inadequate. The same month as the Anthony Jenkins vigil, I congratulated myself for finding time to look for the family of 21-year-old Richard Mitchell, a black man who died on the operating table 10 days after he was shot. The family had left town to bury him. A neighbor answered questions with a strange weariness. At last, she explained: "My son was killed too." He was 15 and black. It was an unrelated homicide, a year prior. A pause as she regarded me, reproach in her eyes. She was surprised to see me, she said. No reporter had come to ask about her son. jill.leovy at latimes.com Times researcher Jacci Cenacveira contributed to this report. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 5 06:37:55 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:37:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net><864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com><1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080204144858.02227e98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <068601c867c2$4ec467f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes >>The English aristocracy had not advanced too far beyond the >>credo of its recent Viking ancestors, and they earned their >>wealth the old-?fashioned way: by stealing it. > > EGGzackly! Thanks for digging out these excellent critiques, Bill. Yes, I wanted to join the applause for Bill too---but then I carefully read http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3886 which was suggested, and was appalled. I haven't read Bill's other piece (Economics as Eugenics by Philip Jenkins) which I hope will be better. The URL above points to an article by Jesse Reynolds, a biotechnologist. Here are excerpts of his article (with my comments). Why did northern Europe, particularly England, grow rich while the most of the rest of the world remained in poverty? And why haven't other areas caught up? The answer he proposes is both beautifully simple and excessively reductionist. By essentially ignoring institutions such as government and religion, major developments, and power relations, his analysis is shackled by historical myopia... Clark's proposals have both explicit and implicit consequences for current political and economic debates. This is so very sad. At the very *beginning* of the argument, the author asks us to evaluate the possible political *consequences* of Clark being right or wrong. This is hardly the way to go about wrestling against your own biases! And by "reductionist", as he uses it here and several other places, the author basically means "clearly explained". Now, of course, many clear explanations indeed are simplistic. Alas, the world is too complex for simple solutions, yet we must applaud---not decry ---those who attempt to shed *some* light on the situation with clear and plausible stories that can be followed. The author would have us embrace a retrograde social Darwinism, [Oh! That would be.... let me guess... bad??] in which the wealthy of the world are on top of society's ladder due to superior culture and genetics. As with most kneejerk analyses, this vastly overstates the case Clark is trying to make. Now if it so *happened* that at a particular point in history one people or another did have a culture more conducive to technical progress, so what? Are we to immediately cast as "social Darwinism" any analysis, say, of Japan in the late 19th century when they expanded across northern Asia? And so what if at some point in time some people did happen to have better genes---so the conjecture goes---for technical progress? A typical device to dismiss conjectures out of hand is to find a handy emotionally laden label with which to stigmatize them, so that the politically loyal know which side to take (and to take, of course, before looking at any evidence). In this case "social Darwinism" is the scare phrase. Another example: Perhaps the most notable aspect of Clark's theory is its radical "economism." He reduces major institutional or political developments to simple quests for greater economic efficiency. Slavery, for example, is presented as merely an economically inefficient allocation of labor resources, and the reader is wondering what the "merely" is leading to. Just what other aspect of slavery is going to be relevant to the thesis under investigation? as it prevented slaves from seeking the most productive use of their labor. Like other suboptimal institutions, it was only a matter of time before the economic advantages outweigh the benefits of oppression. So much for abolitionism's moral sway. WHAT?? So this was what the "merely" was leading up to! Instead of any kind of historical or economic argument, this condemns Clark as failing to mount the podium and spend pages denouncing the moral evils of slavery! For God's sake. And this passes for intellectual criticism? Not on this list, I hope. * * * Again we must all try to overcome as much as we can our own natural and perhaps inevitable biases. Indeed, yes, you'll either cheer or moan inwardly when data arises that either supports or confounds your present worldview. But if you don't care enough about the truth to *try* to overcome your own biases, so much the worse for you. But to *parade* your biases, and your "arguments" that we can't believe so-and-so because of its political implications, is more than mere internal laziness. It's an insult to intelligent discourse. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 5 06:42:49 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:42:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202138374_29939@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <334876.61269.qm@web60214.mail.yahoo.com> --- hkhenson wrote: > [Stuart], did you read the book? Clark spent a huge effort on looking > > at the wills of people from the 1200s on. His evidence is very > robust on this particular point. Admittedly I didn't read the book but I trust your acumen to be able to give a concise interpretation of the book that is quite along the lines of what the author intended. And from what you have said, it seems to be a literary reincarnation of Herbert Spencer's arguments for social darwinism. By reducing societal evolution to the level of the selfish gene, he is playing off of Dawkins the same way Spencer played off of Darwin and to the very same audience. Biologists like me get antsy when economists ignore the big picture of biology yet nonetheless commandeer small parts of it out of context to justify political idealogies. To try to describe societal evolution at a genetic level is like trying to describe Microsoft Windows at the level of machine language- it is reductio ad absurdum. > They didn't have to. In a Malthusian society (a more or less static > population) it was the failure of the poor to reproduce that opened > the "ecological space" for the offspring of the wealthy. (By > "reproduce" I mean to have children who reached the age they could > reproduce.) Assuming psychological characteristics are heritable, > which the twin studies have shown, then do the math on how many > generations it takes for 1% traits to become common given a two to > one reproductive advantage for those with the traits. But there are heritable traits that are not genetic at all: memes, wealth, occupation, culture, etc. Why posit a genetic basis for such a complex phenomenon as the industrialization of a society? Lets say there was a mutation within a certain gene that confered "industriousness" upon the mutant. Where is the evidence that this mutation arose within the upper class of Victorian England that according to wikipedia comprised only 2% of the population? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era Upper class=2%, lower class=85%, and by inference middle class=13%. Even if Clark's somehow managed to dance around the bias inherent in his will data, he is simply seeing an inverse correlation between infant mortality and wealth. This is hardly a new observation so how does does this imply a genetic basis for the industrial revolution? Furthermore if there was a correlation between wealth and "industriousness" then why did the proportion of wealthy individuals not increase in proportion to the increase of the "industrious" individuals? Indeed judged on the observation that the proportion of the upper class has remained relatively constant over all these years, whilst "industriousness" has come to dominate the gene pool, there seems to be no correlation between wealth and industriousness. Indeed it seems to be simply a "red queen" effect where both the wealthy and poor are having to become "industrious" just to stay in their respective places. I think Clark's biggest mistake is that he is conflating environment with genetics thus putting the cart before the horse. Genes adapt to environments; environments don't adapt to genes. > Clark's work isn't so much about the period in which the takeoff > occurred, but the selection that went on for the centuries, changing > psychological characteristics of the population. He even discusses > the low level of illegitimate children in the section on fertility. > > Clark also consulted the historical record and found that the > fighting aristocracy didn't do well in terms of reproduction until > the level of violence had fallen to near modern levels. > > At least read the first chapter. Since my last post, I have read the summary paper by Clark that you posted the other day. I think Bill's point is that the wills are biased because unlike gallop polls, the sample is not being selected at random. Treating the wills that he happened to have at hand is convenience sampling, not random sampling. They are further biased because they represent one small geographical region of England, namely Suffolk. If he had wills from Liverpool and Edinburgh too, combined them and chose some at random by flipping a coin or something, he would have had something closer to a random sample. Suffolk is a pastoral county not a metropolitan one. What makes you think it was representative of all of England at the time, when most of the factories were concentrated in the cities like London? All that aside, however, I am not so much against the idea that genetic shifts occured attendant to the industrial revolution, but probably more as a trailing rather than a leading influence. Correlation is not evidence of causation. I could just as easily posit that the Information Age started in California because the wealthy inhabitants of Beverly Hills owned more automobiles than their housekeepers did. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 5 07:11:14 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:11:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net><864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com><1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > Clark is not a scientist. He's an economics historian. > The scientific question to ask is 'What specific genes?' > make a race of people into businessmen and then test > for races with and without them. There are no known > genes that have this subtle and complex effect. Yes, there certainly are speculative elements to Clark's analysis. But that's true of most social "science". > Here is a good critique: > This article does not start off well. Get a load of the first sentence: Gregory Clark?s A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World is not quite as bad as either its author or publisher try to make it. Why would the author and publisher try to make a book bad? You should worry reading a review that starts in such a backhanded and peculiar fashion. The next sentences aren't much better: ...the book represents a startling breakthrough in our understanding of how humanity escaped the Malthusian trap ?in which rising populations always outpaced their food production?that had captured all human generations before the Industrial Revolution. [A charitable concession.] The daring approach by which Clark tries to explain this change is self-evidently silly. Wow. "Self-evidently silly", eh? Yet remarkably, this article does score a number of good, legitimate hits against Clark's analysis. I think some have been discussed in other posts. As BillK quoted > At every stage, the changes offered by Clark lend themselves to > startlingly obvious alternative explanations. That is so. > Take for instance that undoubted growth of literacy from the > sixteenth century onward, measured for instance by the numbers > actually signing wills rather than making marks. Any student of > history would ask whether anything happened in England during > the Tudor and Stuart periods that might at once have led to a > greater desire for reading, as well as an urge to supply the means > by which ordinary people could satisfy that craving. Well, I actually feel relieved at the *substance* of this reviewer's discourse :-) To be sure, one must consider the attendant cultural transformations affecting any period in history. But this is true whether or not Clark is right in suggesting a genetic component. Suppose that there were cultural and historic developments that lead to a "greater desire for reading" and a "craving" by people for things to read. There could easily be a genetic-environment cross effect. > Some ?readers might dimly recollect something called the Protestant > Reformation, which is in fact quite well-documented and widely > studied. This has to be sarcasm. > (Clark mentions the Reformation briefly in an aside that confirms > his ignorance of the context.) This name-calling just reveals the eagerness of the reviewer, and his complete insousiance, to parade his biases. > The Reformation had similar effects on concepts of individualism, > personal responsibility, and literacy?not to mention charity. > So much for the "farewell to alms." Earlier, the reviewer did contribute some arguments of substance: So what is wrong with this picture? The possibility of genetic change in fairly recent times cannot be rejected out of hand, Thank you! although it should not be invoked without a full consideration of alternatives. Now, why is that? Perhaps I should claim that cultural or philosophic explanations should not be invoked without a full consideration of alternatives. That would be obviously false. Only if you subscribe to certain philosophical or political orthodoxies are some types of explanation automatically privileged over others. For that matter, Clark is primarily an economic ?historian of the industrial era and knows next to ?nothing about who elites were in earlier times, I.e., we can discount his [Clark's] arguments from an inverse application of argument from authority. (Believe it or not, the writer really does now finally make substantive criticism: ) still less what the elite cultural patterns were in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. He does not know what made for wealth in that Olde England, a society primarily built upon hereditary landed wealth rather than the work of craftsmen and merchants. The urban ?professionals whose wills and families he analyzes ?represented only a tiny fraction of the social elite. That's very likely true! I wonder what Clark would say. And although those medieval middling classes could and did rise, usually through law or commerce, only a small part of the elite owed its fortune to ?patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education.? And once the mercantile families had ascended to high status, their children typically adopted the leisured ethos of their landed neighbors, otium cum dignitate, rejecting the vulgar ways of their fathers. This has the ring of truth, also. One token of their new status was that the nouveaux riches sent their children to educational institutions where they would learn ?little of direct practical value or economic consequence. That?s a dreadful way to begin an economic breakthrough. Ah, the substance of it was short, but sweet. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 5 07:30:58 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:30:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net><864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com><1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <069601c867c9$528674d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith rebuts a point made by Philip Jenkins in http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6042 >>There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. >>People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the >>population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of >>wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of >>the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. > > Elemental sampling theory treats numbers as large > as the population as effectively infinite. The > statistical error you get out of samples is such > that a sample of a few hundred gives decent > expected error bounds on the whole population. That is a good point, but perhaps the writer meant by "self-selected" some non-typical portion of the population. Still, you're right, in that he should at least have said just how the self-selection translated into unrepresentativeness. (Perhaps he did elsewhere.) > If it's a leap of faith the Gallop polls make the same leap. >>For that matter, Clark is primarily an economic ?historian of the >>industrial era and knows next to ?nothing about who elites were in >>earlier times, still less what the elite cultural patterns were in the >>Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. > > Does anyone besides me characterize this as "ad hominem"? I would not call it that. True, the writer is not addressing Clark's arguments, he's instead addressing Clark's credentials. In another post I called that "inverse argument from authority". > It [the Jenkins review] closes this way: > > "It is an open question whether these virtues > outweigh the book's obvious flaws. Perhaps its > most ?worrying feature is that A Farewell to Alms > will be used to legitimize biological and genetic > approaches to the study of modern history." By this sentence, the writer wishes to keep reminding you that you have other, very moral, and very serious reasons to come to a conclusion against the book's author's conclusions. (In other words, you, the reader, are automatically credited with the good sense to automatically be against "biological and genetic approaches to the study of modern history". God, I hope the writer is not correct in assuming this knee-jerk response in most readers, but alas, his estimate of the credulity and political solidarity of his readers is probably right-on.) > > It may well begin a fad that we can expect to see > > imitated in studies of other fields and eras, as > > scholars start explaining cultural changes in > > terms of recent evolution and genetic diffusion. A fad, eh? How's that for begging the question? Or, as Keith writes > > Welcome back, eugenics." > Ah, another thought stopper. Like [the] use of "racism." Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 10:52:32 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:52:32 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 05/02/2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > "Voluntary" is a tricky term; what about the psychological pressure to > actively *reproduce*, as a goal (vs. mere sex-as-goal), that many > people (particularly females) seem to experience? This is true, but it is a far cry from what would be possible if our biology had kept pace with technology. Many people in industrialised countries manage to have ten times as many children as they currently do. Sperm donors are usually paid for their trouble, rather than bidding for the opportunity to father multiple offspring at a huge discount to the cost incurred doing it the usual way. Dictators who have shown no compunction in killing millions of their own people have never attempted to use reproductive technologies to forcibly conceive millions of children. > Drives can be flexible; if the goal is reproduction (vs. sex, as > above), it becomes fairly easy for any given subject to route around > birth control (even when desired by a given partner!). But the goal isn't reproduction as such, since otherwise the above scenarios would be commonplace. Rather, the goal is to obtain a cute baby to raise and love. Reproduction is a side-effect of this as much as it is a side-effect of having a sexual drive. -- Stathis Papaioannou From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 5 12:00:42 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:00:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow Message-ID: PJ Manney >Today's Column One article is about The Los Angeles Times Homicide >Report, an unusual experiment in American newspapers where each and >every homicide in Los Angeles County is researched by a single >reporter and documented on a website which allows readers to post >comments. Often the posters are their friends and families of the >victims that our culture would prefer to forget. Dear PJ, one of the biases in the US media is their unwillingness to show this particular face of death. As an alternative, I think that blogs, everywhere, are a personal face to people's triumphs and tragedies, which help folks to know that there are real people on the other side of that screen. For a comparison of biases in the media, I find the topic of the Iraq War to be particularly telling. In the early Spring of 2003, when the invasion was just beginning, I was in Nice, France at a conference and watched on my hotel TV how the war was portrayed on different TV channels. CNN showed American soldiers shooting and engaging in heroic acts. Notice that that picture hasn't changed - the US media _always_ show that particular 'face' of the war, and that is why there was a uproar to the particular image of the large number coffins draped with American flags, which someone captured on film sometime later. The European stations were similar to each other, and very different from CNN- they showed bodies of Iraquis dead on the ground. Notice that that face has not changed either, and the European stations never show the physical horrific act of a person dying, but the end result, only. I think that death should be portrayed by our human media as what it really is: an unnatural ending of a precious human life, where the impact on persons close to the deceased can be understood. Actions by the Los Angeles Time is an encouraging sign. Thanks for sharing that. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 15:26:30 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:26:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NKS Message-ID: <580930c20802050726r3b7ca883n51884b47a2502a56@mail.gmail.com> The sixth annual NKS Summer School begins in just a few months, and we'd like to invite you to apply. The three-week, tuition-free program--June 23 through July 11 at the University of Vermont--is a unique opportunity to get involved with original research at the frontiers of science. http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool We are looking for highly motivated individuals who want to advance their careers in an NKS direction. Our participants come from many diverse backgrounds, but share a common passion to discover and explore cutting-edge ideas. Over the past four years, they have included graduate students, undergraduates, professors, industry professionals, artists, and even a few exceptional high-school students. If accepted to the Summer School, you will work directly with others in the NKS community--including Stephen Wolfram and a staff of instructors who have made significant contributions to NKS--on your own original project that could develop into published papers or the foundations for your thesis. You may also be eligible for college course credit through the University of Vermont. Take a look at the lecture notes from previous years to get a sense of what topics will be covered: http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool/materials If you're serious about getting involved with similarly innovative ideas at the core of NKS, you should consider applying as soon as possible. Apply online at: http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool/application.cgi Sincerely, Todd Rowland, PhD NKS Summer School Academic Director Catherine Boucher, PhD NKS Summer School Program Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 5 15:44:07 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:44:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 2/5/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Many people in industrialised > countries manage to have ten times as many children as they currently > do. I couldn't quite parse that one; s/manage/could manage/ ? > Sperm donors are usually paid for their trouble, rather than > bidding for the opportunity to father multiple offspring at a huge > discount to the cost incurred doing it the usual way. Dictators who > have shown no compunction in killing millions of their own people have > never attempted to use reproductive technologies to forcibly conceive > millions of children. Well, yeah ... they're male. ^_^ The dictator scenario only makes sense if he wants to *have sex* with thousands of women; reproduction still wouldn't be his goal, but rather a side-effect (as with males in general). > But the goal isn't reproduction as such, since otherwise the above > scenarios would be commonplace. Rather, the goal is to obtain a cute > baby to raise and love. Reproduction is a side-effect of this as much > as it is a side-effect of having a sexual drive. "Obtain a cute baby" sounds like "reproduce". ;-) But from a genetic standpoint, yes, there's a distinction; we're just vehicles, and we aren't actively talking about getting our *genes* into new babies. The "obtain a cute baby" goal is still fairly flexible at circumventing birth control (by simple virtue of causing the female to avoid it). (This discussion makes me *very* happy that I've permanently dead-ended my genes' quest ... well, aside from the copies in my siblings, assuming *they* reproduce, I suppose.) ^_^ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 5 16:50:22 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:50:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080205104432.022cc070@satx.rr.com> At 09:22 PM 2/4/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: > >There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. > >People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the > >population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of > >wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of > >the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. > >Do you agree with Clark's numbers for the will >data he had? If you do, what reason do you have >to expect the results *not* to apply to the population as a whole? What? "Representative of the whole population" doesn't here mean "representative of the whole population of will-writers whose wills are preserved," it means "representative of the whole population." You're not suggesting, are you, that by sampling only owners of Rolls Royces and Aston Martins you'll learn much of interest about the whole population of car owners? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 17:29:22 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:29:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2008 7:11 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, there certainly are speculative elements to Clark's > analysis. But that's true of most social "science". > It is a waste of time to nitpick every word in a one-page book review. No review can possibly be as detailed in argument as a 440 page book. All a reviewer can hope to do is point at a few weaknesses and express an opinion. Which version you prefer usually depends on which version confirms your prejudices. As we already know, everything human has a genetic component. So nothing new there. However humans also have large cultural and institutional components. The weight given to each of the forces combining to make a human decision will vary with every individual. That's the problem. A Google search indicates that Libertarians are coming out in support of this book as providing support for their claim that 'the poor deserve to be poor'. And right-wingers want to use the book to justify cutting off all international aid because it is a lost cause. See - people clutch at anything that might be additional support for their previously decided upon beliefs. I've just noticed that the New Scientist is claiming that whether you vote Republican or Democrat is down to genetic influences and it is a waste of time to try and change opinions. So obviously it is my genetic inheritance that is making me think this book is making a false claim. :) Quote: According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. "These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. -------------- BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 5 20:44:14 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:44:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080205104432.022cc070@satx.rr.com> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080205104432.022cc070@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1202244296_12715@S4.cableone.net> At 09:50 AM 2/5/2008, Damien wrote: >At 09:22 PM 2/4/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: > > > >There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. > > >People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the > > >population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of > > >wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of > > >the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. > > > >Do you agree with Clark's numbers for the will > >data he had? If you do, what reason do you have > >to expect the results *not* to apply to the population as a whole? > >What? "Representative of the whole population" doesn't here mean >"representative of the whole population of will-writers whose wills >are preserved," it means "representative of the whole population." > >You're not suggesting, are you, that by sampling only owners of Rolls >Royces and Aston Martins you'll learn much of interest about the >whole population of car owners? Sigh. If you won't read the book, at least read the research paper. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf "Wills were not made by a random sample of the population, but were instead made by those who had property to bequeath. But the custom of making wills seems to have extended well down the social hierarchy in pre-industrial England. In Suffolk in the 1620s 39 percent of males who lived past age 16 made a will that was probated.9 Higher income individuals were more likely to leave a will, but there are plenty of wills available for those at the bottom of the hierarchy such as laborers, sailors, shepherds, and husbandmen." Page 87 in the book is the same as table 4 in the research paper. Social Group # of wills Frac literate Avg bequests (?) Max bequests (?) Gentry 59 0.94 1,084 10,935 Merchants/ Professionals 87 0.84 268 1,739 Farmers 659 0.50 406 7,946 Unknown 345 0.44 154 1,360 Traders 84 0.47 112 1,390 Craftsmen 267 0.40 85 525 Husbandmen 333 0.24 87 1,898 Laborers 100 0.14 42 210 Since Clark is interested in the relative reproductive success by asset class, and not doing a profile of the whole population, this is a good sample for his purpose. He certainly isn't only sampling the top of the social ladder. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 5 21:20:46 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:20:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202244296_12715@S4.cableone.net> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080205104432.022cc070@satx.rr.com> <1202244296_12715@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080205151844.02240f00@satx.rr.com> At 01:44 PM 2/5/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: > >What? "Representative of the whole population" doesn't here mean > >"representative of the whole population of will-writers whose wills > >are preserved," it means "representative of the whole population." > >http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf > >"...the custom of making wills seems to have extended well down >the social hierarchy in pre-industrial England. In Suffolk in the >1620s 39 percent of males who lived past age 16 made a will that >was probated....there are plenty of wills available for those at the >bottom of the hierarchy such as laborers, sailors, shepherds, and >husbandmen." Hmm. Okay, thanks. I'm sure there's still a skew, but not as wild as it seemed at first blush. Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 22:32:24 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:32:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Stephen Colbert: David Levy - Love and Sex with Robots In-Reply-To: <29666bf30801190919l5fe5c60dw450f06b8968e604e@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30801181226w5dc1561fy9a98f39d638ade50@mail.gmail.com> <200801190612.m0J6CvoX017479@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30801190919l5fe5c60dw450f06b8968e604e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802051432l63f4275avb90930dbe04f82f8@mail.gmail.com> There is a great episode of Futurama where a "sex ed" film is shown, which tells in great detail how having android lovers available to the public would result in the end of human civilization. The bottom line of the propoganda flick was that young men would lose their ambition for education and a career (to win the affection of flesh and blood women so they can raise families) because they would just stay home and make out with their fembots! Fry at the time was in love with his Lucy Liu bot and the professor was trying to straighten him out. lol http://youtube.com/watch?v=2PYA6M-rZMw John Grigg : ) On 1/19/08, PJ Manney wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 9:46 PM, spike wrote: > > ... > > > ...interviewing David Levy about his book "Love and Sex with Robots": > > > http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=147893 > > > > > > "Once you go 'bot, you never go back." ... PJ > > And I just want to make clear to the ephemeral permanence that is an > archived Internet (yes, the oxymoron is intentional) that the above > quote is Colbert's line, not mine. :) > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 23:02:48 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:02:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] tom brady In-Reply-To: <000701c85af0$53c799e0$d75de547@thebigloser> References: <000701c85af0$53c799e0$d75de547@thebigloser> Message-ID: <2d6187670802051502w759f248udbb6b2e823d20271@mail.gmail.com> I am not a big football fan, but I watched the Superbowl because I was born in New York and also because most of the powers that be were predicting the New England Patriots offense to simply overpower the supposedly inferior New York Giants. I tend to root for the underdog and the Giants were certainly that. The excitement of the game could not have been improved upon by a squad of Hollywood screenwriters, that is for sure! It will go down in history as one of the greatest games (nailbiters!) ever in NFL history. I am not too fond of the smug and adored Tom Brady and I loved seeing him sacked so many times by the extremely strong Giants defense. The golden boy met defeat as so many were ready to annoint him as the equal or better to Aikman and Montana (that will come in time, I suppose). On an episode of "Punked" something happened, which many have not heard about or overlooked. A fake scenario was set up where an actress started tagging along with Brady and a fellow Patriots player who were out for a night on the town. The actress pretended to be a prostitute and propositioned them just as actors posing as cops "busted" the two athletes. Brady was separated from his friend and told by cops he could either sell out his friend as a customer for the prostitute and go free, or both he and his friend would go to jail. Brady to my shock and with hardly a thought sold out his teammate! I realize this was just a TV show but what if it had been real? I cannot stand how Brady is so adored after having done this, and how his teammates can still tolerate him. The man should have "caught hell" for it from the public and his fellow athletes. I know athletes are often lousy role models (like dumping a pregnant girlfriend and moving on to a supermodel, as Brady did) but I thought at least "loyalty among teammates" was still a big thing. "Pride goes before the fall" as the old saying goes, and during the postgame interviews a Giants player said the Patriot players would goad the Giants between plays by "inviting them" to the already planned Patriot victory parties for later that evening. He said this is strictly against the traditions/superstitions of the NFL since many older players will speak of when this taboo was broken and how it resulted in a "sure to win" team meeting a very unlikely defeat. lol My father thought the Giants would do well because they had a small army of first round draft picks for their defensive line. And he had seen how they had so effectively used it over the course of the season. He foresaw Brady not having the breathing space he needed for certain key throws. A keen football fan who has a many decades long knowledge of the game like my father can sometimes pick out the "Black Swan Theory" events before they happen! John Grigg On 1/19/08, frank McElligott wrote: > As my yearly post time come about, I wonder what has happened to last year, > and thank all of you for the dialog which has brighten my morning coffee > since the last super bowl. > > I have read the "black Swan", and it tells me that the past is the past, and > the future well who knows. So here I go again asking the same question as > last year. > > Last year Tom Brady had not lost a playoff game in > the Pat Super Bowl runs. He is 9 and 0. > > >From a Stat view of the world Tom Brady can not > lose, if I am a betting man, but me thinks that he > crosses from a 9 to 1 as a FIRST digit and we know that is very very > dangerous. With this in mind, > I expect the Black Swan to appear in New England this weekend, and I am > betting that way:) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 00:02:53 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:02:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <2d6187670802051602i15a05c03l37548ce661ccb886@mail.gmail.com> Spike wrote: Keith, the act of having kids converts us from rich people into poor people. Well, actually that is a bit of a stretch. I have found that having a kid is not all that expensive. When compared, for instance, to the annual budgets of those countries with funny sounding names, such as "Camaroon" and "Baroondy" and "France." >>> Spike, you didn't mention the other key factor when human couples have cute little offspring..., ACCELERATED AGING!!! I have seen all my friends go grey or simply lose much of their hair when they get to the point of having 2-3 kids running around. "Insanity is inherited, you get it from your kids" John ; ) From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 00:06:11 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:36:11 +1030 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> On 05/02/2008, Amara Graps wrote: > PJ Manney > >Today's Column One article is about The Los Angeles Times Homicide > >Report, an unusual experiment in American newspapers where each and > >every homicide in Los Angeles County is researched by a single > >reporter and documented on a website which allows readers to post > >comments. Often the posters are their friends and families of the > >victims that our culture would prefer to forget. > > Dear PJ, one of the biases in the US media is their unwillingness to > show this particular face of death. As an alternative, I think that > blogs, everywhere, are a personal face to people's triumphs and > tragedies, which help folks to know that there are real people on the > other side of that screen. ... > I think that death should be portrayed by our human media as what it > really is: an unnatural ending of a precious human life, where the > impact on persons close to the deceased can be understood. Actions by > the Los Angeles Time is an encouraging sign. Thanks for sharing that. > > Amara I feel as though the media is already full of news about death and tradgedy. As a result, many people seem to be overly fearful in what really is a very safe world. An example: I took my kids to the beach recently, meeting up with some acquaintances and their kids. It was all cool, until we find out that the acquaintances kids aren't allowed to swim in the water. Why? Sharks. Now I live in South Australia, which to be fair seems to have an unusually high incidence of shark attack. Or at least I thought so, because it's on the news a lot. It looks like we do, sort of, though it'd be pretty tough trying to find any statistically significant results in these numbers. From a paper by John West on Sydney's Taronga Zoo board [1]: "According to the ASAF, there have been 61 recorded human fatalities due to shark attack in the last 50 years (as for Dec 2004). Of these, 22 have occurred in Queensland, 16 in South Australia, nine in New South Wales, 7 in Western Australia, 4 in Tasmania, and 3 in Victoria. No fatal attacks have been recorded in the Northern Territory in that time period." Let's compare this with lightning strikes. I found an abstract for "Lightning fatalities in Australia, 1824?1991" [2] containing the following quote: "Records dating from 1803?1991 indicate that at least 650 persons have been killed by lightning strikes." That's roughly 170 fatalities due to lightning strikes in the last 50 years in Australia. As opposed to 61 fatal shark attacks. Now, to get to the beach, we all parked, and walked down the road for a way. It turns out that this was a vastly more dangerous act. According to the Australian Transport Bureau [3] (well, according to a graph here primarily which I've interpreted by eye, oh for a big table of data...), approx 500 pedestrians die per year on the roads. So over 50 years, that's about 25,000 people. Even given that the average person spends a lot more time walking down the street than swimming, that's 3 orders of magnitude in difference. All that illustrates the point that we dwell on the wrong dangers. But I also think we dwell overly on dangers of death in any case. I think we live in extraordinarily safe societies in the west, and have for long enough that we have an expectation of total safety. Thus the few remaining dangers are blown out of proportion. Really, if we are going to freak out about anything, it should be heart disease & cancer. If you want to publicise anything, forget homicides, put the heart disease and cancer stats on the telly each night. "The heart disease death toll so far this holiday season has climbed to 40,000 across the United States, an improvement on the same month last year." [4] But then, who'd want to watch that? Horrible. [1] : Australian Shark Attacks, John West, 2005 (http://www.mesa.edu.au/seaweek2005/pdf_senior/is12.pdf) [2]: Lightning fatalities in Australia, 1824?1991, Lucinda Coates, Russell Blong and Frank Siciliano, 1993 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4638234x8761785/) [3]: Pedestrian Fatalities in Australia, Australian Transport Bureau, 1992 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/1996/pdf/Ped_Crash_2.pdf) [4]: Statistics about Coronary Heart Disease, current(http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/coronary_heart_disease/stats.htm) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 00:13:08 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:13:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NKS In-Reply-To: <580930c20802050726r3b7ca883n51884b47a2502a56@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20802050726r3b7ca883n51884b47a2502a56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802051813.08063.kanzure@gmail.com> Hmm. An opportunity to attain a Feynman number of exactly 2. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 6 00:49:53 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:49:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080205151844.02240f00@satx.rr.com> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080205104432.022cc070@satx.rr.com> <1202244296_12715@S4.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080205151844.02240f00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1202259036_17572@S4.cableone.net> At 02:20 PM 2/5/2008, Damien wrote: >At 01:44 PM 2/5/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: > > > >What? "Representative of the whole population" doesn't here mean > > >"representative of the whole population of will-writers whose wills > > >are preserved," it means "representative of the whole population." > > > >http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf > > > >"...the custom of making wills seems to have extended well down > >the social hierarchy in pre-industrial England. In Suffolk in the > >1620s 39 percent of males who lived past age 16 made a will that > >was probated....there are plenty of wills available for those at the > >bottom of the hierarchy such as laborers, sailors, shepherds, and > >husbandmen." > >Hmm. Okay, thanks. I'm sure there's still a skew, but not as wild as >it seemed at first blush. It you think about the basic economy in a Malthusian society, the population rises till it is checked at the "sustenance" level, where the average person is getting just enough to survive. If there is disparity of "sustenance" and in a money economy that can be measured in units like British pounds then it just makes sense that the ones with more pounds are going to (for example) have more to eat and be able to feed their kids. In hard times such as a crop failure, that means the better off people survive and the poorest starve. Somewhere around a million poor Irish starved in the potato blight famine of 1847, so this isn't that far back in history. Malthusian society and the Malthusian trap economy is *easy* to understand. Just foreign to our personal experiences. Without taking on extreme engineering projects we may see a return to famine in our lifetimes. Has anyone looked at how thin the world grain reserves are? Shudder. Keith From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 6 01:32:53 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:32:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/5/08, Emlyn wrote: > All that illustrates the point that we dwell on the wrong dangers. But > I also think we dwell overly on dangers of death in any case. I think > we live in extraordinarily safe societies in the west, and have for > long enough that we have an expectation of total safety. Thus the few > remaining dangers are blown out of proportion. > > Really, if we are going to freak out about anything, it should be > heart disease & cancer. If you want to publicise anything, forget > homicides, put the heart disease and cancer stats on the telly each > night. "The heart disease death toll so far this holiday season has > climbed to 40,000 across the United States, an improvement on the same > month last year." [4] But then, who'd want to watch that? Horrible. This sounds exactly like what Bruce Schneier, a security expert, says in his book _Beyond Fear_; he explains just how utterly *wrong* our intuitions about danger are. I don't remember if it's in the book, but he's said that he tells clients to start worrying about dangers when they *stop* showing up on the nightly news; something becomes news by virtue of being unusual. From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 02:27:59 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:27:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 5, 2008 4:06 PM, Emlyn wrote: > Really, if we are going to freak out about anything, it should be > heart disease & cancer. If you want to publicise anything, forget > homicides, put the heart disease and cancer stats on the telly each > night. "The heart disease death toll so far this holiday season has > climbed to 40,000 across the United States, an improvement on the same > month last year." [4] But then, who'd want to watch that? Horrible. My point was not at all about risk assessment. We know human generally stink at it and neurologically, they can't help but stink. My point was about coming to grips with the realities of our communities: how they succeed, how they fail and gaining the empathy to, at a minimum, appreciate the victims' reality, or if possible, do something about it. And you can only do that with accurate information. The point of The Homicide Report is to provide missing information -- who are ALL the people murdered daily in LA County -- and the stories behind their deaths. To put it in a language you might better understand, accurate patterns can emerge from a complete data set. If you read the article, you'll see that even the bureaucracies didn't have the complete data set. They were as surprised by the data as the reporter. In fact, if we based risk assessment on American media exposure in general, you'd think the only people at risk were young, blonde women, preferably those who made some error of judgement and died as a consequence. According to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc., they seem to be the only people who suffer from senseless deaths. And there's a reason for that... but I hope I don't have to explain that to you, too. PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 6 02:35:43 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:35:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <334876.61269.qm@web60214.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1202138374_29939@S3.cableone.net> <334876.61269.qm@web60214.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1202265385_18662@S3.cableone.net> At 11:42 PM 2/4/2008, The Avantguardian wrote: >--- hkhenson wrote: > > > [Stuart], did you read the book? Clark spent a huge effort on >looking > > > > at the wills of people from the 1200s on. His evidence is very > > robust on this particular point. > >Admittedly I didn't read the book but I trust your acumen to be able to >give a concise interpretation of the book that is quite along the lines >of what the author intended. And from what you have said, it seems to >be a literary reincarnation of Herbert Spencer's arguments for social >darwinism. Sigh thought stopper, again. snip >I think Clark's biggest mistake is that he is conflating environment >with genetics thus putting the cart before the horse. Genes adapt to >environments; environments don't adapt to genes. That's the exact point Clark makes in the book! snip > > At least read the first chapter. > >Since my last post, I have read the summary paper by Clark that you >posted the other day. I think Bill's point is that the wills are biased >because unlike gallop polls, the sample is not being selected at >random. For the purpose Clark had, showing a connection between wealth and genetic contribution to the next generation, these will seem like decent data. >Treating the wills that he happened to have at hand is >convenience sampling, not random sampling. They are further biased >because they represent one small geographical region of England, namely >Suffolk. > >If he had wills from Liverpool and Edinburgh too, combined them and >chose some at random by flipping a coin or something, he would have had >something closer to a random sample. Suffolk is a pastoral county not a >metropolitan one. What makes you think it was representative of all of >England at the time, when most of the factories were concentrated in >the cities like London? Because of the high urban death rates, the people and gene flow was from such places as Suffolk to London. >All that aside, however, I am not so much against the idea that genetic >shifts occured attendant to the industrial revolution, but probably >more as a trailing rather than a leading influence. Correlation is not >evidence of causation. > >I could just as easily posit that the Information Age started in >California because the wealthy inhabitants of Beverly Hills owned more >automobiles than their housekeepers did. Ok. Clark's work is the first I have seen that provides a tentative explanation for the where and when the industrial revolution occurred and why it has taken root in some place and not in others. I might add that Clark comes to his explanation reluctantly and, if you look at his previous research papers, over a long period. You might say he was forced into this view by his research. If you have a better explanation that fits the data, please present it. Keith Henson From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Feb 6 03:11:00 2008 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:11:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <449B7149-A35F-444F-8FB1-D6483BB65BD3@ceruleansystems.com> On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:27 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > > In fact, if we based risk assessment on American media exposure in > general, you'd think the only people at risk were young, blonde women, > preferably those who made some error of judgement and died as a > consequence. According to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc., they seem to be > the only people who suffer from senseless deaths. And there's a > reason for that... but I hope I don't have to explain that to you, > too. Your analysis of this is backward. The news reports the extreme and unexpected, not the mundane reality. That is the nature of news reporting. Everyone knows hispanics and blacks are victims of homicide every day in Los Angeles -- that is the mundane reality. The whole "good-looking, young, blond, white chick" fixation of the news is precisely because it is relatively unusual, as supported by the very statistics you posted. When a brown person in the bad Mexican neighborhoods of Los Angeles is murdered, it is not news. Even if it was not happening, everyone would *assume* it was happening. When Nancy Prom Queen gets waxed it is a spectacle in no small part because it is rare. Of course, some of it is selective reporting. They never seem to develop an obsessive fixation on the ugly white girls. J. Andrew Rogers From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 03:30:39 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:00:39 +1030 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802051930s52bda049w8b2114e7bad168c7@mail.gmail.com> On 06/02/2008, PJ Manney wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 4:06 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > Really, if we are going to freak out about anything, it should be > > heart disease & cancer. If you want to publicise anything, forget > > homicides, put the heart disease and cancer stats on the telly each > > night. "The heart disease death toll so far this holiday season has > > climbed to 40,000 across the United States, an improvement on the same > > month last year." [4] But then, who'd want to watch that? Horrible. > > My point was not at all about risk assessment. We know human > generally stink at it and neurologically, they can't help but stink. > My point was about coming to grips with the realities of our > communities: how they succeed, how they fail and gaining the empathy > to, at a minimum, appreciate the victims' reality, or if possible, do > something about it. And you can only do that with accurate > information. The point of The Homicide Report is to provide missing > information -- who are ALL the people murdered daily in LA County -- > and the stories behind their deaths. > I was replying to Amara's post really, not to your original one. I just went and read the original articles and looked at the Homicide Report - omfg. That's harrowing! Conceptually, it's an excellent idea. "This site flies in the face of the economics of attention". We need more of this! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 03:44:54 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:44:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <449B7149-A35F-444F-8FB1-D6483BB65BD3@ceruleansystems.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <449B7149-A35F-444F-8FB1-D6483BB65BD3@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802051944sdeee10s1cef420e79744455@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 5, 2008 7:11 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Your analysis of this is backward. The news reports the extreme and > unexpected, not the mundane reality. That is the nature of news > reporting. Everyone knows hispanics and blacks are victims of homicide > every day in Los Angeles -- that is the mundane reality. The whole > "good-looking, young, blond, white chick" fixation of the news is > precisely because it is relatively unusual, as supported by the very > statistics you posted. snip > Of course, some of it is selective reporting. They never seem to > develop an obsessive fixation on the ugly white girls. This is my point, exactly, but you misunderstand how news works on the psyche. It is not reality. It is spectacle. But it is also a fear mongering tactic to garner ratings. When do ratings spike? When people are afraid and watch the news to see if they will be all right. If they can make you believe that pretty white blonde girls get killed willy nilly, then you (assuming you are white yourselves) will look under your bed at night, afraid of the bogeyman. That creates a feedback loop of viewership. "Any more news about that pretty white girl? Did they catch the guy? Am I or my family next?" Also, no advertiser wants to pay for news about poor black or brown people. They don't buy the advertisers' products. Advertisers want news (and if it bleeds, it leads) about white, potentially prosperous people, who watch the news for stories about themselves. And advertisers run the networks and the press. Not the other way around. PJ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 03:49:22 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:19:22 +1030 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802051930s52bda049w8b2114e7bad168c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802051930s52bda049w8b2114e7bad168c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802051949w5b8a4080g2ee6994cda8a7977@mail.gmail.com> On 06/02/2008, Emlyn wrote: > On 06/02/2008, PJ Manney wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2008 4:06 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > > Really, if we are going to freak out about anything, it should be > > > heart disease & cancer. If you want to publicise anything, forget > > > homicides, put the heart disease and cancer stats on the telly each > > > night. "The heart disease death toll so far this holiday season has > > > climbed to 40,000 across the United States, an improvement on the same > > > month last year." [4] But then, who'd want to watch that? Horrible. > > > > My point was not at all about risk assessment. We know human > > generally stink at it and neurologically, they can't help but stink. > > My point was about coming to grips with the realities of our > > communities: how they succeed, how they fail and gaining the empathy > > to, at a minimum, appreciate the victims' reality, or if possible, do > > something about it. And you can only do that with accurate > > information. The point of The Homicide Report is to provide missing > > information -- who are ALL the people murdered daily in LA County -- > > and the stories behind their deaths. > > > > I was replying to Amara's post really, not to your original one. I > just went and read the original articles and looked at the Homicide > Report - omfg. That's harrowing! > > Conceptually, it's an excellent idea. > > "This site flies in the face of the economics of attention". We need > more of this! > > -- > Emlyn Oooh, and btw, 1000 homicides per year in LA County? Some data I scratched up, admittedly old (1994, [1]) says that there were 332 homicides in Australia that year, total. wtf? There are about 10 million people in LA County now; in 1994, there were at least 16 million in Australia (iirc, counting on fingers & toes). What is going on over there? [1] Violent Deaths and Firearms in Australia Data and Trends, Satyanshu Mukherjee & Carlos Carcach (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/04/RPP04.pdf) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 04:10:25 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:10:25 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 06/02/2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/5/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Many people in industrialised > > countries manage to have ten times as many children as they currently > > do. > > I couldn't quite parse that one; s/manage/could manage/ ? Sorry, I did mean *could* manage. -- Stathis Papaioannou From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Feb 6 04:31:27 2008 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:31:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802051949w5b8a4080g2ee6994cda8a7977@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802051930s52bda049w8b2114e7bad168c7@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802051949w5b8a4080g2ee6994cda8a7977@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1DA89FA8-CE83-4D23-AF97-049A167CAAD7@ceruleansystems.com> On Feb 5, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > Oooh, and btw, 1000 homicides per year in LA County? Some data I > scratched up, admittedly old (1994, [1]) says that there were 332 > homicides in Australia that year, total. wtf? There are about 10 > million people in LA County now; in 1994, there were at least 16 > million in Australia (iirc, counting on fingers & toes). What is going > on over there? Los Angeles is rife with gangs that deal in drug trafficking. The large majority of homicides in Los Angeles in any given year are in fact identified as being gang related, so the homicide risk is very unevenly distributed. J. Andrew Rogers From amara at amara.com Wed Feb 6 05:52:19 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:52:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow Message-ID: Hi Emlyn >I was replying to Amara's post really, not to your original one. And mine was about homocide (grouping war in the same category) in the news. I don't watch TV often (even when I owned one) because the fear-amplification factor used often in media reports is something that I intensely dislike. I would prefer triumphs to be portrayed in the media more often than tragedies, in general, but I guess that triumphs don't sell the news. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 6 07:03:01 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:03:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net><864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com><1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net><068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <06c901c8688e$ec452ba0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > It is a waste of time to nitpick every word in a one-page book review. > No review can possibly be as detailed in argument as a 440 page book. > All a reviewer can hope to do is point at a few weaknesses and express > an opinion. Which version you prefer usually depends on which version > confirms your prejudices. Sadly, what you say is true. However, I was not nit-picking so much as taking the opportunity to condemn bad attitudes in general. We have to hold ourselves, and those we read, to high standards that rise above name-calling, argument from authority, and the like. I assume that such unfortunate tendencies are pretty uniformly distributed across the political spectrum, and so I am obligated to be just as harsh even on papers whose main argument I agree with. So should we all be. > As we already know, everything human has a genetic component. So > nothing new there. However humans also have large cultural and > institutional components. The weight given to each of the forces > combining to make a human decision will vary with every individual. > That's the problem. Right. But it's also true that for most of the 20th century (and even now) an astonishingly large part of the populace simply will not accept your first sentence above. In fact, one of the reviewers baldly stated that genetic explanations are not to be entertained so long as non-genetic explanations can be put forward. Good grief! > A Google search indicates that Libertarians are coming out in > support of this book as providing support for their claim that > 'the poor deserve to be poor'. I'm not surprised, except that I don't quite follow the logic. Isn't it some sort of violation of the is/ought boundary? In fact, we commonly argue that once the source of a condition is found to be genetic, then the subject is actually to be "blamed" less! (But either way, it's hard to fit "blame" into this debate because whether someone is poor because of his environment or poor because he got genes that helped make him that way, it seems to let him off the hook. Actually, *all* explanations have the effect of diminishing moral responsibility.) > And right-wingers want to use the book to justify > cutting off all international aid because it is a lost cause. > See - people clutch at anything that might be additional > support for their previously decided upon beliefs. Oh, quite right! So they (and we) do. And it's not at all unscientific, because one has a genuine and desireable wish to be able to understand the world, and if you already have a vision that you embrace with some probability, then any fact or theory that goes against it has to be unwelcome. What is important is how we *publicly* respond to such. We can---like most of the people on this list---keep our disappointment to ourselves and at least *try* to incorporate the new views, or we can---like at least one of those reviewers---use scare words, guilt by association, and arguments from authority to denigrate the disagreeable information. > I've just noticed that the New Scientist is claiming that whether you > vote Republican or Democrat is down to genetic influences and it is a > waste of time to try and change opinions. It's extremely interesting that many people come from home and school environments that do *not* lastingly influence their political opinions. Indeed, it is as though their nature sooner or later exerts its command despite the early indoctrination from their family or from schools. > So obviously it is my genetic inheritance that is making me > think this book is making a false claim. :) Yes :-) and vice-versa here, of course. But still, over the course of months or years, I believe that the influence of the "unwelcomed theories" or "unwelcomed information" can make itself felt, and those of us---most of us, here---who really want to know the truth eventually incorporate some of the initially unwelcome ideas or data. Lee From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Feb 6 12:10:53 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:10:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33840.12.77.168.225.1202299853.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Amara writes: > I don't watch TV often (even when I owned one) because the > fear-amplification factor used often in media reports is something that > I intensely dislike. > Thanks for putting into clear words what I've always hated about "news". I do not watch, no longer own, TV and never understood why my partner would watch late news before bed. How can one peacefully sleep with those horrors ricochetting in one's brain, being played over and over in the mind's eye? I saw nothing positive or healthful in this. Regards, MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 6 14:15:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:15:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06e401c868cb$24cc07a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> PJ writes > My point was not at all about risk assessment. We know human > generally stink at it and neurologically, they can't help but stink. > My point was about coming to grips with the realities of our > communities: how they succeed, how they fail and gaining the empathy > to, at a minimum, appreciate the victims' reality, or if possible, do > something about it. And you can only do that with accurate > information. The point of The Homicide Report is to provide missing > information -- who are ALL the people murdered daily in LA County -- > and the stories behind their deaths. Information is good, and in an important sense, we find it difficult to understand reality from mere statistics. Criminals convicted of capital crimes should be forced to watch re-enactments of the funerals they caused, with proper depictions of the sufferings of family members, for instance. The reality and horror of tragedy really is in the details and in the particulars. I'm still a little confused about the focus, here, though. You help by writing "[This is about] coming to grips with the realities of our communities: how they succeed, how they fail...". But first, those are probably not *your* communities. They certainly aren't mine (the part of town I live in is middle middle class, and is very peaceful). Second, those communities contain many many thousands of people, and the deaths of a few hundred are indeed demographically and economically insignificant. In other words, do (the rest of) the people living there believe that their communities are sinking? I don't think that they are sinking in any real historical, demographic, or economic sense. What if instead the reporter and you had chosen to focus on families impacted by heart disease and stroke? We might have even more funerals, and even more tears. Or traffic accidents. So there has to be some notion here of those things I just mentioned being not avoidable, while in some way the "senseless" killings *are* avoidable. But perhaps they really aren't so avoidable, without draconian measures very few want. Lee > In fact, if we based risk assessment on American media exposure in > general, you'd think the only people at risk were young, blonde women, > preferably those who made some error of judgement and died as a > consequence. According to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc., they seem to be > the only people who suffer from senseless deaths. And there's a > reason for that... but I hope I don't have to explain that to you, > too. From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Feb 6 14:47:45 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:47:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 11:52 PM 2/5/2008, Amara wrote: I don't watch TV often (even when I owned one) because the >fear-amplification factor used often in media reports is something that >I intensely dislike. > >I would prefer triumphs to be portrayed in the media more often than >tragedies, in general, but I guess that triumphs don't sell the news. Yes. Even though I watch TV a lot - has some of the best programming anywhere on life, the future, nature, animals, adventure, ideas, etc. BUT I dislike the news and try to stay away from it as much as possible. I do watch Sunday news because it is more focused on substantial material about the world and is delivered in a far less hyperbolic tone. Natasha From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Feb 6 14:43:18 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:43:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802051944sdeee10s1cef420e79744455@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <449B7149-A35F-444F-8FB1-D6483BB65BD3@ceruleansystems.com> <29666bf30802051944sdeee10s1cef420e79744455@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080206144321.BYEX22634.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 09:44 PM 2/5/2008, PJ Manney wrote: >On Feb 5, 2008 7:11 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > Your analysis of this is backward. The news reports the extreme and > > unexpected, not the mundane reality. That is the nature of news > > reporting. Everyone knows hispanics and blacks are victims of homicide > > every day in Los Angeles -- that is the mundane reality. The whole > > "good-looking, young, blond, white chick" fixation of the news is > > precisely because it is relatively unusual, as supported by the very > > statistics you posted. > >snip > > > Of course, some of it is selective reporting. They never seem to > > develop an obsessive fixation on the ugly white girls. > >This is my point, exactly, but you misunderstand how news works on the >psyche. It is not reality. It is spectacle. But it is also a fear >mongering tactic to garner ratings. When do ratings spike? When >people are afraid and watch the news to see if they will be all right. > If they can make you believe that pretty white blonde girls get >killed willy nilly, then you (assuming you are white yourselves) will >look under your bed at night, afraid of the bogeyman. That creates a >feedback loop of viewership. "Any more news about that pretty white >girl? Did they catch the guy? Am I or my family next?" This is evident with the death of Natalee Ann Holloway on Aruba. >Also, no advertiser wants to pay for news about poor black or brown >people. They don't buy the advertisers' products. Advertisers want >news (and if it bleeds, it leads) about white, potentially prosperous >people, who watch the news for stories about themselves. And >advertisers run the networks and the press. Not the other way around. True, but from another perspective, I see the opposite. My father was an advertising executive in Manhattan. As a child to adult, I experienced the insides of the advertising business. What I see today is that many advertisers are focusing on gangster rap, South Central vernacular, and Hispanic style. Advertisers are paying attention to who is buying the most high-selling products: food, Trucks, mags, and cheap Jewry and cloths. As these communities grow in influence and population, the advertisers are right there watching. Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 6 17:20:59 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:20:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta was LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <06e401c868cb$24cc07a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <06e401c868cb$24cc07a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1202318502_25651@S3.cableone.net> At 07:15 AM 2/6/2008, Lee wrote: snip >I'm still a little confused about the focus, here, though. You >help by writing "[This is about] coming to grips with the realities >of our communities: how they succeed, how they fail...". >But first, those are probably not *your* communities. They >certainly aren't mine (the part of town I live in is middle middle >class, and is very peaceful). Second, those communities contain >many many thousands of people, and the deaths of a few hundred >are indeed demographically and economically insignificant. In >other words, do (the rest of) the people living there believe that >their communities are sinking? I don't think that they are >sinking in any real historical, demographic, or economic sense. That's not exactly true. Gang related killings happen frequently enough in some neighborhoods to make a serious impact. This is all on a gradient from your peaceful middle middle to places where 60% of the males die violently. After reading Clark's work, I can't be sure what fraction of these effects are environmental and what fraction is genetic. In "EP, memes and the origin of war" I assumed it was all environmental but it could be that some of it is that past genetic selection has biased some people to be less impulsive and violent and to hold down the number of children they have. There are certainly groups in the world where the genetic advantage lies with the killers, if not now then in the recent past. See the section on violence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami I wonder how long it would take in a middle middle neighborhood from the food supply failing to cannibalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnor_Party An interesting effect of female infanticide in a no birth control, Malthusian society is that it increases the life span (not counting the dead female infants). The math behind this weird statement is air tight. Keith From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 19:47:01 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:47:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <20080206144321.BYEX22634.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <449B7149-A35F-444F-8FB1-D6483BB65BD3@ceruleansystems.com> <29666bf30802051944sdeee10s1cef420e79744455@mail.gmail.com> <20080206144321.BYEX22634.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <29666bf30802061147i51ce4f5aoe1df18dd36bea8e9@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 6, 2008 6:43 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > True, but from another perspective, I see the opposite. My father was an > advertising executive in Manhattan. As a child to adult, I experienced the > insides of the advertising business. Really?! So was mine! Write me offlist and tell me where he worked. Where did you live? > What I see today is that many > advertisers are focusing on gangster rap, South Central vernacular, and > Hispanic style. Advertisers are paying attention to who is buying the most > high-selling products: food, Trucks, mags, and cheap Jewry and cloths. As > these communities grow in influence and population, the advertisers are > right there watching. Yes, if it's US channels like CW, MTV/VH1, BET, Univision or late night that caters to young people, etc. That's their market. But news, especially international or cable news, is very conservative and skews older, ad-wise. I watch a fair bit of it -- it's the only thing I can bear to watch at the gym. :) Their primary ads are for financial services, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and weightloss programs/diet foods. Recently, the military have become big news advertisers (which is less about target market and more about spinning the message). Think about it -- news makes you insecure and depressed. So what are they selling you in the breaks? Financial security, drugs to make you happy and give you an erection, foods to help you lose weight from all the crap you ate because you watch tv all day and are depressed and not having sex -- and a car to get to the mall to buy it all. And if it all goes to hell, you can always enlist. An aside -- because of all the erectile dysfunction ads on television, my 11 year old son asked me, with great seriousness, if there was an epidemic! :) I have done my best to disabuse him of that notion, and to make him aware of Big Pharma Ad-created diseases in general, but I can only imagine what his generation of boys is going to think about this issue... PJ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 20:05:32 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:05:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802061205k118ba01fibe9f8433671f55ed@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 6, 2008 9:47 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 11:52 PM 2/5/2008, Amara wrote: > > I don't watch TV often (even when I owned one) because the > >fear-amplification factor used often in media reports is something that > >I intensely dislike. > > > >I would prefer triumphs to be portrayed in the media more often than > >tragedies, in general, but I guess that triumphs don't sell the news. > > Yes. Even though I watch TV a lot - has some of the best programming > anywhere on life, the future, nature, animals, adventure, ideas, > etc. BUT I dislike the news and try to stay away from it as much as > possible. I do watch Sunday news because it is more focused on > substantial material about the world and is delivered in a far less > hyperbolic tone. > ### Me too. Can't stand news, which tends to either trivial (Britney going to rehab, Britney without underwear, Britney taking a leak), or infuriating (economically ignorant, morally alien), or just exasperating (trash people killing each other). Advertising causes an automatic finger-on-the-remote twitch. I only bought a TV last week after some years of not owning one, and probably will only watch it for 20 minutes a day, or however long it takes to eat dinner. I think I'll stay in Azeroth, where my toons are reaching level 55 and will soon venture into Outland. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Feb 6 15:44:37 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:44:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: I like to watch The Simpsons and House. By the way, the House episode last night struck me as the most intelligent (deeply and subtly nuanced) TV show I have ever seen! In general though, I don't watch TV because (1) material pandering to sensationalism and lowest common denominator interests is immensely boring, (2) the blatant misrepresentation, falsification and manipulation -- and what that implies about the target audience -- is hugely discouraging, and (3) when there *is* something of value to watch, it's frustratingly slow and stuck in a linear track -- I can usually find much better on the web. - Jef From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 23:37:41 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:07:41 +1030 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802061205k118ba01fibe9f8433671f55ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <7641ddc60802061205k118ba01fibe9f8433671f55ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802061537x729260f4kb0431d3773cacd7e@mail.gmail.com> > ### Me too. Can't stand news, which tends to either trivial (Britney > going to rehab, Britney without underwear, Britney taking a leak), or > infuriating (economically ignorant, morally alien), or just > exasperating (trash people killing each other). Advertising causes an > automatic finger-on-the-remote twitch. I only bought a TV last week > after some years of not owning one, and probably will only watch it > for 20 minutes a day, or however long it takes to eat dinner. I think > I'll stay in Azeroth, where my toons are reaching level 55 and will > soon venture into Outland. > > Rafal Hey, what server are you on? I'm in Outland at the moment, only a few levels to go. Time to start feeling the pressure, because the next expansion is in the pipeline, level cap going to 80. You know, I can't work out what's so compelling about WoW, and yet it is compelling. As a game, it's a bit of an r-tard, much less about skill than time sunk into it. And yet... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Feb 7 02:13:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:13:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <071c01c8692f$a511dd90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Yass, with my own multidimensionally vast intellect, I too naturally find TV incredibly boring and slow (the stories seldom feature more than five or six concurrent plots), but with some Puccini in the background and by stealing a glance now and then at my pocket chess to help me visualize solutions for some of John Nunn's supergrandmaster mind-cracking chess puzzles, I'm okay until I rest up enough to get back to my transfinite math studies. Yawn, it would be so great if a visual medium like TV could really be challenging, but then, as Marvin Minsky used to say, it would be the death of everything we know. Lee From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 7 02:00:44 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:00:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802051602i15a05c03l37548ce661ccb886@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802070227.m172RUCF023438@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > John Grigg > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae,was: > Impressive book: Farewell to Alms > > Spike wrote: > Keith, the act of having kids converts us from rich people > into poor people. ... > > Spike, you didn't mention the other key factor when human > couples have cute little offspring..., ACCELERATED AGING!!! > I have seen all my friends go grey or simply lose much of > their hair when they get to the point of having 2-3 kids > running around. > > "Insanity is inherited, you get it from your kids" > > John ; ) I can put that notion to rest. I was already aging before the larva was born. You bring up an interesting point however. Is there any correlation between stress and graying hair? I have always heard there is, but I don't know. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 7 02:27:50 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:27:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802070227.m172RukP020152@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of PJ Manney ... > > In fact, if we based risk assessment on American media > exposure in general, you'd think the only people at risk were > young, blonde women, preferably those who made some error of > judgement and died as a consequence. According to CNN, Fox > News, MSNBC, etc., they seem to be the only people who suffer > from senseless deaths. And there's a reason for that... but > I hope I don't have to explain that to you, too... PJ News agencies are under tremendous pressure financially, for they are trying to sell a product that we can get free in arbitrary quantities on the internet. Increasingly they are using crime stories as filler, for it costs practically nothing to produce the reams of fluff. In December 2004, a giant seismic wave killed we don't even know how many people in Indonesia. Educated estimates went over a quarter of a million people. Yet there has been more ink spilled over one American girl who perished mysteriously while vacationing (probably from alcohol overdose) than was written about that wave which caused such appalling destruction. The mainstream news media need not wonder why we don't care to read their nonsense. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 02:32:34 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802061537x729260f4kb0431d3773cacd7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <7641ddc60802061205k118ba01fibe9f8433671f55ed@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802061537x729260f4kb0431d3773cacd7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802061832m30333405i6d623d80ee79793b@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 6, 2008 6:37 PM, Emlyn wrote: > Hey, what server are you on? I'm in Outland at the moment, only a few > levels to go. Time to start feeling the pressure, because the next > expansion is in the pipeline, level cap going to 80. > ### Khaz Modan. I have a lvl Horde 70 lock, tailoring/enchanting, and lvl 54 priest, mage, warrior, rogue, druid, hunter, pally and shaman, as well as a lvl 19 twink. This could be interpreted as evidence that I have entirely too much free time, no life, or both :) ---------------------------------- > You know, I can't work out what's so compelling about WoW, and yet it > is compelling. As a game, it's a bit of an r-tard, much less about > skill than time sunk into it. And yet... ### It's a masterpiece by the evil genii of psychological manipulation at Blizzard. There is reinforcement every 20 - 30 seconds while playing, with different levels of reinforcement applied at different intervals - the steady drip-drip of silver from mobs, punctuated by a green drop, a blue drop, or even a purple drop (happened to me twice while killing trash in Felwood). There is combat reinforcement, the pleasure of finally beating the big mob, or fighting off 3 mobs that jumped you, the warm glow of competence as you deftly space your cooldowns, potions and stuns to thwart multiple enemies. The hair-rising experience of being attacked by a devilsaur in Un'Goro. Checking your mailbox to see 70 - 80 new messages from the auction house, grossing 1500g for one session, with net capital gains of 30% or more. Reading rude Chuck Norris jokes in Barrens chat, watching the Leroy Jenkins video, camaraderie of a 40-man raid, the crazy tempo of a pvp fight, the sounds of buffing before the Rag fight, officers shouting encouragement on vent, and then the sound of fire, the fury of the attack....I could go on. WOW is the perfect combination of several layers of reinforcement (satisfying financial, social, status, self-expression, self-improvement, exploratory, competitive, cooperative needs, even if in a certain make-believe way) applied over several time-horizons, from seconds to months. Rafal From moulton at moulton.com Thu Feb 7 03:00:13 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:00:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms] In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1202353213.780.633.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 17:29 +0000, someone wrote: > A Google search indicates that Libertarians are coming out in support > of this book as providing support for their claim that 'the poor > deserve to be poor'. Can we please raise the level of discourse here? The unqualified statement about 'Libertarians' as a group is just not useful. First not all Libertarians have commented on the book, in fact there not all Libertarians have even read it. And to say that the claim that 'the poor deserve to be poor' is part of the Libertarian philosophy is just plain false. These inaccuracies and innuendos do not help the quality of the list. I am concerned that they will just lead to hostility and resentments which can spill over into a flame war. I think that making these kinds of statements about any group (Socialist, Green, Conservative or whatever) do not improve the quality of the list. I have been rather busy with work recently and have not time to read all of the recent posts but I did see this one. So my request is that we try to avoid posts which are full of overly broad disparaging inferences and inaccurate representations. Thank you Fred From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 7 03:11:18 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:11:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802070338.m173c4ED005651@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Jef Allbright > Subject: Re: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for > untold sorrow > > I like to watch The Simpsons and House. By the way, the > House episode last night struck me as the most intelligent > (deeply and subtly > nuanced) TV show I have ever seen! - Jef Thanks for that, Jef. I am a huge House fan. I have liked Hugh Laurie since I saw him in Jeeves and Wooster back in the early 90s. House takes a great actor and gives him excellent material. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 7 04:08:21 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:08:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms] In-Reply-To: <1202353213.780.633.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1202353213.780.633.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1202357344_9533@S1.cableone.net> At 08:00 PM 2/6/2008, you wrote: >On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 17:29 +0000, someone wrote: > > A Google search indicates that Libertarians are coming out in support > > of this book as providing support for their claim that 'the poor > > deserve to be poor'. > >Can we please raise the level of discourse here? The unqualified >statement about 'Libertarians' as a group is just not useful. First not >all Libertarians have commented on the book, in fact there not all >Libertarians have even read it. And to say that the claim that 'the >poor deserve to be poor' is part of the Libertarian philosophy is just >plain false. I have hung out with libertarians both upper and lower case for most of my life and can't remember hearing it either. It seems to me that if you are concerned about the poor, it would be darn useful to know why they are poor, for that matter why the average person wasn't even as well off before about 1800 as his stone age ancestors had been. Incidentally, if you read the last part of the book, Clark does talk about a well tested method that is known to get *some* of the poor out of poverty. snip Agree with the rest. Keith From frankmac at ripco.com Thu Feb 7 04:16:54 2008 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank McElligott) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:16:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] la times Message-ID: <001d01c86940$46914c90$d75de547@thebigloser> First ;thank you John we were on the same page with the Giants, but you said it better than I ever could. Second; Had an uncle in the Mafia, asked him one day how could he be in a business where they stuff people in trunks of cars, he said that's the price of doing business, told me to look at the number of ironworks killed from falls from the building they were constructing, same as the Mafia, only the mafia had less deaths. Doing the drug business, has a known risk, death, it is just the price of doing business. Thank all those rich white kids who buy it with their daddy's money, they provide the demand, and death in the inner city is the result. It is the same in Moscow by the way. Frank From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Feb 7 04:44:42 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:44:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms] References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net><864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com><1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net><068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><1202353213.780.633.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1202357344_9533@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <000b01c86944$28559890$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "hkhenson" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:08 PM > Incidentally, if you read the last part of the book, Clark does talk > about a well tested method that is known to get *some* of the poor > out of poverty. Surely ... not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Does Clark have a plan (well-tested or not) for *some* of the mentally ill? Does he have a plan for the "intellectually challenged," the mentally challenged, the schizophrenics, the drug addicts, the alcoholics? My husband remembers seeing a newsreel of how, during the Reagan years, so many of the mentally ill were de-institutionalized. Reporters took to asking questions of some of the people who were streaming out of these places. A reporter asked one of them: "What are you going to do now? Where are you going?" The answer came back: "I'm going to Hollywood ... to be a movie star!" After all these years, my husband has never forgotten that particular trenchant "sound bite." Olga From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Feb 7 04:53:28 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:53:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2008, at 8:22 PM, hkhenson wrote: > At 12:16 PM 2/4/2008, BillK wrote: >> On Feb 4, 2008 4:54 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > snip > >> There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. >> People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the >> population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of >> wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of >> the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. > > Elemental sampling theory treats numbers as large > as the population as effectively infinite. The > statistical error you get out of samples is such > that a sample of a few hundred gives decent > expected error bounds on the whole > population. If it's a leap of faith the Gallop polls make the same > leap. > > Do you agree with Clark's numbers for the will > data he had? If you do, what reason do you have > to expect the results *not* to apply to the population as a whole? Elementary sampling theory requires that the sample is random over the population. The objection was that those who wrote wills in those times were not randomly representative of the population as a whole. A random sample of wills may say a fair amount about the subset of the population who had a need and interest in writing a will while saying very little conclusive about the population as a whole. Getting a good random sample of the population of interest is not a leap of faith. Some care needs to be exercised and a reasonable case made for having satisfied this requirement before any statistical argument based on such a sample has much merit. > - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Feb 7 05:11:15 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:11:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <572FE6C2-FF75-4F36-8C0F-7E8752C03C5A@mac.com> On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:27 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 4:06 PM, Emlyn wrote: >> Really, if we are going to freak out about anything, it should be >> heart disease & cancer. If you want to publicise anything, forget >> homicides, put the heart disease and cancer stats on the telly each >> night. "The heart disease death toll so far this holiday season has >> climbed to 40,000 across the United States, an improvement on the >> same >> month last year." [4] But then, who'd want to watch that? Horrible. > > My point was not at all about risk assessment. We know human > generally stink at it and neurologically, they can't help but stink. > My point was about coming to grips with the realities of our > communities: how they succeed, how they fail and gaining the empathy > to, at a minimum, appreciate the victims' reality, or if possible, do > something about it. And you can only do that with accurate > information. The point of The Homicide Report is to provide missing > information -- who are ALL the people murdered daily in LA County -- > and the stories behind their deaths. How does this help you or any of us exactly? What does it change for the good in your life or in the lives of those you interact with? I am honestly curious as I do not find such information so valuable and useful. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Feb 7 05:21:45 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:21:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > I like to watch The Simpsons and House. By the way, the House episode > last night struck me as the most intelligent (deeply and subtly > nuanced) TV show I have ever seen! > > In general though, I don't watch TV because (1) material pandering to > sensationalism and lowest common denominator interests is immensely > boring, (2) the blatant misrepresentation, falsification and > manipulation -- and what that implies about the target audience -- is > hugely discouraging, and (3) when there *is* something of value to > watch, it's frustratingly slow and stuck in a linear track -- I can > usually find much better on the web. TV largely depresses me. It leads me to think rather poorly of the human race. There are exceptions. I like some SciFi shows. I like some of the Science and History channel except that they repeat every single point over and over again as if they think they can get a few factoids into the head of channel hopping maniacs on crystal meth. So even many of their shows leaves me feeling like my head is going to explode from serious intellectual under pressure. I almost never ever find anything remotely inspiring or uplifting on the Tube. It is amazing just how lacking in any real value it largely is. I can find tons more worth reading and increasingly watching on the Web. I think the days of TV are numbered. - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 7 05:21:42 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:21:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Thanks Message-ID: <359456.54758.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> PJ, I think you should write more of your experiences on your blog, I really enjoyed reading your ideas. You emphasize on many point of views. I'm happy to hear that you will be part of the WTA this year. I'm looking forward to your views, posts and ideas. Anna Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 7 05:19:15 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:19:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <000b01c86944$28559890$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200802070546.m175k2MR024007@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Olga Bourlin ... > > My husband remembers seeing a newsreel of how, during the > Reagan years, so many of the mentally ill were > de-institutionalized... Olga did you mean the Lanterman-Petris-Short years? http://www.claytoncramer.com/mental.htm > reporter asked one of them: "What are you going to do now? > Where are you going?" The answer came back: "I'm going to > Hollywood ... to be a movie star!" Olga Only some of them went there. The particularly bad ones went to Washington DC. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 7 05:58:04 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:58:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms] In-Reply-To: <000b01c86944$28559890$6601a8c0@brainiac> References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <068d01c867c6$847031f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1202353213.780.633.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1202357344_9533@S1.cableone.net> <000b01c86944$28559890$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <1202363927_10045@S3.cableone.net> At 09:44 PM 2/6/2008, Olga wrote: >From: "hkhenson" >To: "ExI chat list" >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:08 PM > > > Incidentally, if you read the last part of the book, Clark does talk > > about a well tested method that is known to get *some* of the poor > > out of poverty. > >Surely ... not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? No, but the method is remarkably simple and well tested. Clark notes aliens not familiar with the long time of Europeans running a substantial fraction of the world would only see them trying to keep out the poor from the former colonies. When these people do manage to get in they do well indeed getting out of poverty compared with those who stayed put. >Does Clark have a plan (well-tested or not) for *some* of the mentally ill? >Does he have a plan for the "intellectually challenged," the mentally >challenged, the schizophrenics, the drug addicts, the alcoholics? Nope. Clark's not in that area of study. But wouldn't you like to know a way to reduce mental illness or poverty? It seems to me that understanding the fundamental reasons for why the average person world wide was poor prior to about 1800 is as essential as that of studying at the fundamental level what conditions genetic or environmental are behind mental illness. >My husband remembers seeing a newsreel of how, during the Reagan years, so >many of the mentally ill were de-institutionalized. Reporters took to >asking questions of some of the people who were streaming out of these >places. A reporter asked one of them: "What are you going to do now? Where >are you going?" The answer came back: "I'm going to Hollywood ... to be a >movie star!" Wonder if he made it? :-) >After all these years, my husband has never forgotten that particular >trenchant "sound bite." Drugs do help a substantial number of those with mental problems. In most cases we don't have a clue how the drugs work. Keith From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Feb 7 06:48:01 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:48:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] References: <200802070546.m175k2MR024007@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002601c86955$65466cf0$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:19 PM >> My husband remembers seeing a newsreel of how, during the >> Reagan years, so many of the mentally ill were >> de-institutionalized... > Olga did you mean the Lanterman-Petris-Short years? > > http://www.claytoncramer.com/mental.htm >From what I read (and remember!), during the years when Ronald Reagan was governor of California (1967-74) a huge number of people from state mental hospitals were let out. Then, in the 1980s, when Reagan was president, the de-institutionalization of mentally ill people continued nationally. Olga From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 7 07:35:19 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:35:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802061537x729260f4kb0431d3773cacd7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080206144748.RIGT24450.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <7641ddc60802061205k118ba01fibe9f8433671f55ed@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802061537x729260f4kb0431d3773cacd7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080207073519.GE10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 10:07:41AM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > Hey, what server are you on? I'm in Outland at the moment, only a few I'm in Extropia Core. > levels to go. Time to start feeling the pressure, because the next > expansion is in the pipeline, level cap going to 80. Level? > You know, I can't work out what's so compelling about WoW, and yet it > is compelling. As a game, it's a bit of an r-tard, much less about > skill than time sunk into it. And yet... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 07:44:37 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:14:37 +1030 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802062344q2601f87el92b125fed2982c30@mail.gmail.com> On 05/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > Social considerations such as the fact that more affluent people, for > > whom the economic burden of having multiple children is not > > significant, nevertheless choose to have fewer children are much more > > important. > > It's important right now (that many people are choosing to have few > children), but evolution has a way of curing such "defects". Clearly > from a biological perspective---how can anyone evade this tautology? > ---any decision to have *fewer* viable offspring will simply result > in those genes responsible being eliminated from the population. Only if it's the genes that are responsible. I would put it to you that the genetic component in the decision to have a child (or number 2, 3, etc) has only a very low genetic component, and a high memetic component. Not reproducing biologically would have very little impact on a memeset (maybe includes stuff like "kids are expensive", "focus on your own goals", "individualism", stuff like that? guessing...), which reproduces at a different level. I'm surprised that no one has been talking about memes here, and it's all focussing on genes. Genes are useful for understanding our past, but the near past and present have surely got to be mostly about memetic evolution on top of a mostly static genetic profile (which builds bodies that can host memes well). It's all about timeframes. > By the exact same token (which speeds the evolution) cultural evolution > will go hand in hand. Any culture which supports *not* having extremely > large families will become less dominant over time---because of, obviously, > the simple, tautologous fact that more biologically successful strategies > supplant the less successful. > > Lee uurrrr.... we're not insects. At the moment it's exactly the cultures that are not dominant which have the highest birth rates. I think in fact you see falling birth rates in those cultures as they become more successful. Cultures are mostly independent of genes. They're just a set of ideas. If you could make a memeset that successfully said "You should never reproduce" (in fact we probably have one of those kicking around in wealthy countries now), it could still lead to a more successful culture over time. Success here wouldn't be defined circularly by number of warm bodies, but by relative control of the planet's wealth. There's no reason to think that population is correlated with wealth (and maybe some to think it might be an inverse relationship). I think using genes to predict how we became who we are is clearly useful, to explain how our past has determined differences amongst us now. But to use genes for predictions of the future doesn't seem viable to me. Memetic evolution has clearly overtaken genetic evolution, and there's a good chance genes will go the way of the buggy whip in the future. Certainly real soon now, in genetic time. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 7 08:02:51 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:02:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: <1202079109_16705@S4.cableone.net> <864022.57439.qm@web60225.mail.yahoo.com> <1202144125_32521@S1.cableone.net> <1202185397_47559@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1202371414_10773@S3.cableone.net> At 09:53 PM 2/6/2008, samantha wrote: >On Feb 4, 2008, at 8:22 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > > At 12:16 PM 2/4/2008, BillK wrote: > >> On Feb 4, 2008 4:54 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > > > snip > > > >> There just aren't enough wills compared with the population numbers. > >> People who wrote wills are a small, self-selected subset of the > >> population. It is a great leap to conclude that the small subset of > >> wills is representative of the whole population. The vast majority of > >> the population had lives that never got into the records anywhere. > > > > Elemental sampling theory treats numbers as large > > as the population as effectively infinite. The > > statistical error you get out of samples is such > > that a sample of a few hundred gives decent > > expected error bounds on the whole > > population. If it's a leap of faith the Gallop polls make the same > > leap. > > > > Do you agree with Clark's numbers for the will > > data he had? If you do, what reason do you have > > to expect the results *not* to apply to the population as a whole? > >Elementary sampling theory requires that the sample is random over the >population. The objection was that those who wrote wills in those >times were not randomly representative of the population as a whole. I already went over this with Damien here: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-February/040542.html > >A random sample of wills may say a fair amount about the subset of the >population who had a need and interest in writing a will while saying >very little conclusive about the population as a whole. Clark wasn't trying to sample the population as a whole. He didn't for example give a percentage of the population by asset class. What he was looking for was differential reproduction as a function of assets. To do that he had to analyze wills for assets, children and literacy. Long as he had enough examples for each class to be statistically reliable that generated a plot point. Look at table 4 in the research report. From the round number at the end of the table I suspect he had lots of wills for the poorest economic class that he didn't analyze and use. But looking at a hundred wills was enough to give him a data point. >Getting a >good random sample of the population of interest is not a leap of >faith. Some care needs to be exercised and a reasonable case made for >having satisfied this requirement before any statistical argument >based on such a sample has much merit. For what he was trying to do, namely show that the rich left more surviving children, I think he made the case. In an era where there was no birth control inside marriage, having the assets to feed and clothe the children would make a big difference in their survival. As to extending this result to the rest of England, the observations make sense. The humans were similar in other parts and so was the environment. Can you come up with a reasonable argument as to what would make this region different from others? Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 7 15:00:44 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:00:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <572FE6C2-FF75-4F36-8C0F-7E8752C03C5A@mac.com> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <572FE6C2-FF75-4F36-8C0F-7E8752C03C5A@mac.com> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2008 9:11 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > How does this help you or any of us exactly? What does it change for > the good in your life or in the lives of those you interact with? I > am honestly curious as I do not find such information so valuable and > useful. Samantha - You, P.J. and others make pertinent points: - We lack adequate access to and visibility of many statistics (such as violent deaths by location) where the data exists but isn't made available. - The statistics which are reported are unevenly emphasized and distributed, tending toward sensationalism and skewed assessments. - Data is not informative without context. In the absence of contextual data, people tend to apply their own personal context (see the sharp contrast between PJ and Lee in the meaning they derive from this isolated data on inner city violent deaths.) What I find interesting in the bigger picture is the common lack of appreciation of the **necessity** of fine-grained contextual data relevant to social decision-making, and more importantly, systems making such data easily and widely available for a multitude of competing/cooperating interpretations in the marketplace of ideas. We continue to unthinkingly resort to the evolved heuristics of our ancestors for aggregating and refining meaning. Democracy was a fairly recent step in the right direction. We already have technology that could serve us much better. - Jef Increasing awareness for increasing morality From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 7 15:36:52 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:36:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <002601c86955$65466cf0$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200802071537.m17Fb132021302@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Olga Bourlin ... > > > > Olga did you mean the Lanterman-Petris-Short years? > > > > http://www.claytoncramer.com/mental.htm > > >From what I read (and remember!), during the years when > Ronald Reagan > >was > governor of California (1967-74) a huge number of people from > state mental hospitals were let out. > > Then, in the 1980s, when Reagan was president, the > de-institutionalization of mentally ill people continued nationally. > > Olga Ja, but saying it that way makes it sound like a court decision was something over which Reagan had influence, analogous to saying the Miami Dolphins did well under Nixon (as opposed to Don Shula.) The courts decided that those "let out" were being illegally held in mental institutions against their will. I agree most would have been better off staying, and some did. But assuming they had committed no actual crime, it is their choice to make, even if mentally ill. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Feb 7 18:27:39 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:27:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802061147i51ce4f5aoe1df18dd36bea8e9@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <449B7149-A35F-444F-8FB1-D6483BB65BD3@ceruleansystems.com> <29666bf30802051944sdeee10s1cef420e79744455@mail.gmail.com> <20080206144321.BYEX22634.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <29666bf30802061147i51ce4f5aoe1df18dd36bea8e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080207182742.JTXX22634.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> At 01:47 PM 2/6/2008, PJ wrote: >On Feb 6, 2008 6:43 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > True, but from another perspective, I see the opposite. My father was an > > advertising executive in Manhattan. As a child to adult, I experienced the > > insides of the advertising business. > >Really?! So was mine! Write me offlist and tell me where he worked. >Where did you live? Madison Avenue, New York City! He was at the famed Young & Rubecon. I grew up in upstate New York, and also Stamford, Connecticut. Dad took the train to Manhattan. Natasha Natasha Vita-More, BFA, MS, MPhil University Lecturer PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 22:52:41 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:52:41 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <200802071537.m17Fb132021302@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <002601c86955$65466cf0$6601a8c0@brainiac> <200802071537.m17Fb132021302@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 08/02/2008, spike wrote: > Ja, but saying it that way makes it sound like a court decision was > something over which Reagan had influence, analogous to saying the Miami > Dolphins did well under Nixon (as opposed to Don Shula.) The courts decided > that those "let out" were being illegally held in mental institutions > against their will. I agree most would have been better off staying, and > some did. But assuming they had committed no actual crime, it is their > choice to make, even if mentally ill. Deinstitutionalisation of the mentally ill around the world, starting in the 1960's and 1970's, involved governments deciding to close down long term psychiatric beds. The stated rationale was that the mentally ill would be better off being looked after in the community unless they absolutely had to be in hospital. But in many cases, it was also a cynical cost-cutting exercise. I don't know of cases where deinstitutionalisation was to any great extent driven by the courts deciding that patients were being held illegally. However, legislation relating to mental illness was changed to make it harder to detain people for long periods, facilitating the closing of the institutions. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 8 02:58:55 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:58:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802080325.m183Pk1F025683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Stathis Papaioannou ... > On 08/02/2008, spike wrote: > > > Ja, but saying it that way makes it sound like a court decision was > > something over which Reagan had influence... > > I don't know of cases where deinstitutionalisation was to any > great extent driven by the courts deciding that patients were > being held illegally. However, legislation relating to mental > illness was changed to make it harder to detain people for > long periods, facilitating the closing of the institutions. Stathis Papaioannou The whole notion of holding people in an asylum against their will on the testimony of any quack psychiatrist has always made me squirm. How can you be sure? There are plenty of people willing to label any libertarian as crazy. There are even more who consider an atheist as a raving looney. Signed up for cryonics? Believe in a coming singularity? Think that mankind can create a bright future through technology? That we will eventually overcome disease and possibly even death? How do you feel about being locked in an asylum for these beliefs? So how do we determine if a person can be held against their will? I would recommend doing so only if they commit an actual crime. That's what the courts did. The fact that a lot of people left those institutions who would have been better off staying is beside the point. There is no way to know for sure which are dangerous crazy and which just have crazy ideas. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 8 05:19:25 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:19:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <200802080325.m183Pk1F025683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802080325.m183Pk1F025683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1202448009_1337@S1.cableone.net> At 07:58 PM 2/7/2008, spike wrote: snip >The whole notion of holding people in an asylum against their will on the >testimony of any quack psychiatrist has always made me squirm. How can you >be sure? There are plenty of people willing to label any libertarian as >crazy. There are even more who consider an atheist as a raving looney. >Signed up for cryonics? Believe in a coming singularity? Think that >mankind can create a bright future through technology? That we will >eventually overcome disease and possibly even death? How do you feel about >being locked in an asylum for these beliefs? spike, do you actually know of any situations like this? >So how do we determine if a person can be held against their will? I would >recommend doing so only if they commit an actual crime. That's what the >courts did. The fact that a lot of people left those institutions who would >have been better off staying is beside the point. There is no way to know >for sure which are dangerous crazy and which just have crazy ideas. I don't think you would have any problem sorting them out. Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 8 06:04:15 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:04:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meta was LA Times: Unlimited space for untold sorrow References: <710b78fc0802051606r7bbb411ckc4cbe4d47dd292d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802051827g9f41720s8574762704b06fd9@mail.gmail.com> <06e401c868cb$24cc07a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1202318502_25651@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <002501c86a19$06b5e610$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > [Lee wrote] > >> Second, those communities contain >> many many thousands of people, and the deaths of a few hundred >> are indeed demographically and economically insignificant. In >> other words, do (the rest of) the people living there believe that >> their communities are sinking? I don't think that they are >> sinking in any real historical, demographic, or economic sense. > > That's not exactly true. Gang related killings happen frequently > enough in some neighborhoods to make a serious impact. I still doubt that there is any such "serious impact". The article said This newspaper typically covers about 10% of the homicides in Los Angeles County each year. They are often the most sensational or shocking: a baby hit by a stray bullet, or a celebrity murder. But for the last year, the paper's website, latimes.com, has recorded every homicide. It was my idea. I reported on crime for the paper, and I wanted readers to see all the killings -- roughly 1,000 violent deaths each year, mostly of young Latinos and, most disproportionately, of young black men. Okay, that's 1000 deaths each year for Los Angeles county. Here is something to compare that to: In the 1960s there were about 50,000 deaths annually from automobile accidents. So that would be about 5000 deaths annually for California, and I would suppose that perhaps LA county was one-fifth of California. So we have approximately 1000 deaths annually in LA county in the 1960's (when the country probably had somewhat less population) just like 1000 deaths annually now among latino and black males. I think that anyone would have been staggered at the suggestion that demographic or economic disturbances were caused by automobile deaths. Surely that would be off by a factor of at least 10, probably 100. > This is all on a gradient from your peaceful middle middle to places > where 60% of the males die violently. What? Where does the figure of an entire 60% of the males dying violently come from? What if I were to suggest that 100% of the males die anyway? (eventually). It doesn't really change anything unless you notice a population *decline* in the population under investigation. Now yes, blacks have been, I believe, leaving LA or leaving California. But that's hardly true of the hispanic numbers, which have been greatly rising. So this too makes it extremely suspect to claim that the communities are in any tangible way "being destroyed" by these deaths. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 8 06:17:37 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:17:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <710b78fc0802062344q2601f87el92b125fed2982c30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c86a1a$6e2a0280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Emlyn writes > On 05/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> It's important right now (that many people are choosing to have few >> children), but evolution has a way of curing such "defects". Clearly >> from a biological perspective---how can anyone evade this tautology? >> ---any decision to have *fewer* viable offspring will simply result >> in those genes responsible being eliminated from the population. > > Only if it's the genes that are responsible. I would put it to you > that the genetic component in the decision to have a child (or number > 2, 3, etc) has only a very low genetic component, and a high memetic > component. Yes, it does have a memetic component. We might compare that to "fashion". But the results that obtain and stay for much longer are genetic, and there can be such a thing as a genetic resistance to damaging memes. For the hardest (for most of us) example, think about how hard it is to diet: the memes are powerful, but your geneticcally originated urges to eat overpower them in almost all cases. This is because your long ago uncles and aunts who didn't have such urges didn't leave so many descendants. Now first off, the time available is important. I quickly concede that if there is a singularity bearing down upon us, or if we take a quick hand in genetic engineering, then the long-term genetic changes I'm talking about aren't really relevant. But on the other hand, it's positively amazing how quickly any exponential change takes effect. In just two generations whatever cultural or genetic influences that caused people not to have children will be markedly reduced in frequency. > I'm surprised that no one has been talking about memes here, and it's > all focussing on genes. Genes are useful for understanding our past, > but the near past and present have surely got to be mostly about > memetic evolution on top of a mostly static genetic profile (which > builds bodies that can host memes well). It's all about timeframes. Yes, right. >> By the exact same token (which speeds the evolution) cultural evolution >> will go hand in hand. Any culture which supports *not* having extremely >> large families will become less dominant over time---because of, obviously, >> the simple, tautologous fact that more biologically successful strategies >> supplant the less successful. > > uurrrr.... we're not insects. :-) Maybe not, but the mathematics of population biology applies to us too. > At the moment it's exactly the cultures that are not dominant which > have the highest birth rates. Dominent? You mean, as having a high per capital GNP? Standing back and looking at the situation through the lens of a population biologist, that's not what matters: what matters is what fraction of the world's people have what characteristics. And over time---if we have time---the childless for whatever reason (memes or genes) will fall by the wayside. Richard Dawkins likes to use the analogy "What if anti-conception pills grew on trees?". His answer: women today would have an instictive horror for the very shapes of the pills. I assume that the readers of this list can follow the evolutionary logic. > Cultures are mostly independent of genes. They're just a set of ideas. > If you could make a memeset that successfully said "You should never > reproduce" (in fact we probably have one of those kicking around in > wealthy countries now), it could still lead to a more successful > culture over time. Success here wouldn't be defined circularly by > number of warm bodies, but by relative control of the planet's wealth. That's a good point, but still, just how long can a continuously decreasing fraction of the population continue to hold on to a continuously increasing fraction of the wealth? Something breaks sooner or later. Besides, since people come in discrete units, a continuously decreasing number of people with characteristic X leads to extinction. Lee From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 8 05:59:28 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:59:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <1202448009_1337@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802080626.m186QDPi021672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: > Farewell toAlms] > > At 07:58 PM 2/7/2008, spike wrote: > > snip > > >The whole notion of holding people in an asylum against > their will... How do you feel > >about being locked in an asylum for these beliefs? > > spike, do you actually know of any situations like this? No, it is illegal, fortunately. Probably I should have worded it as "locked up for weird beliefs," which was theoretically possible in the bad old days. > >...There is no way to know for sure which are dangerous > crazy and which just have crazy ideas. > > I don't think you would have any problem sorting them out. > > Keith Ja, but the problem isn't primarily in sorting them out. In the bad old days, people could be committed maliciously, in order to sieze their property for instance, or prevent them from leading a political campaign. I can imagine a plenty of elderly people were committed by their own children in order to speed up the inheritance, or to prevent an unfortunate (for the offspring) union. Even today, you can find old people who will say things like "if I were to take up with that young waitress, my children would have me committed." I find it odd that whenever people refer to the closing of mental institutions in the 60s and 70s, it is almost always considered a bad thing. They didn't make the patients leave. They merely realized they hadn't the legal authority to make them stay. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Feb 8 06:53:35 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:53:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] References: <200802080626.m186QDPi021672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000e01c86a1f$58ae7da0$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:59 PM > I find it odd that whenever people refer to the closing of mental > institutions in the 60s and 70s, it is almost always considered a bad > thing. > They didn't make the patients leave. They merely realized they hadn't the > legal authority to make them stay. I don't know if you live in a sizeable metropolitan area, Spike ... but if you've seen (e.g., in San Francisco, in Seattle, etc.) the number of poor souls wandering around, homeless, sick, cold and hungry (not to mention, completely out of their minds), well ... it just does not seem like a good thing. I am old enough to remember when there were no homeless people - at least, none that I can remember seeing offhand (where I grew up, in San Francisco) - although there probably were some, somewhere. The homeless population in the United States grew just as the residents of some of those institutions were being let out. There's some cause and effect there, for sure. Olga From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 07:32:29 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:02:29 +1030 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <002a01c86a1a$6e2a0280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <710b78fc0802062344q2601f87el92b125fed2982c30@mail.gmail.com> <002a01c86a1a$6e2a0280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802072332m28ce662ewdee7b5f95fb0b0a2@mail.gmail.com> On 08/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Emlyn writes > > > On 05/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > >> It's important right now (that many people are choosing to have few > >> children), but evolution has a way of curing such "defects". Clearly > >> from a biological perspective---how can anyone evade this tautology? > >> ---any decision to have *fewer* viable offspring will simply result > >> in those genes responsible being eliminated from the population. > > > > Only if it's the genes that are responsible. I would put it to you > > that the genetic component in the decision to have a child (or number > > 2, 3, etc) has only a very low genetic component, and a high memetic > > component. > > Yes, it does have a memetic component. We might compare that to > "fashion". But the results that obtain and stay for much longer are > genetic, and there can be such a thing as a genetic resistance to > damaging memes. For the hardest (for most of us) example, > think about how hard it is to diet: the memes are powerful, but > your geneticcally originated urges to eat overpower them in > almost all cases. This is because your long ago uncles and aunts > who didn't have such urges didn't leave so many descendants. Well, yes, we are not perfect memetic hosts, blank slates, not by a long shot. Our genetic makeup influences us profoundly; we are entirely made of what our genes dictate (plus whatever non-dna cryptic inheritance mechanisms lurk in the eucaryotic cell, I guess, but off topic...). So yes, dieting is hard, abstinence is hard, throwing yourself off a cliff is hard. But, our genes don't make our decisions. Our genes make a body with a brain that makes decisions day to day, with a bunch of hardwired crap in there which is about as subtle as the 3 laws of robotics, and leads to all of the tradgedy of the human condition that one might expect. The results of the genes' hamfisted and mostly broken control over the brain is exactly like the warnings our GAI enthusiast friends of the dangers of humans trying to hardwire controls into super intelligences. I digress. What I'm trying to say is, your statement "any decision to have *fewer* viable offspring will simply result in those genes responsible being eliminated from the population" makes the unfounded (and I think incorrect) assumption that there are genes responsible for the decision to have fewer children. There certainly are memes responsible for that decision. But I bet there is no significant correlation between birth control choices and genetic makeup. The result of that? No matter how many generations people make birth control choices over, genes will be entirely unaffected. But... if you know of any genes that have been found for not passing on one's genes, let me know. > Now first off, the time available is important. I quickly concede > that if there is a singularity bearing down upon us, or if we take > a quick hand in genetic engineering, then the long-term genetic > changes I'm talking about aren't really relevant. > Well indeed. There is a generally accepted idea that, slight tweaks not withstanding, we evolved for the pleistocene. That ended 10,000 years ago. Perhaps proposed genetic effects of reproductive choices would be quicker to rear their heads than this, but you're still dealing with many generations, at least maybe a couple of hundred years? > But on the other hand, it's positively amazing how quickly any > exponential change takes effect. In just two generations whatever > cultural or genetic influences that caused people not to have > children will be markedly reduced in frequency. Genetic influences perhaps, although as I've said above, I doubt they exist. Cultural influences, otoh, not necessarily. Memes compete with each other, not with human phenotypes. They should correlate weakly or not at all with genes. Thus they can damage their hosts all they like, as long as they can transmit to other hosts enough to make up for that damage. You probably could best think of them like epidemiologically. A disease that caused people not to have reproduce as successfully, that was airborne, wouldn't cause itself to die out over generations because of the lowered reproductive output of its hosts. Its success would depend on other factors, such as the efficiency of the transmission through the air, the density of populations, potentialial host's ability to resist it. > > > I'm surprised that no one has been talking about memes here, and it's > > all focussing on genes. Genes are useful for understanding our past, > > but the near past and present have surely got to be mostly about > > memetic evolution on top of a mostly static genetic profile (which > > builds bodies that can host memes well). It's all about timeframes. > > Yes, right. > > >> By the exact same token (which speeds the evolution) cultural evolution > >> will go hand in hand. Any culture which supports *not* having extremely > >> large families will become less dominant over time---because of, obviously, > >> the simple, tautologous fact that more biologically successful strategies > >> supplant the less successful. > > > > uurrrr.... we're not insects. > > :-) Maybe not, but the mathematics of population biology applies to > us too. Yes, but only in the biological domain. > > > At the moment it's exactly the cultures that are not dominant which > > have the highest birth rates. > > Dominent? You mean, as having a high per capital GNP? Standing back > and looking at the situation through the lens of a population biologist, that's > not what matters: what matters is what fraction of the world's people > have what characteristics. What also matters is where those characteristics come from. Genes or memes? Many behavioural characteristics of humans will be entirely uncorrelated with genetic makeup. > And over time---if we have time---the childless > for whatever reason (memes or genes) will fall by the wayside. Richard > Dawkins likes to use the analogy "What if anti-conception pills grew on > trees?". His answer: women today would have an instictive horror for > the very shapes of the pills. I assume that the readers of this list can follow > the evolutionary logic. But they don't grow on trees, we make them. Some memes took hold that said birth control would be useful, some people (enabled by the accumulated power of western science) made the things, and people bought them. They bought and took them in the absence of an instinctive revulsion because genetic selection cannot keep pace. Now it's true that a revulsion to the form of these contraceptives (let's say the pill) could be selected for, in that the meme for reproductive control might be more strongly resisted by human phenotypes with that revulsion already. But well before that began to take hold, you'd see the companies that make the pill changing the form to no longer match the nascent yuck instinct (or being replaced by companies that changed it). Then, that instinct, minor as it must be, would no longer be supported by selection pressure (which would now start its slow push at the new form(s)), and would disperse. Memetic selection is faaaaster than genetic selection by orders of magnitude. The only new selection such as you describe will ever influence us again is if civilisation falls (because civilisation can be viewed as being only about memes slugging it out ever more efficiently). > > Cultures are mostly independent of genes. They're just a set of ideas. > > If you could make a memeset that successfully said "You should never > > reproduce" (in fact we probably have one of those kicking around in > > wealthy countries now), it could still lead to a more successful > > culture over time. Success here wouldn't be defined circularly by > > number of warm bodies, but by relative control of the planet's wealth. > > That's a good point, but still, just how long can a continuously > decreasing fraction of the population continue to hold on to a > continuously increasing fraction of the wealth? Something breaks > sooner or later. Well, there's capitalism in a nutshell. I wonder what will happen? But on topic, there's no reason to think that the fraction of people holding these wealth-attracting ideas would decrease over time. You can have ideas that weren't passed on to you by your parents. Little or no genetic component. > Besides, since people come in discrete units, a > continuously decreasing number of people with characteristic X > leads to extinction. > > Lee No genetic component. No decrease. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 8 08:27:08 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:27:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802080626.m186QDPi021672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000e01c86a1f$58ae7da0$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <000301c86a2c$c322c440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Olga writes > I don't know if you live in a sizeable metropolitan area, Spike ... but if > you've seen (e.g., in San Francisco, in Seattle, etc.) the number of poor > souls wandering around, homeless, sick, cold and hungry (not to mention, > completely out of their minds), well ... it just does not seem like a good > thing. Indeed, it does not seem like a good thing. But it also does not seem like a good thing to accost a citizen (with your gun and your badge) and require that citizen---"for your own good"---to come along quietly so that your "problem" may be treated. Now it's one thing to accost the citizen if he or she is doing something offensive, even if by just being an eyesore. At least the citizen has a chance to know that he's been offensive some way, or that he has inconvenienced or is inconveniencing someone, and that by a simple change in overt behavior, that affront may be fixed. It's quite another to forcibly remove the citizen from going about his business because the citizen is deemed by certain psychiatrists (of legally/philosophically dubious credentials) of being incapable of successfully attending to his own needs. (On this account, I would have no problem with the "authorities" merely trying to persuade a citizen that he or she would be better off in captivity.) It wasn't so long ago that in a more socialized country, dissidents were routinely judged to be suffering from certain mental problems and hustled off to insane asylums. Lee From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Feb 8 08:55:11 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:55:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802080626.m186QDPi021672@andromeda.ziaspace.com><000e01c86a1f$58ae7da0$6601a8c0@brainiac> <000301c86a2c$c322c440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <005b01c86a30$504ac130$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "Lee Corbin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Small Request > Olga writes >> I don't know if you live in a sizeable metropolitan area, Spike ... but >> if >> you've seen (e.g., in San Francisco, in Seattle, etc.) the number of poor >> souls wandering around, homeless, sick, cold and hungry (not to mention, >> completely out of their minds), well ... it just does not seem like a >> good >> thing. > > Indeed, it does not seem like a good thing. But it also does not seem > like a good thing to accost a citizen (with your gun and your badge) > and require that citizen---"for your own good"---to come along > quietly so that your "problem" may be treated. OK, Lee you've defined the problem (and I agree with you to a large extent). What do you suggest as a solution? > Now it's one thing to accost the citizen if he or she is doing something > offensive, even if by just being an eyesore. At least the citizen has a > chance to know that he's been offensive some way, or that he has > inconvenienced or is inconveniencing someone, and that by a simple > change in overt behavior, that affront may be fixed. It's quite another > to forcibly remove the citizen from going about his business because > the citizen is deemed by certain psychiatrists (of legally/philosophically > dubious credentials) of being incapable of successfully attending to his > own needs. (On this account, I would have no problem with the > "authorities" merely trying to persuade a citizen that he or she would > be better off in captivity.) The problem often is, that by the time someone is "better of in captivity" they are usually out of broadcast range. Olga > It wasn't so long ago that in a more socialized country, dissidents were > routinely judged to be suffering from certain mental problems and > hustled off to insane asylums. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 15:38:17 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:38:17 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <200802080325.m183Pk1F025683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802080325.m183Pk1F025683@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 08/02/2008, spike wrote: > The whole notion of holding people in an asylum against their will on the > testimony of any quack psychiatrist has always made me squirm. How can you > be sure? There are plenty of people willing to label any libertarian as > crazy. There are even more who consider an atheist as a raving looney. > Signed up for cryonics? Believe in a coming singularity? Think that > mankind can create a bright future through technology? That we will > eventually overcome disease and possibly even death? How do you feel about > being locked in an asylum for these beliefs? Mental illness is, well, an illness. Odd ideas are a symptom pointing to the illness. It's the same as with any other area of medicine. Not every headache is caused by a brain tumour, and not every odd idea is caused by mental illness. It's the doctor's job to figure out which odd ideas are caused by mental illness because those can be treated with medication, while the other kind of odd ideas can't. If you give an antipsychotic to someone who has a regular religious belief, it won't make any difference. If you give an antipsychotic to someone who has developed what may even be a *less* bizarre belief than the religious one but as a result of a psychotic illness, the belief is attenuated. > So how do we determine if a person can be held against their will? I would > recommend doing so only if they commit an actual crime. That's what the > courts did. The fact that a lot of people left those institutions who would > have been better off staying is beside the point. There is no way to know > for sure which are dangerous crazy and which just have crazy ideas. The Mental Health Act in the Australian state where I work says that in order to be detained against their will, a person has to be mentally ill, pose a risk to themselves or others as a result of the mental illness, require a treatment which can reasonably be expected to help them, and be refusing to consent or unable to consent to that treatment on account of that illness. They then have to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital where they must be reviewed within 24 hrs by a psychiatrist, who will either uphold the involuntary status or discharge them. After that, they are reviewed by an independent tribunal comprising a psychiatrist, a lawyer and a community member who is neither a psychiatrist nor a lawyer. "Risk to self" is broadly construed. It applies not only in the cases where suicide is planned, but also in cases where the patient's mental illness may for example lead to financial loss or damage relationships. The crucial point is that these negative consequences must result from a *mental illness*. If I decide to give up my job, donate all my money to charity and take to the road to preach about the Apocalypse because the voices tell me to do it and I believe that the voices come from God, I hope that someone will forcibly treat me and return me to my normal mental state. But if I decide to do that just because it's what I want to do, I want to be left alone. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 8 17:56:53 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:56:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <000e01c86a1f$58ae7da0$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200802082323.m18NNgk0011063@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Olga Bourlin > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:54 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: > Farewell toAlms] > > From: "spike" ... > > They didn't make the patients leave. They merely realized > they hadn't > > the legal authority to make them stay. > > I don't know if you live in a sizeable metropolitan area, > Spike ... but if you've seen (e.g., in San Francisco, in > Seattle, etc.) the number of poor souls wandering around, > homeless, sick, cold and hungry (not to mention, completely > out of their minds), well ... it just does not seem like a good thing. Ja, I am not arguing that homelessness is good. I don't think we disagree here. I live near San Jose, I see the homeless will-work-for-fooders every day. San Jose has a homeless shelter that charges nothing, and will even feed them. But of course they can't make the homeless go there. > > I am old enough to remember when there were no homeless > people - at least, none that I can remember seeing offhand > (where I grew up, in San > Francisco) - although there probably were some, somewhere. > > The homeless population in the United States grew just as the > residents of some of those institutions were being let out. > There's some cause and effect there, for sure. Olga Ja, the homeless are they who would otherwise be in the mental institutions, this I agree. Homelessness is bad, as are addiction, laziness, mental illness, all the stuff that causes homelessness. I know what you mean about San Francisco. Certain areas of that city are downright scary because of the street people. San Jose isn't as bad, but there are certain areas one avoids. I have a solution I have advocated here before, but I will not speculate on whether such a thing could ever be made legal. If a person is homeless, then they could theoretically be charged with vagrancy. If a person is charged thrice with vagrancy, I would propose they be sentenced not to jail but to transportation, but not exile (exactly). We could set up a homeless colony in Darwin California, a former mining community, now a ghost town. http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/ca/darwin.html There are plenty of empty homes there (of sorts) so it would be transformed to a homeful community. Once the several hundred existing homes are occupied, the feds could bring in the unused FEMA trailers (the ones that the Louisianans rejected.) The now-homeful residents would not even be in prison, for they could leave if they wanted, but I propose a way to make them want to stay. Supply the homeful with food, water and all the recreational pharmaceuticals they desire, using the controlled substances seized by the constabulary. Then instead of burning the stuff (creating possible hazardous waste and air pollution), they would put it thru the bodies of volunteers, thus converting these toxins to harmless urine and recreational insanity, all out of sight of those of us who would prefer to not see it. Darwin is a (long) one-day bus ride from San Francisco. It wouldn't bother the neighbors (there aren't any). Given that incentive, I can imagine three quarters of the SF homeless might go voluntarily. We could empty our prisons of people who are there on drug charges only; parole them to Darwin. The Darwinians could even offer society a payback, indirectly, by serving as counter-examples of how to live one's life. We could discourage our own children from using recreational pharmaceuticals by showing them America's Scariest Home Videos, which would be webcams of stoner zombies from Darwin. As a parting shot, I would propose we rename the place O'Leary. spike From korpios at korpios.com Fri Feb 8 15:55:05 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:55:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802062344q2601f87el92b125fed2982c30@mail.gmail.com> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <710b78fc0802062344q2601f87el92b125fed2982c30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/7/08, Emlyn wrote: > If you could make a memeset that successfully said "You should never > reproduce" (in fact we probably have one of those kicking around in > wealthy countries now) In the English-speaking Western world, it's called the "childfree" movement. (Since I'm childfree, I had a vasectomy last year ? and I was only 28. Best thing I ever did for myself.) ^_^ > it could still lead to a more successful culture over time. "Could", perhaps, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case ? in America, at least. How many national-level politicians, or Fortune 500 executives, get very far without having children? From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 18:08:17 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:08:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae, was: Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802072332m28ce662ewdee7b5f95fb0b0a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <200802040309.m143902b009195@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <064401c866ec$646e89e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <065001c8673f$d0d28fc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <710b78fc0802062344q2601f87el92b125fed2982c30@mail.gmail.com> <002a01c86a1a$6e2a0280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <710b78fc0802072332m28ce662ewdee7b5f95fb0b0a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802081008w508d7abeuea25f98682fe6af4@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 8, 2008 2:32 AM, Emlyn wrote: > responsible for that decision. But I bet there is no significant > correlation between birth control choices and genetic makeup. The > result of that? No matter how many generations people make birth > control choices over, genes will be entirely unaffected. > ### I strongly suspect this is a losing bet here. The variance of the vast majority, if not all, of human behaviors is at least in part explained by genetic influences. Most trivially, low IQ individuals (mostly a genetically distinct group) do make different birth control choices than high IQ ones. There are genetic differences in religiosity, which implies that after exposure to religious indoctrination regarding birth control humans of the same IQ will still differ in their decisions. The strength of paternal and maternal instincts is most definitely influenced by genetic factors, so again genes could influence birth control by modulating the degree of reinforcement received after the first child. ---------------------------------------------- > But... if you know of any genes that have been found for not passing > on one's genes, let me know. > ### There is an enormous catalog of genetic defects with profound impact on fertility. ----------------------------------- >There is a generally accepted idea that, slight tweaks > not withstanding, we evolved for the pleistocene. That ended 10,000 > years ago. ### This is no longer believed to be the case. Now there is sufficient evidence to believe that human evolution actually accelerated over the last 5,000 years, by one estimate by a factor of 100 compared to prehistoric times. ------------------------------ Perhaps proposed genetic effects of reproductive choices > would be quicker to rear their heads than this, but you're still > dealing with many generations, at least maybe a couple of hundred > years? ### Not really. If a gene under new environmental conditions (e.g. availability of contraceptive pills and vasectomy) leads to a fitness of 0 in both men and women, then in about 50 years it will be eliminated from the gene pool, no matter how high the initial frequency. If there is a difference in fitness between two groups of only a factor of 2, then with every 25 years or so the relative sizes of the populations will change by a factor of 2. ------------------------ > > Now it's true that a revulsion to the form of these contraceptives > (let's say the pill) could be selected for, in that the meme for > reproductive control might be more strongly resisted by human > phenotypes with that revulsion already. But well before that began to > take hold, you'd see the companies that make the pill changing the > form to no longer match the nascent yuck instinct (or being replaced > by companies that changed it). Then, that instinct, minor as it must > be, would no longer be supported by selection pressure (which would > now start its slow push at the new form(s)), and would disperse. ### Only if the revulsion was to the form of the pill, and not to the effect. The reason for the commercial success of contraception is not marketing but the fact that it fills a need. Most humans like to have sex but many don't like children, the work, responsibility, and loss of freedom associated with having them. Contraception lets them get what they want but this reduces their fitness. What if some men and women evolved who just love to have children - not sex, children? These would not be interested in contraception. ------------------------------- > Memetic selection is faaaaster than genetic selection by orders of > magnitude. The only new selection such as you describe will ever > influence us again is if civilisation falls (because civilisation can > be viewed as being only about memes slugging it out ever more > efficiently). ### Here we come to the interesting part. In the not-too-distant future the distinction between genes and memes will disappear. Uploading and/or the AI singularity will result in a population explosion of entities that will be capable of rewriting their own minds as completely as if new genes were used to remake a brain. Trillions of minds will be generated and (self-) deleted. I find it fascinating to speculate about the outcome. I have previously written here about the possible impact on the average per mind wealth - I disagreed with Anders who defended the notion that future humans will be much wealthier per capita than we are. I would not be at all surprised if uploads devoted so much resources to replication that they would end up extremely impoverished per capita (i.e. owning nothing but the software they are written on, and renting all hardware), although mind-bogglingly numerous. On the other hand, things could turn out differently. Let me first discuss "wealth". There are certain material resources that improve survival of those who control them. The survival of Masai herdsmen depends to a large extent on the number of cows they own, and thus cows are how a Masai would measure wealth. Owning money always did, and to a lesser extent, still does improve survival by an indirect effect on the behavior of humans around the owner. By and large, by "wealth" we mean "resources whose accumulation improves survival" (the story is more complicated but we can leave that aside). The poor-upload scenario assumes that accumulation of resources would not greatly improve the relative fitness of an upload. Let's say that most resources in the upload world are derived from the work of the minds themselves - new ideas, new information are important, while acquisition of matter (carbon, silicon, space) represent a small fraction of resources produced, in direct analogy to farming today. In this situation the amount of resources produced would scale with the number of minds. A mind would not be able to significantly out-accumulate other minds of similar power. Copying oneself (or reproducing in other ways, perhaps analogous to sexual exchange of information) would not decrease the resources at your disposal and the most prolific minds (in the replicative sense) would come to dominate the society by their sheer numbers. Here the only resource you control is your own mind, and this is sufficient to survive and replicate. But what if important resources could be better produced by extensive methods, e.g. taking over a cubic mile of computronium and running calculations not involving the presence of other minds, such as million-dimensional simulations of false-vacuum decay paths? Then there would be a viable strategy consisting of acquisition and accumulation of computronium without making many copies of yourself. As long as you have the means of defending such resources, your economic position in the upload world would be good, and your survival would be supported by the resources you control. There would not be much evolutionary pressure towards massive replication, and per capita wealth differences could be enormous. In practice I would think that there would be an equilibrium of various strategies, depending on the details of application. Some tasks, such as dealing with quickly mutating viral entities, would be dealt with by swarms of small, independent and quickly replicating minds while large scale integration of data could be the domain of very long-lived entities controlling large resources. ------------------------------------- > > That's a good point, but still, just how long can a continuously > > decreasing fraction of the population continue to hold on to a > > continuously increasing fraction of the wealth? Something breaks > > sooner or later. > > Well, there's capitalism in a nutshell. I wonder what will happen? But > on topic, there's no reason to think that the fraction of people > holding these wealth-attracting ideas would decrease over time. ### As I discussed above, it all depends. And, BTW, capitalism actually leads under most human conditions to a continuously increasing fraction of workers controlling continuously increasing wealth.... but this is a whole different story. Rafal From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 9 00:59:56 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:59:56 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <000301c86a2c$c322c440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802080626.m186QDPi021672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000e01c86a1f$58ae7da0$6601a8c0@brainiac> <000301c86a2c$c322c440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 08/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Now it's one thing to accost the citizen if he or she is doing something > offensive, even if by just being an eyesore. At least the citizen has a > chance to know that he's been offensive some way, or that he has > inconvenienced or is inconveniencing someone, and that by a simple > change in overt behavior, that affront may be fixed. It's quite another > to forcibly remove the citizen from going about his business because > the citizen is deemed by certain psychiatrists (of legally/philosophically > dubious credentials) of being incapable of successfully attending to his > own needs. (On this account, I would have no problem with the > "authorities" merely trying to persuade a citizen that he or she would > be better off in captivity.) But what if the person is acting in a self-destructive way due to a disease one of the symptoms of which is that the afflicted cannot see that he has a disease? There are many diseases that can do this: head injury, brain tumours, dementia, thyroid disorders, electrolyte disturbances, as well as the psychotic and affective disorders. Recreational drug use can have the same effect, but in that case the person makes a choice to start using the drug, and if he is later driven by addiction usually recognises that it is addiction, even if he does not want to or is unable to do anything about it. But no-one chooses to have a head injury or develop schizophrenia. > It wasn't so long ago that in a more socialized country, dissidents were > routinely judged to be suffering from certain mental problems and > hustled off to insane asylums. Obviously that was a misuse of psychiatry, just as amputating healthy dissidents' limbs would have been a misuse of surgery. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 9 01:49:32 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:49:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802090216.m192GGVH022938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Stathis Papaioannou ... > > The crucial point is that these negative consequences must > result from a *mental illness*. If I decide to give up my > job, donate all my money to charity and take to the road to > preach about the Apocalypse because the voices tell me to do > it and I believe that the voices come from God, I hope that > someone will forcibly treat me and return me to my normal > mental state. Cool, thanks Stathis for summing up in a few words exactly where you and I disagree. If I did the above, it doesn't matter where I think the voices are coming from. I might well some day just decided I hate my 9 to 5, and decide that I really like some random charity (highly unlikely, and I do recognize if I ever gave away my money, that would be a clear sign of stark raving insanity) and it doesn't matter what road I go on or what I preach there. I want everyone to keep their evolution-damn paws off of me regardless, even if it is for my own good, and I don't want anyone having the legal authority to do anything against my will, even if my will is clearly crazed. I accept the risk. Others cannot hear the voices in my head. > But if I decide to do that just because it's > what I want to do, I want to be left alone... Stathis Papaioannou Ja, my thoughts exactly, and this is where you and I agree totally. Pal, you and I live in a world where everyone else *really is* crazy. {8-] spike From moulton at moulton.com Sat Feb 9 02:52:51 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:52:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Homelessness [was Re: A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms]] In-Reply-To: <200802082323.m18NNgk0011063@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802082323.m18NNgk0011063@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1202525571.780.1101.camel@localhost.localdomain> I have changed the Subject since we have drifted far off of my original message. Spike I am assuming that you are serious in your comments and not trying for an ironic spoof. If that is the case then I feel I must disagree with you on a few points. If you were trying to be facetious then my remarks might be useful for anyone who would be taking you seriously. On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 09:56 -0800, spike wrote: > Ja, I am not arguing that homelessness is good. I don't think we disagree > here. I live near San Jose, I see the homeless will-work-for-fooders every > day. One should not assume that someone soliciting for charity is necessarily homeless. There may be correlation but I do not think there is a logical connection. > San Jose has a homeless shelter that charges nothing, and will even > feed them. But of course they can't make the homeless go there. According to news articles in the local (San Jose) paper the entire issue of shelters and shelter usage is complicated and individual usage may depend on a variety of factors. Further the term 'homeless' can mean different things to different people; for example I cite in part: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/11302.html 11302. General definition of homeless individual (a) In general For purposes of this chapter, the term ?homeless? or ?homeless individual or homeless person? includes? (1) an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is? (A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings. Note that I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on the Internet or on TV. However the above definition appears as the first item appeared for a Google search for: +homeless +definition. I suspect many people commenting on this topic had a different definition in mind. My point is that for something this complex it is important to check for the current statutory as well as common usages in order to avoid misunderstandings. Further I suggest the we remember that for a person to be in one of the following categories does not necessarily mean that the person is in one or more of the others: - homeless - mentally ill - unemployed - user of illegal or controlled substances > I know what you mean about San Francisco. Certain areas of that city are > downright scary because of the street people. San Jose isn't as bad, but > there are certain areas one avoids. Well as a long time San Jose resident I think this needs a bit of elaboration. First while it true that there are some neighborhoods with more crime than others it is important to remember that the most of the major crime such as murder or serious battery that I have seen reported is related to gangs and turf wars over drug distribution. We should remember that San Jose usually ranks at or near the top of safety for large cities. This is not say that San Jose is crime free but rather that we need to make clear and well informed descriptions of what we are discussing. It is my opinion that to understand crime in San Jose one needs to understand how much is due to gang violence and related phenomena. I can tell you that personally as a San Jose resident my concern is not about the homeless as a cause of crime but rather the consequences of the 'war on drugs' and what I perceive to be a criminal justice system with serious flaws and other factors. > I have a solution I have advocated here before, but I will not speculate on > whether such a thing could ever be made legal. If a person is homeless, > then they could theoretically be charged with vagrancy. Not necessarily. Again this depends on how we define our terms. Consider for example a person who has not much money and has arrived in the area and found work at with a janitorial agency cleaning offices from 6:00PM to 2:30AM. What if this person is saving up money for first and last and deposit for a small apartment and so is living in their car? Are they homeless? Are they a vagrant? Do you really want to arrest them? Also consider that this person is contributing to the economy whenever they buy a sandwich at Togos or a new shirt. And I while I am not much of a fan of taxes I will point out for the benefit of those who are that part of what this person is spending winds up as part of the tax base to support the sidewalk upon which he treads and thus there might be reason consider the moral questions involved when categorizing someone as a vagrant and arresting them. > If a person is > charged thrice with vagrancy, I would propose they be sentenced not to jail > but to transportation, but not exile (exactly). I strongly suggest that you read up on how historically vagrancy laws have been used to harass minority persons (race, ideology, etc). I am not suggesting it is necessarily as bad now as it has been in the past however it is a point worth remembering. > We could set up a homeless > colony in Darwin California, a former mining community, now a ghost town. > > http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/ca/darwin.html > > There are plenty of empty homes there (of sorts) so it would be transformed > to a homeful community. Once the several hundred existing homes are > occupied, the feds could bring in the unused FEMA trailers (the ones that > the Louisianans rejected.) Since I know you are such a kind and caring person I am sure that you screen out the trailers rejected due to contamination with excessive formaldehyde and other substances. > The now-homeful residents would not even be in > prison, for they could leave if they wanted, but I propose a way to make > them want to stay. This seems at odds with your comment above about arresting them to send them there. What if they are arrested after having been there already and say that they do not want to go back. Perhaps this is a bit more complicated than it first seems. > Supply the homeful with food, water and all the > recreational pharmaceuticals they desire, using the controlled substances > seized by the constabulary. It should be noted that the chemical which causes a lot (perhaps even most problems) is alcohol. So are you proposing that the government supply beer, wine, vodka, scotch, etc. And if I ever have misfortune to get caught up in one of the sweeps please remember that while I can tolerate a generic Two Buck Chuck red I would really prefer a nice old-vine Zinfandel. ... > We could empty our > prisons of people who are there on drug charges only; parole them to Darwin. It should be pointed out that there are persons who had jobs and homes and then lost it not due to drugs but due to drug law enforcement. They might not want to stay in Darwin; they might want to move back to the place where they had friends and family. > The Darwinians could even offer society a payback, indirectly, by serving as > counter-examples of how to live one's life. On the flip side how about putting in high speed internet and seeing what develops. Remember there are people in prison for drug offenses who might be able to continue or develop employment and other goals. Not everyone in jail for a drug offense is a loser, consider: http://www.reason.com/news/show/35695.html > We could discourage our own > children from using recreational pharmaceuticals by showing them America's > Scariest Home Videos, which would be webcams of stoner zombies from Darwin. Do you have any evidence that this sort of thing has had long term positive benefit in the past? Everything that I can recall reading indicates that it would probably not be very effective. > As a parting shot, I would propose we rename the place O'Leary. I have a parting comment. Spike I have known you for many years and I have considered you to be an intelligent person as well as kind and considerate. I do not think the solution you purpose is your best work. I am confident that you can do better. Fred > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 9 04:12:27 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:12:27 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <200802090216.m192GGVH022938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802090216.m192GGVH022938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 09/02/2008, spike wrote: > Cool, thanks Stathis for summing up in a few words exactly where you and I > disagree. If I did the above, it doesn't matter where I think the voices > are coming from. I might well some day just decided I hate my 9 to 5, and > decide that I really like some random charity (highly unlikely, and I do > recognize if I ever gave away my money, that would be a clear sign of stark > raving insanity) and it doesn't matter what road I go on or what I preach > there. I want everyone to keep their evolution-damn paws off of me > regardless, even if it is for my own good, and I don't want anyone having > the legal authority to do anything against my will, even if my will is > clearly crazed. I accept the risk. Others cannot hear the voices in my > head. What if you found this note from someone you care about: "Dad, I realised yesterday that I am Jesus Christ and have to save the world. It came to me when I saw the traffic light change from red to green, a sign from God that it is now time to begin my mission. But of course I will have to do something to prove to the world that I am not crazy. Therefore, I have gone to the new 40 storey building in the centre of town where I will jump off the top floor and land on my head on the ground below, completely unharmed. Please don't worry about me or try to stop me, for I have never been more certain of anything in my whole life." Would you resist having your son treated forcibly in the knowledge that (a) he is crazy, (b) he will certainly die as a result of his craziness, and (c) if he had a few days of antipsychotic treatment he would return to normal and be utterly aghast at what he had been about to do, and what you had been about to let him do? And if you were wondering, I have put this example together from real cases I have seen. -- Stathis Papaioannou From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 9 04:24:25 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:24:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802081008w508d7abeuea25f98682fe6af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > That's a good point, but still, just how long can a continuously > > > decreasing fraction of the population continue to hold on to a > > > continuously increasing fraction of the wealth? Something breaks > > > sooner or later. > > > > Well, there's capitalism in a nutshell. I wonder what will happen? > But > > on topic, there's no reason to think that the fraction of people > > holding these wealth-attracting ideas would decrease over time. > > ### As I discussed above, it all depends. > > And, BTW, capitalism actually leads under most human conditions to a > continuously increasing fraction of workers controlling continuously > increasing wealth.... but this is a whole different story. I would prefer that this important discussion to not devolve along party lines. Therefore I will not forward any argument. I simply invite Rafal and anyone else who is interested examine some data and attempt to assess it as objectively as possible. First a quick introduction to economic indicators of wealth distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient In a nutshell: A Gini coeficient of 0 is indicative of a completely equal distribution of wealth (or anything really) i.e. everybody has the exact same amount. A Gini coefficient of 1 indicates complete inequality of wealth i.e. one person has it all. Now the data: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie6.html In a nutshell: In 1967, when the U.S. Government first started keeping track, the Gini coeeficient for nationwide household incomes was .399 and in 2001 it was .466 for an approximate average growth rate of +.002 per year. If this trend continues then, in approximately 264 years, one person will own everything or sometime along the way, as Emlyn pointed out, "something will give". Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 9 04:59:12 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:59:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Homelessness [was Re: A Small Request [was Re:Impressive book: Farewell toAlms]] In-Reply-To: <1202525571.780.1101.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200802090459.m194xcDJ000842@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Fred C. Moulton >... So are you > proposing that the government supply beer, wine, vodka, > scotch, etc. And if I ever have misfortune to get caught up > in one of the sweeps please remember that while I can > tolerate a generic Two Buck Chuck red I would really prefer a > nice old-vine Zinfandel... {8^D I am told that grain alcohol can be distilled for about 4 bucks a gallon. > What if this person is saving up money for first and last and deposit for a small apartment and so is living in their car? Are they homeless? Are they a vagrant? Not at all. Cars make an adequate temporary home. Most of us have camped overnight in a car, or at least spent a night or two in one at some time in our lives. In the summer of 1983 I would gladly have lived in a car, had I owned one at the time. Unfortunately one cannot live in a motorcycle, which is all I had then. A car would have been way better than my 12 dollar a week aparrr... well, not apartment exactly; my 12 dollar a week wooden box in a garage in Seattle that I lived in at the time. One can even have a toilet of sorts: just do it like we used to do when car camping: two cinder blocks with a plastic trash bag. One can shower at the local YMCA. You can get food still perfectly OK in dented cans from out back of the grocery stores in the... umm... do let me stop there. > ... > > We could empty our > > prisons of people who are there on drug charges only; > parole them to Darwin. > > It should be pointed out that there are persons who had jobs > and homes and then lost it not due to drugs but due to drug > law enforcement. They might not want to stay in Darwin; they > might want to move back to the place where they had friends > and family... Roger that, and good thinking. I have long thought that drug enforcement as is done currently is a disaster. I am looking for an alternative to that. We should keep Darwin/O'Leary as a place for volunteers only. We talk about libertarianism here. I would propose O'Leary as a libertarian experiment. No outside law enforcement there at all. The locals could set up their own laws and arrange their own enforcement to their own tastes. > > I have a parting comment. Spike I have known you for many > years and I have considered you to be an intelligent person > as well as kind and considerate. I do not think the solution > you purpose is your best work. > I am confident that you can do better. > > Fred > Thanks for that Fred. The post was intended as thought-provoking partial jest, but here is what I really mean: society could have and should have an out. Dr. O'Leary urged us to "tune in, turn on, drop out." Well, suppose I take the doctor's advice. Where is this out? I understand east-west, north-south, up-down and even future-past, but where exactly is out? Out of society? If he meant that, I agree in that there should be an out somewhere. We have used Alaska as a makeshift out, but I can see a lot of disadvantages, such as those long bitter winters would kill a lot of harmless stoners. Darwin is down in a hole, a narrowish valley so it gets some shelter from the winds. It's elevation is down around 2300 feet, so isn't high desert, and at that southerly 36 degree latitude it seldom freezes. It does get hotter than hell down there, but not as hot as the nearby Panamint Valley, which the Charles Manson gang used as their out. It isn't fatal hot, just uncomfortable hot, and even then only for a couple months. It already has a deep well and a highway and even a railroad, so it could be easily supplied with the basics (two buck chuck, no nice old-vine Zinfandel, sorry Fred. {8^D) It is near enough to civilization but not too near. The land is practically worthless, so it wouldn't cost too much to convert. We could make an out there. We could use it for at least the addicted homeless. The rest of the homeless we would need to find another solution, but I see O'Leary as a workable partial solution. spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Feb 9 05:28:20 2008 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:28:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <25DA3570-7723-4B01-B404-BDE93BF27D88@ceruleansystems.com> On Feb 8, 2008, at 8:24 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > In a nutshell: > In 1967, when the U.S. Government first started keeping track, the > Gini > coeeficient for nationwide household incomes was .399 and in 2001 it > was .466 for an approximate average growth rate of +.002 per year. If > this trend continues then, in approximately 264 years, one person will > own everything or sometime along the way, as Emlyn pointed out, > "something will give". Did you read and understand the limitations of the Gini coefficient with respect to predicting properties of an economy? That coefficient does not mean what many people interpret it to mean and it should probably be higher than it is if the economy was better structured and stronger (though I have not computed that -- I am guessing based on what I know of US economic structure). That said, we should *expect* it to correctly and healthily slowly converge on 1 in an economy where a) intelligence is an increasingly important market differentiator and 2) machine intelligence -- even low-grade versions -- start to play a factor in the economy. Intelligence, when unhindered, will strongly bias the Gini coefficient toward the high side. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 9 05:54:25 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:54:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Stathis Papaioannou > ... > > ...I don't want anyone having the legal authority to do > > anything against my will, even if my will is clearly > crazed. I accept > > the risk. Others cannot hear the voices in my head. > > What if you found this note from someone you care about: > > "Dad, I realised yesterday that I am Jesus Christ...I have gone to the new 40 storey building in the > centre of town where I will jump off the top floor..." > > Would you resist having your son treated forcibly in the > knowledge that (a) he is crazy, (b) he will certainly die as > a result of his craziness, and (c) if he had a few days of > antipsychotic treatment he would return to normal and be > utterly aghast at what he had been about to do, and what you > had been about to let him do?...Stathis Papaioannou Ja, tough questions indeed. In that case I would likely try to have him apprehended by the authorities, who could only hold him temporarily. If he left a note, I think they can hold patients for a short time. Then I would likely round up my brother and Shelly's brothers, and take and hold him at the ranch in Oregon, against his will if necessary, recognizing that I would be breaking the law in so doing, and hope for the best. I would make use of whatever medical help was available. During his captivity, I would point out that Jesus Christ didn't jump. Matthew chapter 4 verses 5-7 sayeth: 5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Might or might not work, but I won't always be with him, as I am 46 years his senior. You can be sure I would try everything I know. If a person wants to die, there is no practical way of stopping them. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Feb 9 06:48:27 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 22:48:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <017501c86ae7$c83d0150$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] > If a person wants to die, there is no practical way of stopping them. That reminds me, I watched the documentary "The Bridge" a couple of days ago. Very creepy and disturbing. The commentary of friends and family about some of the people who died (due to schizophrenia, depression, joblessness - all sorts of things) was eye opening for me (although it still didn't help me understand mental illness or addiction). This is just a blurb about the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8muNsj1oUpY This is not a documentary for everyone, that's for sure. I was simply curious about it (it finally came up on my Netflix queue). Having spent a good part of my life in San Francisco, I still tend to gravitate to documentaries and movies about my former American home town. (From what I've read, suicides off of the Golden Gate Bridge have actually gone up quite a bit since this movie was made - mainly due to more difficult economic times many people have had to endure.) Olag From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Feb 9 07:02:08 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:02:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080209005836.024e1748@satx.rr.com> At 09:54 PM 2/8/2008 -0800, Stathis wrote: >If a person wants to die, there is no practical way of stopping them. As Stathis, who does this sort of thing for a living, pointed out, of course there is. Antipsychotic meds (or ETC) can relieve the madness or depression that prompts suicidal ideation. Doesn't always work, but it's hard to get people to take meds when they're roaming around the streets shitting in their pants. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Feb 9 07:18:53 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:18:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] oops! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080209005836.024e1748@satx.rr.com> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080209005836.024e1748@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080209011708.023fd700@satx.rr.com> At 01:02 AM 2/9/2008 -0600, I carelessly wrote in the wrong place: >At 09:54 PM 2/8/2008 -0800, Stathis wrote: > > >If a person wants to die, there is no practical way of stopping them. Damnation! It's too late to be writing posts. Spike said that, not Stathis! Sorry. Damien Broderick From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Feb 9 07:31:50 2008 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 23:31:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <017501c86ae7$c83d0150$6601a8c0@brainiac> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <017501c86ae7$c83d0150$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <23105C7A-4EAB-4B14-9986-C599C09D66A1@ceruleansystems.com> On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > This is not a documentary for everyone, that's for sure. I was simply > curious about it (it finally came up on my Netflix queue). Having > spent a > good part of my life in San Francisco, I still tend to gravitate to > documentaries and movies about my former American home town. (From > what > I've read, suicides off of the Golden Gate Bridge have actually gone > up > quite a bit since this movie was made - mainly due to more difficult > economic times many people have had to endure.) Eh? Say what? The local economy has been in non-stop growth mode since that movie was made by almost any metric you can think of. The assertion that there was a significant increase in suicides after the movie due to major new economic hardship is absurd and makes it hard to take you seriously. Whatever it is you "read", it is pure unadulterated bullshit of the finest quality. That assertion is so contrafactual that I am at a loss for words. Where do you get your news and why have you not noticed its blatant shortcomings before? Blind uncritical acceptance of its nominal truth? It is mind boggling. J. Andrew Rogers From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Feb 9 08:50:19 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:50:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><017501c86ae7$c83d0150$6601a8c0@brainiac> <23105C7A-4EAB-4B14-9986-C599C09D66A1@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <01af01c86af8$cd229b10$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "J. Andrew Rogers" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:31 PM > > Eh? Say what? The local economy has been in non-stop growth mode > since that movie was made by almost any metric you can think of. The > assertion that there was a significant increase in suicides after the > movie due to major new economic hardship is absurd and makes it hard > to take you seriously. Whatever it is you "read", it is pure > unadulterated bullshit of the finest quality. I'm sorry - didn't mean to sound as if I knew - I don't know. I also read that part of the reason why there may have been an increase in suicides off the Golden Gate Bridge was due to the talk of putting up barriers to prevent suicides (and so people are doing it while they can, so to speak). I don't doubt a lot of what I read is unadulterated bullshit. La merde hit le ventilateur big time some eight years ago, and we've all been slimed with it ever since: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/295870 http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/01/31/army-suicides-up-20/ > That assertion is so contrafactual that I am at a loss for words. > Where do you get your news and why have you not noticed its blatant > shortcomings before? Blind uncritical acceptance of its nominal truth? > It is mind boggling. Again, I apologize. I was trying to recall something I had read - just speaking off the cuff. Not meant as a dissertation. However, I have been observing how for the last 20+ years the middle class has been eroding - haven't you? Certainly, many people (and businesses) have been on a "non-stop growth mode," but many people also populate the other side of the divide. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://goodfelloweb.com/layabouts/income_gap.html http://www.njpp.org/rpt_njpull.html Olga From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 9 09:27:50 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:27:50 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 09/02/2008, spike wrote: > In that case I would likely try to have him apprehended by the authorities, > who could only hold him temporarily. If he left a note, I think they can > hold patients for a short time. Then I would likely round up my brother and > Shelly's brothers, and take and hold him at the ranch in Oregon, against his > will if necessary, recognizing that I would be breaking the law in so doing, > and hope for the best. I would make use of whatever medical help was > available. > > During his captivity, I would point out that Jesus Christ didn't jump. > Matthew chapter 4 verses 5-7 sayeth: > > 5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him > on a pinnacle of the temple, > > 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: > for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in > their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot > against a stone. > > 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the > Lord thy God. It won't work, because the nature of a delusion is that it bypasses reasoning altogether - any sort of reasoning, even faulty reasoning. The belief is instilled fully formed into the brain by the disease process. A delusion is in general more certain to the deluded person than the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow or even that 2 + 2 = 4 is certain to you. It is not different in degree from an ordinary belief, it is different in kind. > Might or might not work, but I won't always be with him, as I am 46 years > his senior. Hopefully you will always be with him, despite this age difference. > You can be sure I would try everything I know. If a person > wants to die, there is no practical way of stopping them. Yes, but if they want to die due to a treatable mental illness, you can stop them wanting to die. The problem is, mentally ill people may refuse to believe that they are mentally ill no matter what evidence is presented to them, because lack of insight is one of the symptoms of the illness. Everyone else can see that they are ill, and they can see that they were ill in retrospect once they have recovered, but they can't see it whilst in the middle of it, no matter how intelligent and normally rational they are. It's like trying to use a mirror to see what you look like with your eyes closed. Many people don't believe this and think that if they started developing psychotic symptoms they would realise what was going on, but they are proved tragically wrong when it happens to them. It is this deficit in insight that makes mental illness different from other illnesses, and why almost every legislature makes provisions for the involuntary treatment of the mentally ill under at least some circumstances. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 9 11:25:35 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 11:25:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <25DA3570-7723-4B01-B404-BDE93BF27D88@ceruleansystems.com> References: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <25DA3570-7723-4B01-B404-BDE93BF27D88@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2008 5:28 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > Did you read and understand the limitations of the Gini coefficient > with respect to predicting properties of an economy? That coefficient > does not mean what many people interpret it to mean and it should > probably be higher than it is if the economy was better structured and > stronger (though I have not computed that -- I am guessing based on > what I know of US economic structure). > > That said, we should *expect* it to correctly and healthily slowly > converge on 1 in an economy where a) intelligence is an increasingly > important market differentiator and 2) machine intelligence -- even > low-grade versions -- start to play a factor in the economy. > Intelligence, when unhindered, will strongly bias the Gini coefficient > toward the high side. > The 'rich get richer' is a worldwide trend. I have read that in the US 1% of the population now control 40% of the nation's wealth. So the economy could well be booming while much of the population was becoming poorer (relatively, within their own country). BillK From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 9 15:54:53 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:54:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request Message-ID: Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com >The problem is, mentally ill people may >refuse to believe that they are mentally ill no matter what evidence >is presented to them, because lack of insight is one of the symptoms >of the illness. Everyone else can see that they are ill, and they can >see that they were ill in retrospect once they have recovered, but >they can't see it whilst in the middle of it, no matter how >intelligent and normally rational they are. While they are in the middle of it, I would agree. There's glimpses when they are passing in and out of mental illness, however, that something is not quite right. I don't know how long that phase is, though, if it is long enough to be useful to the family and friends around to do be able to do something constructive with the ill person in that time. BTW, we had this conversation before, but the extropy archives don't go back to 2000. I'll paste several posts from my records. -------------------------September 9, 2000 To: extropians at extropy.org From: Amara Graps Subject: Re: Homeless From: Barbara Lamar , Fri, 8 Sep 2000 >>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:40:02 EDT QueeneMUSE at aol.com writes: >> To be honest, these folks don't KNOW they need it, >> and often they *like* themselves the way they are... so *someone* >> has to take them in and get them started, because they haven't the mental >> faculties to do >> it themselves! >It makes me uncomfortable to think that if I happen to be sitting out on >a curb looking weird and unkempt I could be forcibly picked up and >injected with psychoactive drugs. So there are people who like >themselves as they are, are happy as they are, and are not hurting >anyone.. (You know what? This is more than I can say for a lot of solid >citizens. ) It makes me uncomfortable too. Let's further this discussion because there's a lot of issues involved. I think that this is a good arena to think creatively of some solutions that lie between the "forcibly picked up" route, and the "leave them alone" route. Let's assume that that person is acting and talking in ways that are "harmful" (huge spectrum of meaning from harrassment and verbal abuse to others, destroying one's own life goals, etc.), and at the same time that person: 1) is convinced that they are perfectly fine (as Nadia says: they *like* themselves the way they are), and 2) are good at convincing any social worker or neighborhood policeperson that they are fine. If you are unsuccessful at convincing them to voluntarily admit themselves to a hospital/institution, then, today, there is very little that one can do. You would have to petition the courts, in order to have the person put in a hospital, and it's often a messy and long process. If the police stepped in and determined that the ill person is a danger to himself/herself or others, then that person is put in jail. Next, a psychiatric evaluation is performed and that person is held for a few days. If the person is determined to be ok, then he/she is put back on the streets. If not, then he/she is put in the hospital. It might be better for the ill person and the family members/friends if the involuntary committment process could be changed so that friends and family members are given a larger role and the random-ignorant-policeperson given a smaller role. That might might make the process less vulnerable to mistakes or to overzealous actions by single individuals. For example, if, 3 family members and 3 friends/colleagues/neighbors could give statements about the mental state of ill person, then perhaps the committment process would be quicker and less cumbersome. And if the forced hospital stay was just a few days (until other tests and evaluations determined that more time was needed), instead of weeks (with that person being lost in the beaucratic maze), then less mistakes might be made too. Any solution that weighs in favor of ("individually adapted to") the ill person's local environment would be better than all-encompassing laws and mandates. Another issue involved here is what constitutes an "mental illness". In the 1960s a well-known libertarian and psychoanalyst named Thomaz Szaz held that mental ilness was a social constract rather than a symptom of disease. (_The Myth of Mental Illness_) His view was that the mentally ill person is expressing their difficulty with a situation in their own life, in their "own language", which might or might not be understandable by any other person around. His theory was widely circulated, and is discarded now. As much as I respect Szaz for his other opinions and ideas, and I offer that he may have explanations for some of what he's seen in the psychiatry field, he's wrong in big ways with some of the diagnosed mental illnesses. For example, the evidence that schizophrenia is a brain disease is overwhelming. Probably most people here (including myself) would cringe at the idea of "forced 'anything'", but in the situation of a person with an acute mental illness (such as schizophrenia), the benefit to the person and friend/family is overwhelmingly large. The hospitalization accomplishes several things. It enables the health professionals to observe the person in a controlled setting, so that other medical illnesses, that might be causing the symptoms can be ruled out. If medication is started, then the medical staff can watch for side effects. Also the hospital stay offers the family and friends a brief rest from what is often extremely stressful and harrowing days/nights leading up to the ill person's hospital stay. I know that it's dangerous when oppressive governments see mental institutions as a convenient tool with which to supress "indesirable" voices in the population. The former Soviet Union was probably best known for using mental institutions this way. Because the concept of forced institutionalism is such an fragile (and emotional and dangerous) concept, it's a perfect example for libertarians and anarchists to think about and address in order to be prepared for the future when we have more minimal government (call me an optimist). To close this note, some of you may or may not know that John Forbes Nash, Jr., the mathematical genius and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1994, for work in "Game Theory") was a paranoid schizophrenic for about 30-40 years of his life. He received his Nobel prize when he was approaching age 70, for work that he did in his 20s and 30s, with long periods of his illness in-between. He benefited from early traditional antipsychotic drugs (and he refused any drugs after 1970), but for him, it was an episodic illness, with periods of acute psychosis followed by periods of relative calm when the symptoms diminished dramatically. He was involuntarily committed several times by family members or colleagues, he never voluntarily went to the hospital. I wonder alot what his life would have been like if he was not been involuntarily committed to those institutions by the people who cared about him. His years from age ~60 show his illness in a dramatic remission and his colleagues call him "recovered". He is perhaps, one of the rare schizophrenic cases that goes into remission. (The initial diagnosis by doctors of his illness can be trusted.) He believes that he willed his own recovery: "Gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort." The book: _A Beautiful Mind_ by Sylvia Nasar is a really nice story about his life. Amara -------------------------September 12, 2000 To: extropians at extropy.org From: Amara Graps Subject: Mad brain research (was: Homeless) From: CurtAdams at aol.com, Sat, 9 Sep 2000 >That schizophrenia strikes overwhelmingly during a relatively short window in >late teens/early twenties is interesting. Right. In the U.S., three-quarters of those who get schizophrenia do so between the ages of 17 and 25. Having an initial onset before age 14, or after age 30 is unusual. >Is there a temporally programmed >brain change which goes to excess in such people? Possibly the onset >period for schizophrenia might provides clues on how and why the brain >changes function during life. I don't think the reasons are known yet. When the reasons are known, then that would also be clues for the age onset of other brain diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's. There are also gender differences between men and women who get schizophrenia. For men, the age of onset is earlier (2 to 3 years earlier), and in men, the disease is usually more serious than for women. The reasons for the gender differences are unknown too. >>His years from age ~60 show his >>illness in a dramatic remission and his colleagues call him "recovered". >>He is perhaps, one of the rare schizophrenic cases that goes into >>remission. > >Not that rare, actually; schizophrenia often abates with age. Yes, that's right. I had forgotten about that. >One theory is that schizophrenia results from hyperactivity in certain >dopamine systems. The dopamine systems deteriorate with age, and so >some of these patients become more normal again. Seems reasonable. A portion of the limbic system is suspected of being involved in schizophrenia, and I read that there is an excessive number of dopamine receptors found in the limbic system and basal ganglia in brains from patients with schizophrenia compared with control brains (and this finding factored out the antipsychotic medications the patients had been taking) A fellow doing a lot of research with brains in order to learn of the causes of schizophrenia is E.Fuller Torrey. He has written a book: _Surviving Schizophrenia: A Family Manual_, that is the best book I've yet seen on the topic. Excerpts from _Surviving Schizophrenia_ book can be found here: http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sc03.html Torrey is a really interesting schizophrenia researcher, so I'll spend a moment talking about him. He studied medicine early in his career, but his sister's strange behavior (who was eventually diagnosed as schizophrenic) shifted his studies into the psychiatric field. The theories for schizophrenia at that time made no sense to him. He fought against his psychiatric profession, quit the American Psychiatric Association and never rejoined. As an adminstrator at the National Institute of Mental Health in the 1970's, he criticized his peers for flocking into lucrative private practices to serve the "worried well, " proposing that psychiatrists either spend two years working in underserved areas or repay the money that the Government had invested in their training. The advance of MRIs and a fresh generation of neuroscientists in the 1980s supported his ideas that schizophrenia was a brain disease, and he became an vocal advocate of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. He first published _Surviving Schizophrenia_ in 1983, and the latest (third) edition was published in 1995. He specializes now in schizophrenia both as a clinical and as a research psychiatrist in Washington, D.C. He's had a varied career. He did his training in psychiatry at Stanford University, where he also took a master's degree in anthropology. He practiced general medicine and psychiatry; he served as a physician with the Peace Corps in Ethiopia, spent a year in a neighborhood clinic in the South Bronx, New York, and in Alaska in the Indian Health Service. Included in his work in psychiatry, he had four years as a Special Assistant to the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, affiliation with St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C., and field research in schizophrenia in Papua New Guinea, and in Ireland. He is the author of nine books, over 100 lay and professional papers, and serves as contributing editor to Psychology Today. In 1989, a wealthy couple (the Stanleys) in Connecticut who have a schizophrenic family member, and were impressed by his book _Surviving Schizophrenia_, started donating money yearly to mental illness research and to aid Torrey in his efforts. In the nice web article that I read about Torrey, http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/398/398torrey.htm I read that the Stanleys gave out $20 million on that year (1998). Torrey estimates that that couple will spend more on manic depression research than the U.S. Federal Government and about a fifth of what the Government spends on schizophrenia research. Torrey's most ambitious project though, now is a brain bank. I like this quote by Torrey: "The disease in in the brain! We need brains!" From the above URL: "We won't be getting any brains in the mail today, " the nation's best-known schizophrenia researcher says as he hurries to a meeting at his Washington laboratory. "They don't mail them over the weekend. We'll probably get some fresh brains Fed Exed tomorrow. " Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a psychiatrist, has had many grand passions during his three-decade crusade to cure schizophrenia, but none greater than his new human brain bank. For years, a major obstacle for scientists researching the neurological roots of serious mental illnesses -- schizophrenia, manic depression, depression -- has been the lack of first-rate human brains to study. "The only schizophrenic brains available have been very old and not in very good shape, " Torrey says. They came from state hospitals and nursing homes, from patients so elderly that by the time they died the brain had atrophied. "We wanted to be in position to get better brains, brains of people younger and not dead long. " Brains that would be full of unaltered proteins and neurotransmitters, viruses and cytokines that might hold the answers to schizophrenia's cause. The brain bank is central to his grand plan. In 1994, he began contacting medical examiners' offices and has since built a national network that collects brains of mentally ill people who died in their 20's, 30's and 40's, from suicide and heart failure, in car crashes and fires. Torrey has employed a half-dozen pathologists around the country, paying them as much as $100,000 a year, to work full-time hunting brains. Within 48 hours of death, the brain is frozen at minus-70 degrees and shipped to Torrey. "We're up to 226 brains, " Torrey says. "We have 44 freezers here just full of brain. " While Torrey uses some tissue samples himself, most are distributed free to researchers worldwide. "Scientists historically have not shared their sources, " says Dr. Stanley J. Watson, a University of Michigan professor who leased a truck in December to pick up 20,000 brain sections from Torrey's lab. "His attitude has been, the more horsepower, the faster we can all move ahead. " Another interesting article on E. Fuller Torrey's research: http://www.psychlaws.org/General%20Resources/Article5.htm Torrey is currently working now on a viral theory to explain schizophrenia. There is a general consensus that genetics plays some role in the disease (if one has a parent who is schizophrenic, then the probability of getting the disease is ~10%, if one's grandparent is schizophrenic, the odds are ~4%, if both parents are schizophrenic, the statistics show about 45% probability, and the general population has about a 1% probability of getting the disease), and genetic theories of schizophrenia fit comfortably with the facts known about the disease. The major criticism of genetic theories is that schizophrenics themselves have a very low rate of reproduction, and one would think that schizophrenia should have died out or at least become less prevalent, if it is transmitted from affected individuals to their offspring. Viral theories also fit the facts known about schizophrenia. They can explain the minor physical anomalies, the microscopic and CT-scan changes in the brains, the seasonality of births, and the involvement of the limbic system since several viruses have an affinity for that part of the brain. The fact that schizophrenia runs in families can be explained either by a genetic predisposition to the virus, by transmission of a virus on the gene itself, or by transmission of the virus across the placenta from the mother (or the father, via the semen) during pregnancy. Some viruses have also been shown to cause changes in neurotransmitters, such as dopamine in the brain. But there are other plausible causes of schizophrenia as well (immunological theories, developmental theories, stress theories, nutritional theories, biochemical theories), and Torrey's book describes these in some detail. Amara ------------------------- September 12, 2000 To: extropians at extropy.org From: Amara Graps Subject: Re: Homeless Cc: Bcc: From: Spike Jones , Sat, 09 Sep 2000 >> To close this note, some of you may or may not know that John Forbes >> Nash, Jr., the mathematical genius and winner of the Nobel Prize in >> Economics (1994, for work in "Game Theory") was a paranoid >> schizophrenic > >Another one would be Robert Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of >Motorcycle Maintenance. Dont know if it was P-S that he had, but >he himself wrote that he was messed up psychologically, yet look >at the product. John Steinbeck wrote East of Eden in an alcoholic >fog, along with who knows what psychological conditions. Amazing >what a partially disfunctional brain can accomplish. Yes. (BTW, the first five Americans who won a Nobel Prize for literature were alcoholics: Sinclair Lewis, O'Neill, Faulkner, Hemingway, and Steinbeck). Some famous creative individuals thought to have schizophrenia were Nietsche, Nijinksy, Van Gogh, Ezra Pound, Wittgenstein, Hoelderlin, Blake, Kafka, Joyce. The biggest difference between a creative person and the schizophrenic person is that the creative person has his/her thought processes (relatively-speaking) under control, in the process of building of something creative. The schizophrenic person, on the other hand, does not have their thought processes under control, and is at the mercy of associations, disconnected thinking; they frequently have an inability to sort, interpret and respond in ways typical to normal brains. An inner madness. Schizophrenia is the ultimate horror in a disease -- with this disease one cannot trust one's own brain. Another illness- manic-depressive, is more conducive to creativity because the thinking process isn't as impaired, and because the manic-depressive person in their manic state has high levels of energy. Many more famous creative people are/were manic-depressive. One of the things I find interesting in the schizophrenic illness, though, is that the internal world of a schizophrenic is self-consistent and extremely logical. They start from a premise, and then build an elaborate set of logical connections from that premise. To anyone on the outside, though, the premise is bizarre, crazy. One has to be careful about the tendency to romanticize these people's great creative works. To a schizophrenic, especially, having this illness can be extremely unpleasant. Probably when they are gripped at the extreme of their altered state, they can't think of being any different, however leading into and out of that state, they often know that something is way off with how their brains are functioning. I suggest reading letters from schizophrenics to see how their inner world looks to them. Quite distressing. "As for me, you mush know that I shouldn't precisely have chosen madness if there had been any choice." (Vincent Van Gogh, 1889) Amara -------------------- From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 9 17:07:17 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:07:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <23105C7A-4EAB-4B14-9986-C599C09D66A1@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <200802091734.m19HY1XS011703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > J. Andrew Rogers > Subject: Re: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: > Farewell toAlms] > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: ... > > ...(From what I've read, suicides off of the Golden Gate Bridge > > have actually gone up quite a bit since this movie was made > - mainly > > due to more difficult economic times many people have had > to endure.) > > > Eh? Say what? The local economy has been in non-stop growth > mode since that movie was made by almost any metric you can > think of. ... > > J. Andrew Rogers J. Andrew, in any election year, it is in the interest of the party out of power to convince the proletariat that the economy is suffering, whether it is or not. In 1992, the mainstream press managed to convince sufficient numbers of voters that the US was in the greatest depression since the 1930s. Recall the campaign slogan: "It's the economny, stupid!" The press trumped up a phony recession. But the economy was steaming along nicely, grew by a perfectly healthy 4.2 percent that year. We are seeing a rerun of that today. Lets see if the the remaining "news" audience falls for the same gag again. We have a really good practical metric for the local economy: the traffic. Remember how pleasant and easy it was to drive to work after the bust starting in about late spring or summer of 2000? In about 2003 it started picking up again. Today the traffic is as bad or worse than it was 1999. Now we have a government that appears desperate to stimulate an economy that looks to me to be in more danger of overheating than freezing over. spike From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Feb 9 20:19:49 2008 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:19:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <25DA3570-7723-4B01-B404-BDE93BF27D88@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:25 AM, BillK wrote: > > The 'rich get richer' is a worldwide trend. So is the 'poor get richer'. > I have read that in the US 1% of the population now control 40% of the > nation's wealth. This is the long-term historical norm for the United States, so it is not a shocking or unexpected distribution. I would note that this financial wealth (as distinguished from net worth which hovers in the low to mid-30s percentage-wise). It is worth observing that the percentage is lowest during major economic recessions and highest during economic booms, at least in the 20th century. There were sharp drops in wealth controlled by the top 1% in the early 1930s and late 1970s, but I do not think that anyone would argue that this benefitted the middle class or the poor in any way. An interesting artifact in this type of data is that control of the wealth tends to be much more elastic in the anglosphere countries than in other European countries where a high percentage of wealth is also controlled by the top percentiles (e.g. France) -- the nature of the "control" is qualitatively different. > So the economy could well be booming while much of the population was > becoming poorer (relatively, within their own country). That is a very strained definition of "poorer". Much of the third world wishes that kind of poverty would be inflicted upon them. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 9 21:23:13 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:23:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <25DA3570-7723-4B01-B404-BDE93BF27D88@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <1202592238_3172@S3.cableone.net> At 01:19 PM 2/9/2008, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >On Feb 9, 2008, at 3:25 AM, BillK wrote: snip > > So the economy could well be booming while much of the population was > > becoming poorer (relatively, within their own country). > >That is a very strained definition of "poorer". Much of the third >world wishes that kind of poverty would be inflicted upon them. One of the things that Gregory Clark remarks about in Farewell to Alms is the amazing extent to which the lowest income class in the western world has benefited from the post 1800 rise in riches. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 9 21:42:37 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:42:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802092209.m19M9L5a017897@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > I have read that in the US 1% of the population now control > 40% of the nation's wealth. These kinds of comments always make it sound like the nation's wealth is a fixed quantity. The nation's wealth, and every nation's wealth increases dramatically over time. Compare your car to the ones that rich people drive fifty years ago. Compare your phone, your stereo, your camera, your overall comfort of life to the ones your grandparents had when they were your age. None of my grandparents even owned a computer, and look what that development has done for all of us, that wonderfully versatile information pipe that fires data into our brains at rates that would have made my grandfather swoon. Even the poor among us are rich, by the standards of the rich only fifty years ago. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Feb 10 05:55:12 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:55:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60802081008w508d7abeuea25f98682fe6af4@mail.gmail.com> <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 8, 2008 11:24 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > That's a good point, but still, just how long can a continuously > > > > decreasing fraction of the population continue to hold on to a > > > > continuously increasing fraction of the wealth? Something breaks > > > > sooner or later. > > > > > > Well, there's capitalism in a nutshell. I wonder what will happen? > > But > > > on topic, there's no reason to think that the fraction of people > > > holding these wealth-attracting ideas would decrease over time. > > > > ### As I discussed above, it all depends. > > > > And, BTW, capitalism actually leads under most human conditions to a > > continuously increasing fraction of workers controlling continuously > > increasing wealth.... but this is a whole different story. > > I would prefer that this important discussion to not devolve along > party lines. Therefore I will not forward any argument. I simply invite > Rafal and anyone else who is interested examine some data and attempt > to assess it as objectively as possible. ### Ah, gotcha! :) If you re-read my statement, it doesn't say that the outcome of capitalist activity is egalitarian, as measured by the Gini coefficient. What I said was something along the lines "The rising tide lifts all boats"....right? I didn't say that the fraction of wealth controlled by workers is higher, I only said that the total wealth grows, and is enjoyed by an ever larger fraction of the population. That this is true, even in the bastardized, over-regulated, stunted kind of capitalism we have in America, is self-evident. As an aside, of course I would also say that the segmented network prevents extreme concentrations of power and wealth. Let me elaborate: A network is a set of interrelated nodes, such as servers in the internet, or humans bound by economic and political ties. All networks have modes of failure that are dependent on the structure of the network and the properties of the nodes. It is probably impossible to design a non-trivial network (i.e. with nodes and interactions that cannot be feasibly enumerated, and fully controlled) which would be failure-proof. Failure is here in the sense of not doing what the network is intended for, not transmitting data or nor making people better off. There is however a way of protecting yourself from the failure of a network: having access to multiple fully independent networks with sufficiently dissimilar interaction protocols so as to make the spread of a failure mode (e.g. virus, whether computer, biological, or memetic) unlikely. Using Linux or Mac does protect you from most Windows garbage, and if everybody recognized the importance of network segmentation in their OS purchase decisions, we'd have enough operating systems around to make virus production that much more difficult. It is extremely important to take the road less traveled, and quite frequently, too. The same principle applies to politics - political networks encompassing every individual over a large area (i.e. empires and megastates ) have failure modes that are extremely costly in terms of lives lost, and duration of impaired function. The exit option and external pressures make small states less likely (on a per capita basis) to fail spectacularly. The capitalist economy is more of a segmented network than a state-controlled economy. Failures of companies do not destroy whole areas of activity - where Enron collapses, competitors pounce. In a centrally-controlled economy the failure of a single decision-maker may persist for a very long time - EPA regulations and programs stay with us for decades after being shown to be ineffective or harmful. As long as there is a market, with multiple, distinct, independent players, there is a balance that prevents total failure. Single segments may fail but other networks and subnetworks take the slack and generate more segments to fill the void. In stable segmented networks the growth of a segment does not give an absolute advantage over competing segments. In other situations, e.g. in the OS business or (to a lesser extent) in the business of extorting people, growth does translate into an advantage, that's why we have Microsoft, and states. Overall, capitalism does maintain segmentation of economic networks to a much greater extent than other forms of economic organization. The tsar of Russia or the First Secretary of the Politburo directly controlled a greater fraction of his country's wealth than Mr Rockefeller, or Mr Gates. This is why I do think that "a continuously decreasing fraction of the population continu[ing] to hold on to a continuously increasing fraction of the wealth" is not "capitalism in a nutshell". Rafal From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Feb 10 06:08:06 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:08:06 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/02/2008, Amara Graps wrote: > While they are in the middle of it, I would agree. There's glimpses when > they are passing in and out of mental illness, however, that something > is not quite right. I don't know how long that phase is, though, if it > is long enough to be useful to the family and friends around to do be > able to do something constructive with the ill person in that time. It varies in every case. Some patients are fully aware that their symptoms are due to an illness and actively seek out treatment, just as they would if they had a distressing physical symptom. Others can never see it, even when they are better: the voices haven't stopped because of the medication, they stopped because the devil decided to leave me alone for the moment. Lack of insight is not just a side-effect of being psychotic but a specific neurological symptom (anosognosia) that is found in other neurological disorders in addition to schizophrenia. For example, patients with lesions to the visual cortex causing blindness sometimes deny that they are blind and walk around stumbling into objects, making up excuses when they fall over, for example claiming that someone pushed a chair into their path at the last moment. This is called Anton's syndrome, and for obvious reasons sufferers will not seek out treatment. Are there readers who would prefer to be left alone to walk into traffic if they developed this condition, because the thought of involuntary treatment is so much worse? > BTW, we had this conversation before, but the extropy archives don't > go back to 2000. I'll paste several posts from my records. Thank-you for that. Every country/state will have its own laws relating to involuntary treatment of the mentally ill, and in some it is easier to do than in others. I work as a doctor on a psychiatric crisis team in the Australian state of Victoria, and my job consists of deciding who gets involuntary treatment, what that treatment will be and how long it will last. It is relatively easy to force treatment in Victoria and it is generally acknowledged that we have one of the better public mental health systems in Australia, and our Mental Health Act has been copied in other states. It is interesting that although patients sometimes get angry at their involuntary status (I have been physically assaulted several times), most complaints from families are about us not being assertive enough, dismissing aberrant behaviour as not due to mental illness, and discharging patients from hospital or from involuntary status too early. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jedwebb at hotmail.com Sun Feb 10 12:28:29 2008 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:28:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] There waiting, gordon, in the test chamber... Message-ID: Another Hadron Jolly... http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7476748 Jeremy Webb _________________________________________________________________ Telly addicts unite! http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 10 15:43:09 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:43:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802101609.m1AG9pYD007915@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Stathis Papaioannou ... > > ... I work as a > doctor on a psychiatric crisis team in the Australian state > of Victoria, and my job consists of deciding who gets > involuntary treatment... Stathis Papaioannou Stathis! You're a doctor? Cool, I have treated you with insufficient respect man! I pictured you as about a 20-ish computer-bound future-geek. To be a doctor you must be at least about 30, and have a lot of life going on outside of hanging out on chat groups. You write young. {8-] Thanks for the info. We always like to know there is actual expertise among us. I cheerfully defer to your judgment in your field. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Feb 10 16:35:09 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:35:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control Message-ID: <005401c86c02$e7166c80$6601a8c0@brainiac> See article at: http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/02/07/scientology-cruise-lawsuits-oped-cx_kf_0207scientology.html Oh-oh: http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress Parody of video: http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=3b8c7e360998f68a27b239837019db8a6c96bb91 :( From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 10 20:16:19 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:16:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60802081008w508d7abeuea25f98682fe6af4@mail.gmail.com> <146432.55998.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080210141345.02244ae8@satx.rr.com> At 12:55 AM 2/10/2008 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >. What I said was something along the lines "The rising >tide lifts all boats"....right? I didn't say that the fraction of >wealth controlled by workers is higher, I only said that the total >wealth grows, and is enjoyed by an ever larger fraction of the >population. That this is true, even in the bastardized, >over-regulated, stunted kind of capitalism we have in America, is >self-evident. A piece on this in today's NYT: You Are What You Spend * By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM Published: February 10, 2008 WITH markets swinging widely, the Federal Reserve slashing interest rates and the word ?recession? on everybody?s lips, renewed attention is being given to the gap between the haves and have-nots in America. Most of this debate, however, is focused on the wrong measurement of financial well-being. It?s true that the share of national income going to the richest 20 percent of households rose from 43.6 percent in 1975 to 49.6 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has complete data. Meanwhile, families in the lowest fifth saw their piece of the pie fall from 4.3 percent to 3.3 percent. Income statistics, however, don?t tell the whole story of Americans? living standards. Looking at a far more direct measure of American families? economic status ? household consumption ? indicates that the gap between rich and poor is far less than most assume, and that the abstract, income-based way in which we measure the so-called poverty rate no longer applies to our society. The top fifth of American households earned an average of $149,963 a year in 2006. As shown in the first accompanying chart, they spent $69,863 on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, health care and other categories of consumption. The rest of their income went largely to taxes and savings. The bottom fifth earned just $9,974, but spent nearly twice that ? an average of $18,153 a year. How is that possible? A look at the far right-hand column of the consumption chart, labeled ?financial flows,? shows why: those lower-income families have access to various sources of spending money that doesn?t fall under taxable income. These sources include portions of sales of property like homes and cars and securities that are not subject to capital gains taxes, insurance policies redeemed, or the drawing down of bank accounts. While some of these families are mired in poverty, many (the exact proportion is unclear) are headed by retirees and those temporarily between jobs, and thus their low income total doesn?t accurately reflect their long-term financial status. So, bearing this in mind, if we compare the incomes of the top and bottom fifths, we see a ratio of 15 to 1. If we turn to consumption, the gap declines to around 4 to 1. A similar narrowing takes place throughout all levels of income distribution. The middle 20 percent of families had incomes more than four times the bottom fifth. Yet their edge in consumption fell to about 2 to 1. Let?s take the adjustments one step further. Richer households are larger ? an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. If we look at consumption per person, the difference between the richest and poorest households falls to just 2.1 to 1. The average person in the middle fifth consumes just 29 percent more than someone living in a bottom-fifth household. To understand why consumption is a better guideline of economic prosperity than income, it helps to consider how our lives have changed. Nearly all American families now have refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and radios. Air-conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD players, microwave ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers and cellphones have reached more than 80 percent of households. As the second chart, on the spread of consumption, shows, this wasn?t always so. The conveniences we take for granted today usually began as niche products only a few wealthy families could afford. In time, ownership spread through the levels of income distribution as rising wages and falling prices made them affordable in the currency that matters most ? the amount of time one had to put in at work to gain the necessary purchasing power. At the average wage, a VCR fell from 365 hours in 1972 to a mere two hours today. A cellphone dropped from 456 hours in 1984 to four hours. A personal computer, jazzed up with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours to 25 hours. Even cars are taking a smaller toll on our bank accounts: in the past decade, the work-time price of a mid-size Ford sedan declined by 6 percent. There are several reasons that the costs of goods have dropped so drastically, but perhaps the biggest is increased international trade. Imports lower prices directly. Cheaper inputs cut domestic companies? costs. International competition forces producers everywhere to become more efficient and hold down prices. Nations do what they do best and trade for the rest. Thus there is a certain perversity to suggestions that the proper reaction to a potential recession is to enact protectionist measures. While foreign competition may have eroded some American workers? incomes, looking at consumption broadens our perspective. Simply put, the poor are less poor. Globalization extends and deepens a capitalist system that has for generations been lifting American living standards ? for high-income households, of course, but for low-income ones as well. W. Michael Cox is the senior vice president and chief economist and Richard Alm is the senior economics writer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 10 21:06:56 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:06:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis challenges Spike: >> What if you found this note from someone you care about: >> >> "Dad, I realised yesterday that I am Jesus Christ...I have >> gone to the new 40 storey building in the >> centre of town where I will jump off the top floor..." >> >> Would you resist having your son treated forcibly in the >> knowledge that (a) he is crazy, (b) he will certainly die as >> a result of his craziness, and (c) if he had a few days of >> antipsychotic treatment he would return to normal and be >> utterly aghast at what he had been about to do, and what you >> had been about to let him do?...Stathis Papaioannou > > Ja, tough questions indeed. > > In that case I would likely try to have him apprehended by the authorities, > who could only hold him temporarily. (Spike is a pragmatist) > If he left a note, I think they can hold patients for a short time. > Then I would likely round up my brother and Shelly's brothers, > and take and hold him at the ranch in Oregon, against his > will if necessary, recognizing that I would be breaking the law > in so doing... What is very interesting about this exchange is the degree to which the Stathis and his ilk instinctively seize upon a society-based solution by charging the authorities with a caring duty towards an individual, whereas Spike and his ilk immediately forget all about society (except for a very pragmatic initial expedient) and instinctively provide an individual based, family-oriented solution. When flat-out asked, "What responsibility does government have towards the well-being of particular individuals?", the libertarian response is "none" and the (American) liberal or socialist response is "as much as can be afforded". Amara in reply to Barbara Lamar compromised with It might be better for the ill person and the family members/friends if the involuntary committment process could be changed so that friends and family members are given a larger role and the random-ignorant-policeperson given a smaller role. I would point out that the American (as opposed to, say, the English) reaction was *never* to have such a role for government until the 20th century. And this change arose, I think, because of the anonymity of urban life, when in one sense people could become such complete individuals that they could no longer in any way to depend on family or friends, if that was their desire. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 10 21:23:53 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:23:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] There waiting, gordon, in the test chamber... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080210212353.GE10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:28:29PM +0000, Jeremy Webb wrote: > Another Hadron Jolly... > > [1]http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7476748 Of course the universe itself is busily conducting far more events at far higher energies than we furry monkeys can tackle within the next century or two. We're still here. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Feb 10 22:33:38 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:33:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms] In-Reply-To: <23105C7A-4EAB-4B14-9986-C599C09D66A1@ceruleansystems.com> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <017501c86ae7$c83d0150$6601a8c0@brainiac> <23105C7A-4EAB-4B14-9986-C599C09D66A1@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <47AF7BC2.3050703@mac.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Feb 8, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > >> This is not a documentary for everyone, that's for sure. I was simply >> curious about it (it finally came up on my Netflix queue). Having >> spent a >> good part of my life in San Francisco, I still tend to gravitate to >> documentaries and movies about my former American home town. (From >> what >> I've read, suicides off of the Golden Gate Bridge have actually gone >> up >> quite a bit since this movie was made - mainly due to more difficult >> economic times many people have had to endure.) >> > > > Eh? Say what? The local economy has been in non-stop growth mode > since that movie was made by almost any metric you can think of. Much too general a claim. Real wages have not increased for quite some time and the cost of housing relative to income is quite high in many parts of the country. It would be good to find a very fact filled case attempting to resolve this issue. If have seen short arguments leading to very broad claims on both sides of the question. Does anyone know where such is likely to be found? > The > assertion that there was a significant increase in suicides after the > movie due to major new economic hardship is absurd and makes it hard > to take you seriously. Whatever it is you "read", it is pure > unadulterated bullshit of the finest quality. > > Says you. Others say the opposite. Where is the evidence leading to enlightenment on the question? There is no need whatsoever for these off-the-cuff personal attacks. Please stop. - samantha From moulton at moulton.com Sun Feb 10 22:32:59 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:32:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1202682779.780.1449.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 13:06 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Amara in reply to Barbara Lamar compromised with > > It might be better for the ill person and the family members/friends > if the involuntary committment process could be changed so that > friends and family members are given a larger role and the > random-ignorant-policeperson given a smaller role. > > I would point out that the American (as opposed to, say, the > English) reaction was *never* to have such a role for government > until the 20th century. A few minutes on Google provides several sources which indicate that the above statement about the "role of government" being a 20th century phenomena is either incorrect or misleading depending. First it should be pointed out that there were instances of "involuntary commitment" in the sense that many persons were in jails or prisons rather than institutions specifically for their treatment. Secondly it was in the mid 1800s that many of these institutions began to be constructed. There was a reform movement began in the 1840s to construct asylums so that persons commonly classified as "mentally ill" could be treated rather than left in the usually deplorable conditions of the jails. One of the leaders of this movement was Dorthea Dix. > And this change arose, I think, because of > the anonymity of urban life, when in one sense people could > become such complete individuals that they could no longer > in any way to depend on family or friends, if that was their desire. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Feb 10 22:48:57 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:48:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AF7F59.5070106@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 10/02/2008, Amara Graps wrote: > > >> While they are in the middle of it, I would agree. There's glimpses when >> they are passing in and out of mental illness, however, that something >> is not quite right. I don't know how long that phase is, though, if it >> is long enough to be useful to the family and friends around to do be >> able to do something constructive with the ill person in that time. >> > > It varies in every case. Some patients are fully aware that their > symptoms are due to an illness and actively seek out treatment, just > as they would if they had a distressing physical symptom. Others can > never see it, even when they are better: the voices haven't stopped > because of the medication, they stopped because the devil decided to > leave me alone for the moment. Lack of insight is not just a > side-effect of being psychotic but a specific neurological symptom > (anosognosia) that is found in other neurological disorders in > addition to schizophrenia. Lack of accurate insight into the sources of ones opinion's and interpretations, especially deeply cherished beliefs and self image, seems to be part of the human condition. To a more clear-sighted person or AGI most of us would likely appear rather mad and dangerous to ourselves and others. Should the more clear-sighted intelligences then go out of their way to cure us or at least protect us from ourselves? This will become an increasingly poignant question. > For example, patients with lesions to the > visual cortex causing blindness sometimes deny that they are blind and > walk around stumbling into objects, making up excuses when they fall > over, for example claiming that someone pushed a chair into their path > at the last moment. This is called Anton's syndrome, and for obvious > reasons sufferers will not seek out treatment. Are there readers who > would prefer to be left alone to walk into traffic if they developed > this condition, because the thought of involuntary treatment is so > much worse? > > >> BTW, we had this conversation before, but the extropy archives don't >> go back to 2000. I'll paste several posts from my records. >> > > Thank-you for that. Every country/state will have its own laws > relating to involuntary treatment of the mentally ill, and in some it > is easier to do than in others. Are those with seriously life limiting and dangerous memetic infections effectively mentally ill? Or is what is numerically average good enough, the "normal", that it should be accepted regardless of how in many respects un-sane it may be? And what of those quite significantly outside the norm that are arguably better? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Feb 10 23:07:27 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:07:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control In-Reply-To: <005401c86c02$e7166c80$6601a8c0@brainiac> References: <005401c86c02$e7166c80$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <47AF83AF.801@mac.com> Olga Bourlin wrote: > See article at: > > http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/02/07/scientology-cruise-lawsuits-oped-cx_kf_0207scientology.html > > Oh-oh: > > http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress > > Minus Scientology baggage and looniness and the wacky ending I have no problems with many of his general sentiments. I wish more people felt that way. Most human beings do not take life at all seriously. Most actually prize not taking anything seriously, especially themselves and what they might do to make the world a better place. Yeah you can be wacky as hell when you do give a damn. But I would still prefer that to what most do. - samantha From jedwebb at hotmail.com Sun Feb 10 23:50:59 2008 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:50:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] There waiting, gordon, in the test chamber... In-Reply-To: <20080210212353.GE10128@leitl.org> References: <20080210212353.GE10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: > Of course the universe itself is busily conducting far more events at far> higher energies than we furry monkeys can tackle within the next century> or two. > > We're still here.> Too true, I also note that the scientists are funded by another govermental team... Jeremy Webb _________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail on your mobile, text MSN to 63463! http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/mail.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 10 23:39:16 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:39:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control In-Reply-To: <005401c86c02$e7166c80$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200802110005.m1B05wQg009268@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Olga Bourlin ... > > Parody of video: > http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=3b8c7e360998f68a27b239837019db8a6c96bb 91 Olga, the Cruise piece is scary, but at least the parody is hilarious. Thanks! spike From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 00:33:53 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:33:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <47AF7F59.5070106@mac.com> References: <47AF7F59.5070106@mac.com> Message-ID: On 11/02/2008, samantha wrote: > Are those with seriously life limiting and dangerous memetic infections > effectively mentally ill? Or is what is numerically average good > enough, the "normal", that it should be accepted regardless of how in > many respects un-sane it may be? And what of those quite significantly > outside the norm that are arguably better? Mental illness is *not* the same as having strange ideas. Strange ideas are just one symptom indicating that there may be underlying brain pathology, in the same way as a severe headache might be. The delusions of the mentally ill are actually sometimes less bizarre and less dangerous than the beliefs of people who are perfectly healthy. Only if the strange ideas are due to disease will they respond to treatment. -- Stathis Papaioannou From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 11 00:14:16 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:14:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <25DA3570-7723-4B01-B404-BDE93BF27D88@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <147208.75398.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Did you read and understand the limitations of the Gini coefficient > with respect to predicting properties of an economy? The Theils index and other less "limited" measures of inequality all show the same trend. > That > coefficient > does not mean what many people interpret it to mean and it should > probably be higher than it is if the economy was better structured > and > stronger (though I have not computed that -- I am guessing based on > what I know of US economic structure). Do you have a reason to believe that other than the observation that the U.S.'s Gini index is rather high and therefore it must be a good thing? (The Gini index is simply the Gini coefficient multiplied by 100)If you look at Gini indices world wide, you will notice that most Gini indices higher than the U.S., at 45.0 in 2007, occur in the southern hemisphere in developing and third world nations. Does this suggest that their economies are better structured than ours? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html > That said, we should *expect* it to correctly and healthily slowly > converge on 1 in an economy where a) intelligence is an increasingly > > important market differentiator and 2) machine intelligence -- even > low-grade versions -- start to play a factor in the economy. > Intelligence, when unhindered, will strongly bias the Gini > coefficient > toward the high side. That is an interesting thought, J. Since my last post, I ran a linear regression trend analysis on the Gini index of the U.S. and it suggests that the United States is headed toward an economic singularity (Gini index of 100) by the year 2252 with an R^2 (correlation) value of .938. This may represent an upper limit on the technological Singularity as well for reasons that you state. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 11 01:34:20 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:34:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > This is why I do think that "a continuously decreasing fraction of > the > population continu[ing] to hold on to a continuously increasing > fraction of the wealth" is not "capitalism in a nutshell". Hi Rafal, Thanks for a cogent analysis of the data rather than simply a political position. This is precisely the response I was hoping for. In your post you said that, "Overall, capitalism does maintain segmentation of economic networks to a much greater extent than other forms of economic organization." While I would tend to agree in general with this statement with the caveat of "other forms of economic organization [attempted to date]." Capitalism might represent a local maximum rather than a global one. It seems to me that economies of scale decrease economic segmentation, in a capitalist system rather than increasing it. There is no way an entry level competitor could, for example, compete with Walmart in the retail industry because they lack the sales volume in order to take advantage of these said economies of scale. This in turn leads to corporate take-overs and mergers that result in monopolies and other forms of "wealth condensation". Given the continuation of current trends, it seems likely that market forces will in time result in a "winner take all" economic singularity where no matter what you buy or where you buy it from, your money ends up in the same "hands". This is far worse than a simple monopoly since a classical monopoly only applies to a single commodity whereas an economic singularity is not so restricted. There may even be a theoretical threshhold of wealth that acts analogously to an event horizon, where the economic entity in question cannot spend money without generating a return of some form or other for itself. For example, Megacorp paying wages to a worker who has no place to spend his money except for a subsidiary of the Megacorps. Or Megacorp paying taxes that it recovers through lucrative government contracts via one of its subsidiaries. That there may be layers upon layers of subsidiaries and holding companies involved only serves to obfuscate the fundamental lack of true capitalist competition in such a scenario. So is there truly any difference between such an entity and a communist regime? Are there any condolences you could offer to the larvae of the formerly rich that can ameliorate their disappointment at having been sidelined from the "big game"? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 11 01:47:18 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:47:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080210141345.02244ae8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <787142.63675.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > A piece on this in today's NYT: > > > You Are What You Spend > > * > By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM > Published: February 10, 2008 > To understand why consumption is a better > guideline of economic prosperity than income, it > helps to consider how our lives have changed. > Nearly all American families now have > refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and > radios. Air-conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD > players, microwave ovens, washing machines, > clothes dryers and cellphones have reached more than 80 percent of > households. Cox and Alm seem to ignore the fact that many people tend to finance their consumption with debt. That a poor person can easily borrow money to buy "stuff" doesn't change the fact that person is poor. Here is a troubling set of statistics: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html I know too many people who are in debt. I too am in debt although for what it is worth, my debt consists of educational loans and medical bills. Doesn't change the fact that my net worth is less than zero. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 11 02:41:35 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:41:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <787142.63675.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200802110308.m1B38HwN023644@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > The Avantguardian ... > > I know too many people who are in debt. I too am in debt > although for what it is worth, my debt consists of > educational loans and medical bills. Doesn't change the fact > that my net worth is less than zero. > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu Avant, your email @ says ucla.edu. and I know they don't let just any yahoo in that place. Students are expected to be in debt. Study hard pal, we are all cheering for you. We need your future income to keep our social security checks coming. {8^D (Ja, I could have stopped one sentence earlier...) I leave you with a converstation that took place between Huck Finn and the newly freed former slave Jim. Jim: See thah, Marse Huck? I tole ya I would be rich some day, and now I's rich. Huck: What do you mean Jim? You are as broke as I am. Jim: No sah, Marse Huck. I owns myself and I's worth seven hunned dollars. May each of us own ourselves. spike From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 03:35:50 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:35:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Peeking inside voter's minds Message-ID: <29666bf30802101935t6a58742h90f9e874fda4ba25@mail.gmail.com> Neuromarketers... neuropolitics... makes me want to reach for my neuromartini. Or to quote a critic at the end of the article: "Voters think that consultants spend all their time manipulating and packaging candidates and this will make them even more suspect," she said. "Manipulating the brain -- it's too much the magic man behind the curtain." Gee, what would make us think that? (Maybe we could just take a little peek and find out...) PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-polbrain10feb10,1,4203850.story >From the Los Angeles Times Peeking inside voters' minds With neurologists' help, political consultants can track exactly what audiences will respond to, and how. But it's far from an exact science. By Denise Gellene Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 10, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO ? Wearing electrode-studded headbands to track their brain waves, two subjects watched the campaign commercial on a monitor in front of them. Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, clutching a microphone as she spoke to an approving crowd, promised that people in need would never be "invisible" to her. When the volunteers heard "invisible," the equipment registered a jolt of electricity in their frontal lobes. "It got their attention," said Brad D. Feldman, an analyst for EmSense Corp., which conducted the test at its headquarters in a converted warehouse here. Campaigns have always wanted to looked inside voters' heads. This election season, neuroscience is making that possible. Arguing that the brain reveals more than spoken answers to questions, a new breed of campaign consultants known as neuromarketers is hawking cutting-edge technologies that they believe can peer into the subconscious of the electorate. The companies have already used their technologies to test commercials for beverages, video games, software, cellphones and other consumer items. Advertising Age, the marketing bible, has identified neuromarketing as one of the year's top industry trends. "People are always searching for better ways to test advertising," said veteran Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who helped run Rep. Richard A. Gephardt's 1988 presidential campaign. "The truth is that it is very difficult sometimes to gauge the effectiveness of political advertising before it goes on the air." Each of the companies employs different technologies, largely adapted from medical research -- pupil dilation, eye gaze and brain activity using a functional MRI scanner. EmSense's device tracks changes in brain waves, blinking, breathing and body temperature -- reactions that might indicate attention, boredom or emotional arousal. The headband transmits its information to a computer that uses a mathematical formula to determine whether the viewer's subconscious response was positive or negative.None of the companies has landed a job with a presidential candidate, and some experts question whether the technology is any better than the usual political crystal-ball gazing. But given the high stakes of the campaign, experts say that even a slim possibility of tapping voters' inner thoughts may be too tantalizing to pass up. "At the end of the day, consumer goods and candidates are both products," said EmSense cofounder Tim Hong. Manipulating image The idea that candidates can be promoted like mouthwash -- and that voters can be manipulated like shoppers -- dates back at least to Richard Nixon's successful campaign, detailed in Joe McGinnis' book "The Selling of the President 1968." In steps that seem elementary now, Nixon's handlers shot separate ads for Southern districts and Northeastern cities, and figured out how to make their candidate appear more relaxed in front of the camera. Since then, research techniques such as focus groups, scripted surveys and data mining have become standard campaign tools. But the problem with opinion research is that some voters say what they think interviewers want to hear. Alex Lundry, senior research director with the Virginia-based market research company TargetPoint Consulting Inc., noted that the failure of several key polls to project Clinton's victory over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary shows current methods aren't adequately capturing what's on voters' minds. Neuroscience might help uncover deep-seated attitudes about race and gender that voters might not otherwise reveal -- information that would be especially relevant in the current presidential campaign whose contestants include a woman and an African American, he said. "It's like a focus group of the mind," Lundry said. Recent research suggests a role for the subconscious in political decisions. In December, scientists from the University of Washington and Harvard University reported that many people who said they favored Obama in an informal Internet survey preferred Clinton when subconscious reactions were taken into account. Although some analysts disagree, University of Washington professor Anthony Greenwald said the results seemed to confirm an ongoing "Bradley effect," the phenomenon named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black Democrat, who narrowly lost the 1982 California governor's race to George Deukmejian, a white Republican, even though polls put Bradley up to 22 points ahead. The theory is that some voters will tell pollsters they intend to vote for a black candidate, then vote for a white candidate. EmSense was founded by former MIT students who initially wanted to use brain waves to control video games. Instead, they started using their device, which is based on electroencephalography, or EEG, to help game developers modulate emotional responses to twists and turns in the action. After that, the company turned its attention to testing commercials. The goal is to stir up emotion. "I like to think of it as the reason [composer] John Williams is so successful," Hong said. "How can we create what he does naturally? What are the key messages that resonate with people?" The theory is that electrical activity in the brain changes when emotion is experienced. The device picks up second-by-second fluctuations in the brain -- those in the right prefrontal cortex indicate anger or sadness while changes in the left prefrontal cortex signal enthusiasm. This information is processed with other physiological signals that measure emotional and cognitive reactions -- producing fever charts that track the intensity of "like" and "thought." Exactly what these changes reveal about specific advertising is a matter of interpretation. What fires up circuits EmSense has so far measured the reactions of more than 100 test subjects to campaign ads that have run in Iowa and New Hampshire. When Bill Richardson, who has dropped out of the race, listed his accomplishments in one TV ad, viewers' brain waves flattened, indicating a lack of interest. When an Obama ad cataloged his newspaper endorsements, it also failed to generate much electricity. By contrast, Clinton's use of the word "invisible" caused viewers' brain circuits to fire. Feldman surmised that the commercial tapped into subconscious fears and "created a need for the candidate." After capturing subjects' brain waves, EmSense asked viewers to choose a few words to describe the ads. Although they called the Clinton ad "caring" and "strong," their description of the Obama spot as "hopeful" and "inspirational" showed they weren't completely in touch with their inner responses. "They definitely weren't inspired," Feldman said. TargetPoint, which worked with the Mitt Romney campaign, has taken a different approach, using an Internet survey that captures not only the answers to political questions, but also how quickly voters entered them; faster responses meant stronger convictions. The results of the survey, which Lundry said was conducted as an experiment last summer, revealed a deep commitment among Mike Huckabee backers at a time when most national polls counted him out. That dedicated support might help explain why Huckabee was able to leverage a small base to became a serious contender, he said. For all the high-tech sheen of the neuromarketers, skeptics say there is a limit to brain-tracking technologies. Darren Schreiber, an assistant professor of political science at UC San Diego, who has used brain scanners in his research, said the devices can't predict how people will vote. "People don't necessarily act on their subconscious thoughts," he said. Hong, from EmSense, agreed that there was a degree of uncertainty in interpreting results. "There's no vote button in the brain," he said. Several prominent researchers last year criticized the scientific validity of a study by Washington-based neuromarketers FKF Applied Research Inc. that used brain images from an MRI scanner to measure the emotional responses of undecided voters. Pictures of Clinton activated the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that deals with emotional conflict. UCLA psychiatrist Joshua Freedman, who cofounded FKF, and William Knapp, both Democratic strategists, said the scan revealed an ambivalence about Clinton that could explain why voters snubbed her when she was ahead in Iowa but then rallied behind her in New Hampshire. But University of Pennsylvania neuroscientist Martha J. Farah says the brain is complex and scans interpreted to indicate anxiety, for example, could have signaled happiness because particular brain areas process many emotions. "The scattered spots of activation in a brain image can be like tea leaves in the bottom of a cup -- ambiguous and accommodating of a large number of possible interpretations," Farah wrote on the Neuroethics and Law Blog, a key website for neuroscientists. Beyond the questions of science, political consultant Cathy Allen, a director of the American Assn. of Political Consultants, wondered whether the American public was ready for neuropolitics. She said the technologies could backfire -- especially during an election season in which voters are demanding authenticity from their candidates. Neuroscience could get in the way of establishing an honest relationship with the electorate, she said. "Voters think that consultants spend all their time manipulating and packaging candidates and this will make them even more suspect," she said. "Manipulating the brain -- it's too much the magic man behind the curtain." denise.gellene at latimes.com From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 04:38:07 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:38:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Spike: >Students are expected to be in debt. That is a very US-centric statement. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 11 04:47:02 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:47:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > > Spike: > >Students are expected to be in debt. > > That is a very US-centric statement. > > Amara Oh? Do explain, Amara. In other countries, do not students need to borrow money to pay their tuition? I expect students to be in debt, regardless of where they are from: they are usually young, so they could not have had much time to save a pile of money. Even if they go to a school in which the state pays most of the tuition, they still need to cover their living expenses. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 04:50:57 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:50:57 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 11/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > I would point out that the American (as opposed to, say, the > English) reaction was *never* to have such a role for government > until the 20th century. And this change arose, I think, because of > the anonymity of urban life, when in one sense people could > become such complete individuals that they could no longer > in any way to depend on family or friends, if that was their desire. If you develop a brain tumour one of the effects of which is that you don't believe there is anything wrong with you, would you (i.e. the present, healthy you) want to be forced to have treatment? If so, who should take responsibility for forcing you? And is it ethical if you are then charged for treatment to which, at least at the time, you did not consent? -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 04:58:38 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:58:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802102258.38936.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 10 February 2008, spike wrote: > Oh? ?Do explain, Amara. ?In other countries, do not students need to > borrow money to pay their tuition? I am in the US, and plan to take no debt on through university. The loan deals keep you trapped in jobs for decades after you graduate. And some of us need to be slightly more mobile than that. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 11 05:03:33 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:03:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] student debt In-Reply-To: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080210225634.02300bc8@satx.rr.com> At 08:47 PM 2/10/2008 -0800, Spike wrote: >Even if they go to a school in which the state pays most of the tuition, >they still need to cover their living expenses. Hey, my PhD was paid for by the taxpayers of Australia, and my stipend allowed me to put down a deposit on a house, as well as feeding and clothing me. I didn't have a car, however; luckily Melbourne has excellent inner city public transport, and it's possible to bike places without getting killed if you pick your routes carefully. I believe Barbara had a similar deal at Texas U at Austin for her JD, although she had some TA duties. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 11 05:31:19 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:31:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] student debt In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080210225634.02300bc8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200802110531.m1B5VKam000811@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Damien Broderick > Subject: [ExI] student debt > > At 08:47 PM 2/10/2008 -0800, Spike wrote: > > >Even if they go to a school in which the state pays most of the > >tuition, they still need to cover their living expenses. > > Hey, my PhD was paid for by the taxpayers of Australia... > Damien Broderick Thanks Damien. We are not all the equal of you, pal. {8-] I recognize that some talented students will get scholarships, but my comment was meant the rest of us academic proletariat. I did manage to make the dean's list. It was his list of slackers, but still. Funny aside: Damien you know I like to hang out at Stanford. Interesting lectures open to the public, terrific bookstore, lots of cool stuff happening there. I confess to a certain discomfort, an underlying anxiety that I will be spotted by the academic police, who somehow gained access to my records and know my paltry GPA. I feel like an illegal alien on that campus, expecting at any time to be caught by two or three burly gentlemen in flowing robes and tassels: You! Out! Besmirch not this place of higher learning! {8^D spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Feb 11 05:35:29 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:35:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1202682779.780.1449.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <008101c86c70$95e2e0f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Fred writes > First it should be pointed out that there were instances > of "involuntary commitment" in the sense that many persons > were in jails or prisons well, yes, but for "our" protection, not theirs! > rather than institutions specifically for their treatment. > Secondly it was in the mid 1800s that many of these > institutions began to be constructed. There was a > reform movement began in the 1840s to construct > asylums so that persons commonly classified as > "mentally ill" could be treated rather than left in the > usually deplorable conditions of the jails. But who was to pay for it? As always, that's the key question. What has unquestionably changed in the 20th century is that the government is now seen by many as the default fixer and default payer of all things. The recommended libertarian position is usually to allow a *non-entitlement* charity to supply this role. Besides, people act differently, as you know, when the recipient of charity instead of entitlement. But sorry, I digress. Lee > One of the leaders of this movement was Dorthea Dix. > >> And this change arose, I think, because of >> the anonymity of urban life, when in one sense people could >> become such complete individuals that they could no longer >> in any way to depend on family or friends, if that was their desire. From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 05:46:25 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:46:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Spike: >Oh? Do explain, Amara. In other countries, do not students need to borrow >money to pay their tuition? I had no tuition at the University of Heidelberg, as did no other students during the years that I was there. I should add 'obviously'. After my California B.S. and M.S. degrees, where I was still paying debts ,and had no desire to accumulate tens of thousands of dollars of debt for my PhD, I was significantly motivated by Germany's free tuition (and the fact that I only needed 3 years to finish) to move out of the US to Germany to make my PhD with my advisor. The other good things that followed regarding my advisor, our research group, the culture(s), Europe, and so on, added to my wanting to stay, which I did, beginning my ten years of European life. In most of Europe, until just a few years ago, a free university education is/was a basic 'right'. But several years ago (after I finished), some or all of the German universities started charging a fee (very small), following the lead of the UK, where the universities are undergoing large changes in their fee structure. >I expect students to be in debt, regardless of where they are from: Do you know that this makes me feel kind of sick? Not you directly, but at a culture where these kinds of expectations are part of mainstream thinking. It is a philosophical issue on the other side of the Atlantic. I think few people in Europe would understand why a 'civilized', western society would want to burden a young person, who is just starting their independent lives, with a thousands or tens of thousands of euros debt. >they are >usually young, so they could not have had much time to save a pile of money. >Even if they go to a school in which the state pays most of the tuition, >they still need to cover their living expenses. And when, around your PhD thesis work, do you have time to work enough to live? OK, _I_ worked thirty hours/wk at my NASA scientific programming job while I carried a full physics graduate student coarse at San Jose State, and I slept on average 4 hours a night for about six years with no medical benefits, no time off, and no life. And then, two years later, I suffered a work injury (repetitive strain injury) that forced me to quit my job, and was out of work for two years while I went on California's worker's compensation and tried hard to heal myself. At the end, the result is a 20% permanent loss of strength in my hands and arms. California paid alot of money from that result, and I paid with my health and more debt. Do you honestly think the US system is better for young people (or in my case, middle-aged people)? Four years later, when I moved to Germany for my PhD, I, and my co-students at Max-Planck Institute Kernphysik did not have to cover our living expenses. My advisor gave me (and his other students) a PhD student stipend which was enough money to leave on. Far from extravagant, of course, but still enough. The money for my living stipend came partly from the German government and partly from his DLR research grants. Mine was a typical German PhD student situation. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Feb 11 05:48:16 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:48:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > If you develop a brain tumour one of the effects of which is that you > don't believe there is anything wrong with you, would you (i.e. the > present, healthy you) want to be forced to have treatment? Ideally, only if I had signed up for such a circumstance arising. > If so, who should take responsibility for forcing you? Ideally, the holders of my contract. By pointing to my signature, they could claim the right of inflicting the agreed-upon treatment. > And is it ethical if you are then charged for treatment to > which, at least at the time, you did not consent? As you can see, my libertarian solution addresses this concern. (How should I describe a general international "liberal"? Alas, the term is used peculiarly by Americans. I hope that none take offense, then, if I use the term "socialist" to denote those who see a need for government in the social arena to provide benefit, quite beyond the minimal needs of holding a country together, enforcing the laws, and defending the nation against other systems imposed by force from without.) IT seems that comparitively rare exigencies are what most often prop up socialist calls for government oversight. For example, a socialist has ready answers to questions like "what about someone who has no family and cannot afford medical care?", "what about being seized by a rare brain condition that turns one irrational?", "what if a child...?", etc. Since our instinct as engineers is to let no possible case go unanswered or unprovided, it is very tempting to simply have government intercede in all non-specified cases. Yes, in a land where people were taxed either not at all or only at the barest possible minimal rate, and where the state did not look out for all exigencies, the weight of individual responsibility is great. But I myself would risk living in such a country, in exchange for a complete set of liberties, and for the freedom of not having a tax collector turn to me to finance every human aberration occuring anywhere in society. Lee From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 06:05:36 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:05:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: References: <47AF7F59.5070106@mac.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802102205w27c6722bg1cf491cb16378a9c@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 10, 2008 7:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 11/02/2008, samantha wrote: > > > Are those with seriously life limiting and dangerous memetic infections > > effectively mentally ill? Or is what is numerically average good > > enough, the "normal", that it should be accepted regardless of how in > > many respects un-sane it may be? And what of those quite significantly > > outside the norm that are arguably better? > > Mental illness is *not* the same as having strange ideas. Strange > ideas are just one symptom indicating that there may be underlying > brain pathology, in the same way as a severe headache might be. The > delusions of the mentally ill are actually sometimes less bizarre and > less dangerous than the beliefs of people who are perfectly healthy. > Only if the strange ideas are due to disease will they respond to > treatment. ### Being a neurologist I concur with Stathis that there are really crazy people out there, and there are more of them than most of us would think. Nursing homes are full of people who don't know which way is up, but still try to go out to buy canned corn for their spouse who died 5 years ago. With age, assuming that heart disease or cancer doesn't get you first, your chance of losing your mind may exceed 50 %. Being a hardcore libertarian I think that the state, of course, does not have a legitimate duty to help a psychotic or demented person. It is useful to divide the insane into two groups: likely to endanger others, and likely to harm self. With the first group it's easy to decide: since they do not respect the property of others, then by reciprocity they do not have a claim to the full protection of their property, such as the claim to the inviolability of their bodies and minds. It is then acceptable to treat them against their will (whether by a private organization or the state), although they can only to a limited extent be subject to retributive justice. The other group, dangerous to self, do pose a bit of a problem. I am not very worried about the abuse of psychiatry for political reasons: in a real tyranny they don't need a medical excuse, they just open fire and bulldoze the bodies to a dump. Weakening regimes may abuse psychiatry when they no longer have full control but this is a relatively minor problem compared to all-out violence, as measured by the body count in the last century. Anyway, there is a continuum of being dangerous to self, from being in an acute manic state complicated by psychotic symptomatology, through being anorexic, to eating too much bacon as a cure for baldness. All of the examples I gave involve some degree of impaired reality testing, some delusions, some impaired insight, and could be the subject of a psychiatrist's attention. When would that attention be legitimate? If I were to come down with schizophrenia (unlikely being a 42 year old male with negative family history....but you never know), I would definitely want to be shot up with some neuroleptics pronto but I don't want to be committed if somebody decided that my driving habits are just to dangerous for me. So, the prudent person would want to have some reasonable threshold of mental impairment defined, beyond which qualified professionals would render help even as you scream at them and try to bite their fingers off. The libertarian might want to have an insurance contract with provisions for acute mental care, with appropriate standards for allowing intervention against resistance. As long as I have the choice of such standards, and there is no entity (such as the state) that legitimately could impose its own standards, I would be satisfied. I would know I won't get locked up for endangering my life through participation in a cryonics program, or by driving 90 to 120 mph, or eating Hungarian salami but would still get help if I suddenly developed frontal lobe partial status epilepticus and started wandering around like a headless chicken. Voluntary choice of involuntary (sic!) treatment would be ideal for me, state-controlled standards are inferior and possibly dangerous, but being left with no protection against my own future deranged self is even worse. After all, if I live long enough and the singularity is late coming, I could really need it. BTW, if you ever visit EU, get some genuine Hungarian salami. AFAIK in the US there are only poor counterfeits available so don't get fooled by the label. The real thing is the pinnacle of the art of sausage - dripping with fat, dry, so heavily smoked you can leave it at room temperature for months without spoilage. Slice it very thin, almost translucent, leave on the cutting board for a few minutes to oxidize, and then nibble. The aroma is unlike anything else, it leaves your throat burning with smoke, and makes you feel sick with all that saturated fat and combustion products. Each slice could perhaps shorten your life by a minute or so....highly recommended. Rafal From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 11 05:17:26 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:17:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] blog Message-ID: <1202707092_21833@S3.cableone.net> I have been advised that anyone with a new idea should put up a blog. Wanting to gain attention and criticism for the space elevator/power sat as a way to hold back the premature deaths of several billion people, I could use a bit of suggestion as to where a blog should be put. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 11 06:12:58 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:12:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080211000448.0218e1a8@satx.rr.com> At 09:48 PM 2/10/2008 -0800, Lee recommended >the freedom of not having a >tax collector turn to me to finance every human >aberration occuring anywhere in society. Do you have a short list of the most serious aberrations in society that you resent funding, and some estimate of how much they cost? (I assume you're not speaking of such aberrations as jailing "soft drug" users, at vast expense, or punishing the wrong country for the crimes of a religious splinter group from elsewhere, at even vaster expense, although these might be good motives for disliking tax collection.) Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 06:15:46 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:15:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802102215o51b47c09u3186058c20f789c4@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 12:48 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > If you develop a brain tumour one of the effects of which is that you > > don't believe there is anything wrong with you, would you (i.e. the > > present, healthy you) want to be forced to have treatment? > > Ideally, only if I had signed up for such a circumstance arising. > > > If so, who should take responsibility for forcing you? > > Ideally, the holders of my contract. By pointing to my signature, > they could claim the right of inflicting the agreed-upon treatment. > > > And is it ethical if you are then charged for treatment to > > which, at least at the time, you did not consent? > > As you can see, my libertarian solution addresses this concern. > > (How should I describe a general international "liberal"? Alas, > the term is used peculiarly by Americans. I hope that none take > offense, then, if I use the term "socialist" to denote those who > see a need for government in the social arena to provide > benefit, quite beyond the minimal needs of holding a country > together, enforcing the laws, and defending the nation against > other systems imposed by force from without.) > > IT seems that comparitively rare exigencies are what most > often prop up socialist calls for government oversight. For > example, a socialist has ready answers to questions like > "what about someone who has no family and cannot afford > medical care?", "what about being seized by a rare brain > condition that turns one irrational?", "what if a child...?", > etc. > > Since our instinct as engineers is to let no possible case > go unanswered or unprovided, it is very tempting to simply > have government intercede in all non-specified cases. > > Yes, in a land where people were taxed either not at all > or only at the barest possible minimal rate, and where > the state did not look out for all exigencies, the weight > of individual responsibility is great. But I myself would > risk living in such a country, in exchange for a complete > set of liberties, and for the freedom of not having a > tax collector turn to me to finance every human > aberration occuring anywhere in society. > ### Amen to that, brother Lee! :) Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 06:20:24 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:20:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 12:46 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > Do you know that this makes me feel kind of sick? Not you directly, but > at a culture where these kinds of expectations are part of mainstream > thinking. It is a philosophical issue on the other side of the Atlantic. > I think few people in Europe would understand why a 'civilized', western > society would want to burden a young person, who is just starting their > independent lives, with a thousands or tens of thousands of euros debt. > ### But, you know, a bit of debt works wonders to focus your mind on doing something useful to the rest of us, and therefore capable of commanding a price. Otherwise, the young person could decide to squander other people's money on the pursuit of trivial or useless credentials, wouldn't you think? Rafal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 06:20:33 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:50:33 +1030 Subject: [ExI] blog In-Reply-To: <1202707092_21833@S3.cableone.net> References: <1202707092_21833@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802102220q667d33b4x6d1af85854e826da@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, hkhenson wrote: > > I have been advised that anyone with a new idea should put up a blog. > > Wanting to gain attention and criticism for the space elevator/power > sat as a way to hold back the premature deaths of several billion > people, I could use a bit of suggestion as to where a blog should be put. > > Keith > Blogs are for n00bs. Try a wiki. I'm really liking http://wikidot.org. Free hosted wikis, nice web 2.0 feel, much better than a blog for a large amount of structured information, and there's very simple to set up forum if you want something a bit bloggy/interactive. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 06:35:12 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:35:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com : > Otherwise, the young person could decide to >squander other people's money on the pursuit of trivial or useless >credentials, wouldn't you think? You're not including the PhD advisor's role (and reputation) to choose a good PhD student. And with a 3-year-limit to finish a PhD (after which time, all of the money is finished), the student doesn't have time to party and squander others' resources. I.e. the student doesn't need any more incentive to focus than that hard deadline. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 06:46:26 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:46:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 11/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > If you develop a brain tumour one of the effects of which is that you > > don't believe there is anything wrong with you, would you (i.e. the > > present, healthy you) want to be forced to have treatment? > > Ideally, only if I had signed up for such a circumstance arising. Most people would not sign such a contract, because they don't think it will happen to them. Or rather, they think that if it happens to them they will recognise it, and they don't trust anyone else to judge that they have become irrational and need involuntary treatment. You see, if you sign such a contract you are effectively allowing that *right now* you might be delusional. You certainly feel confident that you could prove that you are Lee Corbin, but there are patients in the psychiatric ward who are just as confident that they are Jesus Christ. It isn't a delusion if you know it's a delusion! And it won't help to specify that certain trusted family and friends must be consulted before the contractors drag you off for treatment if those family and friends have been corrupted or replaced by alien shape-shifters. -- Stathis Papaioannou From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 06:59:40 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:59:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control Message-ID: And what is this new player? Interesting times... "Anonymous vs. Scientology IRL showdown in LA" http://blogging.la/archives/2008/02/project_chanology_anonymous_vs.phtml From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 07:10:34 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:10:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 10, 2008 8:34 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Hi Rafal, > > Thanks for a cogent analysis of the data rather than simply a political > position. This is precisely the response I was hoping for. ### Thank you, thank you :) ------------------------- > > Given the continuation of current trends, it seems likely that market > forces will in time result in a "winner take all" economic singularity > where no matter what you buy or where you buy it from, your money ends > up in the same "hands". This is far worse than a simple monopoly since > a classical monopoly only applies to a single commodity whereas an > economic singularity is not so restricted. ### No, market forces do not result in "winner take all" outcomes, except in certain network-dependent goods, such as the operating systems and territorial extortion (state, gangland) businesses that I mentioned, and some others (electric plugs, disc players... but not toasters or radios....can you see why?). In the vast majority of markets free trade results in a power distribution of business sizes, with a few big players and a long tail of progressively smaller providers. This is a standard economic analysis finding, you can look it up. For every merger and for every bankruptcy there is a split and an IPO. Think about it - if the market really tended towards concentration of power (as Marx thought, but then the wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer), then by now, with spread of capitalism over the globe, there would be fewer businesses than 30 or 130 years ago, right? But in reality there has been an explosion of independent economic activity, in all areas that have less state regulation (even some networked businesses, like airlines, phone companies - why do have more of them now than 30 years ago?). Really, the market doesn't make for absolute winners - for that you need some massive violence, or threat thereof, a prerogative of the state. --------------------------------------- > > So is there truly any difference between such an entity and a communist > regime? Are there any condolences you could offer to the larvae of the > formerly rich that can ameliorate their disappointment at having been > sidelined from the "big game"? ### Of course, Stuart, if there was a Megacorps owning everything it would be exactly as bad as a commie government, because, well, it would *be* a de facto government. What matters is the essence of things, not their names. But please note that it's a long way from "everybody may own based on first posession or contractual exchange" (i.e. the essence of capitalism) to "everybody must obey the vanguard of the proletariat". If a sufficient number of participants are not smart enough to see the value of freedom/capitalism, and are ready to give it up for trivial short-term gain ("security", "fairness", "protection from predatory competition"), yes, a capitalist system will eventually become unstable, and will mutate back into a feudal, totalitarian or other nastiness. Is that an argument against capitalism? For capitalism? An irrelevant observation? You tell me! Rafal From moulton at moulton.com Mon Feb 11 07:23:14 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:23:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <008101c86c70$95e2e0f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1202682779.780.1449.camel@localhost.localdomain> <008101c86c70$95e2e0f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1202714594.780.1503.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:35 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Fred writes > > > First it should be pointed out that there were instances > > of "involuntary commitment" in the sense that many persons > > were in jails or prisons > > well, yes, but for "our" protection, not theirs! The question was not about who was being protected. The question was about "involuntary commitment" for whatever reason. And if you read the text that Amara included in her message (which is the message to which you replied) you will find that Amara actually uses the phrase: "danger to himself/herself or others". > > rather than institutions specifically for their treatment. > > Secondly it was in the mid 1800s that many of these > > institutions began to be constructed. There was a > > reform movement began in the 1840s to construct > > asylums so that persons commonly classified as > > "mentally ill" could be treated rather than left in the > > usually deplorable conditions of the jails. > > But who was to pay for it? As always, that's the key > question. No. The key question is often one of getting the history correct. > What has unquestionably changed in the > 20th century is that the government is now seen by > many as the default fixer and default payer of all things. > > The recommended libertarian position is usually to > allow a *non-entitlement* charity to supply this role. > Besides, people act differently, as you know, when > the recipient of charity instead of entitlement. But > sorry, I digress. > > Lee > > > One of the leaders of this movement was Dorthea Dix. > > > >> And this change arose, I think, because of > >> the anonymity of urban life, when in one sense people could > >> become such complete individuals that they could no longer > >> in any way to depend on family or friends, if that was their desire. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 07:25:59 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:25:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 1:35 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com : > > Otherwise, the young person could decide to > >squander other people's money on the pursuit of trivial or useless > >credentials, wouldn't you think? > > You're not including the PhD advisor's role (and reputation) to choose a > good PhD student. And with a 3-year-limit to finish a PhD (after which > time, all of the money is finished), the student doesn't have time to > party and squander others' resources. I.e. the student doesn't need any > more incentive to focus than that hard deadline. ### Back there in Germany I used to hear about and occasionally meet those "ewige Studenten", people who just had too much fun in college to ever quit. Heidelberg is so nice, you can sit in Hauptstrasse all day, go to a concert, meet some new chicks - why ever stop, of somebody pays your bills? And why not choose a major that means guaranteed unemployment, like philosophy? Sure, they pay those chemical engineering grads up the wazoo, but chemistry is such a bore, so why not do something more enjoyable? Salary is a signal of usefulness, and tuition is a signal of sunk cost. If your tuition is waived (i.e. somebody else is paying), you have no reason to pay heed to the cost, and you have less incentive to think about future usefulness. As a result there is misallocation of resources - your time and other people's money is spent on activities that won't generate a return. Don't they have 10,000 unemployed physicians in Germany, because med school is free there? Why does Europe have so much post-college unemployment? Seems to me that "free" Hochschulausbildung is in part to blame. Rafal From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 07:43:47 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:43:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Rafal, Did you read any of the words that I wrote? I don't find any correspondence to the words I just spent my time and fingers writing, and what you wrote (in a continuous rant from your previous message). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From eugen at leitl.org Mon Feb 11 08:17:28 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:17:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080211081728.GM10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:25:59AM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Back there in Germany I used to hear about and occasionally meet > those "ewige Studenten", people who just had too much fun in college > to ever quit. Heidelberg is so nice, you can sit in Hauptstrasse all Sounds like a nice enough lifestyle, if you can afford it. (Doorways in the Sand, anyone?). > day, go to a concert, meet some new chicks - why ever stop, of > somebody pays your bills? And why not choose a major that means Who's paying your bills? Nobody but you. The courses might be "free" (they're not, at 500 EUR/semester right now, which a) a good value for the money, but only relatively b) will go up soon) but everything else is up to you. > guaranteed unemployment, like philosophy? Sure, they pay those > chemical engineering grads up the wazoo, but chemistry is such a bore, Do they now? There's a considerable disconnect in the local job market (I happen to track it) and reports about it. > so why not do something more enjoyable? > > Salary is a signal of usefulness, and tuition is a signal of sunk > cost. If your tuition is waived (i.e. somebody else is paying), you > have no reason to pay heed to the cost, and you have less incentive to > think about future usefulness. As a result there is misallocation of > resources - your time and other people's money is spent on activities > that won't generate a return. Don't they have 10,000 unemployed > physicians in Germany, because med school is free there? Why does > Europe have so much post-college unemployment? Seems to me that "free" Because the job market has gone to shit? > Hochschulausbildung is in part to blame. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From painlord2k at yahoo.it Sun Feb 10 18:50:03 2008 From: painlord2k at yahoo.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:50:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AF475B.6010605@yahoo.it> Amara Graps ha scritto: > (Spike) >>> Lee, I stand in awe of how hard the Mexicans work. > (Lee) >> Now this is important because it applies to an important example >> adduced by Clark. There *has* to be both a genetic and cultural >> component to the alacrity with which the people (forced by the >> enclosure acts) took to factory work in England. > > You make it sound like past tense, Lee. I worked my day job as an > Italian government employee (research scientist), and went to my > evening/night job teaching astronomy at a private university in Rome, > easily working 70 hours per week for a couple of years. I paid more > Italian taxes than my Italian colleagues (after taxes, my research salary > was 10 euros/hour, my teaching salary was 4 euros/hour) and I was an > illegal immigrant (4+ years). The Italian government currently is > holding 14,000 euros of my pension money (taken by force from my > salary every month for five years) that I might never see again. If someone have doubts about the causes of italian economic decline, this could explain alot. Mirco -- [Intangible capital is] the preponderant form of wealth. When we look at the shares of intangible capital across income classes, you see it goes from about 60 percent in low-income countries to 80 percent in high-income countries. That accords very much with the notion that what really makes countries wealthy is not the bits and pieces, it's the brainpower, and the institutions that harness that brainpower. It's the skills more than the rocks and minerals. ?Kirk Hamilton Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Mon Feb 11 10:13:13 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:13:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080211101312.GV10128@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:47:02PM -0800, spike wrote: > Oh? Do explain, Amara. In other countries, do not students need to borrow > money to pay their tuition? They can stay at home. Tuition in some places is very low, at least for time being. > I expect students to be in debt, regardless of where they are from: they are > usually young, so they could not have had much time to save a pile of money. > Even if they go to a school in which the state pays most of the tuition, > they still need to cover their living expenses. Some students stay at home, some students take loans (from the state, with very favourable conditions), some take jobs. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 11:45:57 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:45:57 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802110447.m1B4l3iW015708@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 11/02/2008, spike wrote: > Oh? Do explain, Amara. In other countries, do not students need to borrow > money to pay their tuition? In Australia it used to be that tertiary education was completely free (there wasn't anywhere you could pay for it even if you wanted to), but since 1989 students accumulate a "HECS" debt which they have to pay off gradually through the tax system once they start earning enough money. As I recall, one argument in favour of this scheme at the time were that as graduates earn more money than non-graduates, they should contribute more to the public purse; a sort of additional progressive tax. A common counterargument was that in fact it was a regressive tax since wealthy students (or their families) could pay up front while poorer students might be dissuaded from studying at all if cost was already a consideration. Even with HECS, tertiary education is heavily subsidised. Also, students are eligible for a means tested living allowance (the student's means if they are over 25, the family's means if they are under 25) which amounts to around US$8,000/yr. This happens to be in most cases around the same as the accumulating HECS debt. -- Stathis Papaioannou From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 11 11:31:56 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:31:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <875762.67739.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> > Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > > Spike: > >Students are expected to be in debt. > > That is a very US-centric statement. > > Amara >Oh? Do explain, Amara. In other countries, do not >students need to >borrow money to pay their tuition? >I expect students to be in debt, regardless of where >they are from: > they are >usually young, so they could not have had much time >to save a pile of money. >Even if they go to a school in which the state pays >most of the tuition, >they still need to cover their living expenses. >spike Well, it depends on the nation you're in and the period in time. Here's my UK experience: Eldest sister went to Oxford in 1980, got tuition paid and a grant to cover living expenses. She ran a small overdraft from the bank. So, minimal debt for Ivy league education, and no summer jobs for her. Next sister went to Leeds 1982, tuition paid, religiously saved her grant so paid her living expenses and even lent a little cash to her parents. Her PhD was fully funded by a research council. My elder brother went to Durham in 1989, tuition paid, had some living expenses grant but it wasn't quite enough, had a moderate bank overdraft and had a summer job as an intern for an accountancy firm which paid peanuts but got him valuable experience. I went to Liverpool in 1994 to study medicine, which is a long course. My generation got tuition paid (thankfully, unsubsidised medical education would be crazily expensive). I had a small grant but most living expenses were covered by a low-interest loan (which I still haven't paid back). These loans had the magic condition of you don't have to pay anything back until you're earning at least 85% of the average national wage. Because the London and the nearby areas have such high wages, lots of graduates in poor areas didn't have to pay anything until they were doing better than average. My generation was slightly annoyed and protested about this. However, when the right-wingers in government got voted out, the poor student would be better off, right? Wrong. Tony Blair was voted in, and decided the best way to help Britain compete in the "knowledge economy" was to get as many kids as possible to go into higher education. He couldn't afford to put significantly more money in the kitty without serious tax rises, so he totally abolished grants and introduced small tuition fees. These tuition fees have over time got bigger. Also, the low-interest loans have now got much lower repayment thresholds, so even graduates in low-wage economic areas have to pay some back. Now, small grants towards living costs have started coming back for students from the poorest families, as they realised many kids from poor backgrounds were terrified of too much debt. Other countries within Europe have differing levels of support. So you see Spike, some countries do feel it worthwhile to offer students financial support, so they think getting an education is worth more than going straight into the workplace to get money and work experience straight away. As for Tony Blair's plan to help Britain in the knowledge economy - well, more students are studying business than ever before, so our industries have a larger pool of people who can talk the talk to recruit from, but the number of people studying STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) isn't rising. The pool of people educated in sciences that underpin our technological society isn't huge, engineering firms still have recruitment difficulties, schools can't get enough science teachers, and my inbox is full of job ads for maths graduates. (I now work in insurance - in the financial services sector, they can fill sales and marketing and management jobs easily, but the statistics and data mining jobs go unfilled for quite a while). Tom __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 14:07:28 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:07:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Impressive book: Farewell to Alms In-Reply-To: <47AF475B.6010605@yahoo.it> References: <47AF475B.6010605@yahoo.it> Message-ID: <580930c20802110607w6e239d6eha60462d64cfb495b@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 10, 2008 7:50 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote: > If someone have doubts about the causes of italian economic decline, > this could explain alot. I skimmed through the thread without much interest, since it appeared to be a discussion on a book I did not read. Now, I have received it, and realised that it also picked my attention enough to have my mouse slip on the "one-click-order" button, and then forgot about the title. It is good that I have not cancelled the past discussions on the subject... :-) Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 15:07:45 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: And while the US is at it, let's build useless university buildings and then pass the cost on to the 20 year olds, so that their thousands of dollars education debt can grow to tens of thousands of dollars education debt and so they'll learn at the age of 25 the all-important American skill to hold massive quantities of debt, keeping the US as a world leader in debt. That'll focus their attention for the rest of their life, don't you think? Construction on campus Just add cash Nov 29th 2007 | BOSTON, PHILADELPHIA AND STORRS, CONNECTICUT The great expanding American university http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10216515 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From nymphomation at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 15:41:24 2008 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:41:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0802110741g251ea64w8485dfe7937f316d@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, Amara Graps wrote: > And what is this new player? Interesting times... > > "Anonymous vs. Scientology IRL showdown in LA" > http://blogging.la/archives/2008/02/project_chanology_anonymous_vs.phtml I was at the London 'showdowns' yesterday with a few anarchists and indymedia journalist types, mainly just to take photos. One journalist said there were 400 anti-scientologists present, though we thought the true number was more like 200-250. About 2/3rds of them were wearing V for Vendetta masks. One of my friends got to the 1st demo at Blackfriars early and was approached by a large scientologist who asked him if he wanted to settle things with a fist fight. Luckily a cop turned up with a video camera and the guy backed off. (I never thought I'd say that about a cop with a camera..) I haven't photoshopped my own pictures yet, but there's a brief account of the day by a member of the band 'Deathboy' here: http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1082404.html The cops were okay to most of the crowd but stopped and searched a few people who they thought were from London Class War, on rather spurious historical grounds.. Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation "We're from the private sector and we're here to help you." From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 11 15:31:04 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:31:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080211000448.0218e1a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <006001c86cc3$2ec14620$91f04d0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Do you have a short list of the most serious aberrations in society > that you resent funding, and some estimate of how much they cost? (I > assume you're not speaking of such aberrations as jailing "soft drug" > users, at vast expense, or punishing the wrong country for the crimes > of a religious splinter group from elsewhere, at even vaster expense, > although these might be good motives for disliking tax collection.) I do indeed resent paying for a war to find weapons of mass destruction that in fact do not exist. And most police work, at least in the USA, is involved in enforcing drug laws and other victimless crimes and I resent that. I resent the fact that I have to pay your medical bills even if you have to pay mine, and I resent the hugely inefficient bureaucracy set up to administer the ludicrous idea. I resent the very thing that make medicine so expensive, a monopoly to practice medicine enforced by a government I am forced to pay taxes to; and I resent not being able to buy any drug I like over the counter. I resent having to pay to educate other people's children, educate them very poorly I might add due to the government's near monopoly on schooling. And in general I resent being forced to pay for programs that some idiot beaurocrat claims will help the poor. Please understand I'm all for charity, I just don't like a gun placed at my head. John K Clark From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 15:55:01 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:55:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control Message-ID: (me) >And what is this new player? Interesting times... >"Anonymous vs. Scientology IRL showdown in LA" >http://blogging.la/archives/2008/02/project_chanology_anonymous_vs.phtml *Nym* nymphomation at gmail.com >I was at the London 'showdowns' yesterday >I haven't photoshopped my own pictures yet, but there's a brief >account of the day by a member of the band 'Deathboy' here: >http://deathboy.livejournal.com/1082404.html And in Alberta, Edmonton, too ...? http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=piDhnu9t78o Amara From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 16:02:57 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:02:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control Message-ID: Short news report on two of the Canadian protests: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KOF7o5HwrZw&feature=related Sorry if I'm a little bit slow on this new player.... the protests were _everywhere_ For news, you can search in YouTube and in Flickr: http://ca.youtube.com/results?search_query=Anonymous+Scientology&search_type=&search=Search http://flickr.com/search/?q=Anonymous%20Scientology&w=all Amara From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Feb 11 16:07:18 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:07:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080211000448.0218e1a8@satx.rr.com> <006001c86cc3$2ec14620$91f04d0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <000d01c86cc8$2d66f400$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "John K Clark" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 7:31 AM > I do indeed resent paying for a war to find weapons of mass destruction > that in fact do not exist. And most police work, at least in the USA, > is involved in enforcing drug laws ...: On a related note, this may be an interesting development to follow: Breaking the Drug Taboo: Group of Traumatized Veterans Get Experimental Ecstasy Treatment http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/76576/ > I resent the fact that I have to pay your medical bills even if > you have to pay mine, and I resent the hugely inefficient bureaucracy > set up to administer the ludicrous idea. I resent the very thing that make > medicine so expensive, a monopoly to practice medicine enforced by a > government I am forced to pay taxes to; and I resent not being able to > buy any drug I like over the counter. I resent having to pay to educate > other people's children, educate them very poorly I might add due to the > government's near monopoly on schooling. I cannot fathom a society (that functions, is complicated, diverse and populous, where people don't pay taxes of some kind - which is not to say I don't have my pet peeves about paying certain taxes, i.e., keeping religious institutions in business). > And in general I resent being forced to pay for programs that some idiot > beaurocrat claims will help the poor. Please understand I'm all for > charity, > I just don't like a gun placed at my head. Well, now ... so, are you doing something about trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment? ;) Olga From nymphomation at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 16:21:33 2008 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:21:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Cruise Control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0802110821w26f73bfflc589a9272679ab0d@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, Amara Graps wrote: > Short news report on two of the Canadian protests: > http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KOF7o5HwrZw&feature=related > > Sorry if I'm a little bit slow on this new player.... the protests > were _everywhere_ Indeed. There's a list here of all the happenings, with attendance numbers: http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?t=1737&highlight= I'm not sure if it will happen again on such a large scale, now the novelty has gone, but it was a very impressive stunt here in London. Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation "We're from the private sector and we're here to help you." From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 11 16:47:12 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:47:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080211000448.0218e1a8@satx.rr.com><006001c86cc3$2ec14620$91f04d0c@MyComputer> <000d01c86cc8$2d66f400$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <000e01c86cce$06355380$62f04d0c@MyComputer> "Olga Bourlin" > I cannot fathom a society (that functions, is > complicated, diverse and populous, where > people don't pay taxes of some kind I can't fathom a government that doesn't have taxes, but I can fathom a society that doesn't. John K Clark From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Feb 11 17:06:39 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:06:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] SL - Transhumanists Message-ID: <20080211170641.IUNU7178.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> If anyone attended the SL event last Sunday and saved a transcript of the chat, please email me off list as soon as possible. Thank you kindly for your assistance. Natasha Natasha Vita-More, BFA, MS, MPhil University Lecturer PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 11 17:38:57 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:38:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Tom Nowell: >I had a small grant but most living expenses were covered by a >low-interest loan (which I still haven't paid back). These loans had the >magic condition of you don't have to pay anything back until you're >earning at least 85% of the average national wage. Many of my classmates were financially crippled coming out of the their universities with their degrees, because they were required to pay 20-50,000 dollars educational loans on their graduate and postdoc salaries at 'normal' interest rates. What you describe sounds better, but is it really? Isn't the initial cost what one should address, not how easy it is to pay off the loan? I strongly object to any aspects of a society that encourage and support young people to acquire massive amounts of debt, no matter what the interest rate. The permanent job that was offered to me in Italy as I was leaving would have given me the power to walk into any Italian bank and acquire a mortgage on property where I would not have to pay more per month than my financial 'means', like your situation, above. But with my 10 euros/mo permanent salary (with almost no chance of it increasing in the next ten years), and average prices on property in my area of 300,000euros for a 70 sqm apartment, I would have a 100 year mortgage. Yet, my colleagues thought that I was crazy to turn down such a 'great opportunity' for my life! If you'll notice on Stuart's debt chart, Italy is not too far from the US in total amount of debt. Why are these societies teaching young people -- more, *encouraging* them -- that massive debt is OK ??????? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From korpios at korpios.com Mon Feb 11 16:04:33 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:04:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/11/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 12:46 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > > > Do you know that this makes me feel kind of sick? Not you directly, but > > at a culture where these kinds of expectations are part of mainstream > > thinking. It is a philosophical issue on the other side of the Atlantic. > > I think few people in Europe would understand why a 'civilized', western > > society would want to burden a young person, who is just starting their > > independent lives, with a thousands or tens of thousands of euros debt. > > > ### But, you know, a bit of debt works wonders to focus your mind on > doing something useful to the rest of us, and therefore capable of > commanding a price. Otherwise, the young person could decide to > squander other people's money on the pursuit of trivial or useless > credentials, wouldn't you think? A "bit" of debt? I'm in the hole to the tune of over $70,000 USD, and I didn't even finish my graduate-level education. This is from a *state* school (State University of New York / SUNY), funded completely by a combination of grants and loans on my head (not my parents ? I was already into my mid 20s when I went back to school). If I were to make the choice over again, I *never* would have gone back to school; a degree is worthless in my current field, anyway (web development / programming), and I'm making more than I would have had I finished graduate school and worked in the field (library science). I haven't even started paying back my school debt since I'd be forced to pay over $500 a month, and, well, I still have a bunch of credit card debt to pay off as well (mental note: if you're down to the point where you're paying bills with your credit cards, something is wrong). I get to defer for another year and a half before I'm screwed. ^_^ This brings me to the point of my little rant: quite often, young people are *too inexperienced* and *too stupid* to realize just how terrible a debt burden will be later in life. Sigh. I'm sorry for the rant, but maybe I'll serve as a warning for others. :p I never wanted to focus on salary in life (as I prefer a physically-minimalist lifestyle, have no need to "get rich", and have no interest in parenthood), but I'm forced to by the mistakes made by an earlier version of myself. If only bankruptcy worked on educational debt! From max at maxmore.com Mon Feb 11 20:29:09 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:29:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Count Message-ID: <20080211202911.IIDG26322.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> Okay, this has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of this list. BUT, for anyone who ever watched Sesame Street, it's too funny not to share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXPnH0C9UA&feature=related Max From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 20:54:38 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:54:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 8:04 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > A "bit" of debt? > > I'm in the hole to the tune of over $70,000 USD, and I didn't even > finish my graduate-level education. This is from a *state* school When we sold our house in SoCal, do you know the very first thing we did when the check cleared? We fully funded our kids' college savings accounts. We're considered rich by global standards. But even we were concerned about the expenses we'd incur sending two kids to college/grad school in the 2010's-20's vs. the debt we'd/they'd incur if we didn't. We're looking down the barrel of a minimum of $500,000 to send two kids for undergraduate degrees at private institutions. When we analyzed the numbers and observed the process involved in the college loan system, there was really no argument. http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/19/most-expensive-colleges-biz-cx_tvr_0119college.html Note the Forbes prices are for this year and are only tuition, not including room, board or expenses. Figure inflation in the next couple of decades into it and expenses, and... whamo! And we've got smart kids. Graduate degrees are not unlikely. Now we're talking in the millions. Who has that kind of money to pay to go to school? Both my husband and I attended private universities in the 80's. I paid my full tariff (back when we thought $12,000 was outrageous per year) because back then my parents were rich. Eric had tuition remission because his dad was a professor at his school, but he still had a full time job while in school so he could afford the room, board and expenses. We both consider ourselves very lucky that we did not incur debt at the beginning of our lives. It gave us the freedom to chose the line of work we wanted to pursue. And I thought freedom of choice was the point to everything. ;-) And to answer Amara's question about why we create a debtors' society with our young people -- It's obvious. It's good business for financial institutions. Get 'em young, keep 'em forever. Our hamster wheel of debt is their profit. PJ From korpios at korpios.com Mon Feb 11 21:13:18 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:13:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/11/08, PJ Manney wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 8:04 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > A "bit" of debt? > > > > I'm in the hole to the tune of over $70,000 USD, and I didn't even > > finish my graduate-level education. This is from a *state* school > > When we sold our house in SoCal, do you know the very first thing we > did when the check cleared? > > We fully funded our kids' college savings accounts. This is why I somewhat resent my parents' lack of long-term planning with regards to having children; they were both blue collar workers before retiring (a firefighter and a police officer), and I'm the oldest of four children. They've helped us out where they could, but being blue collar as they were, why couldn't they stop at *one* (or *zero*, never mind issues of my existence) child/children? Why couldn't they wait until they could drop $5K or so into stocks or a savings account, even, before having a child? All their children were "planned" in the traditional sense, but you really have to wonder at the meaning of the word when it leads to screw-ups like my own. ^_^ I still can't help but envy those who get largely free rides through the educational system; while I have fairly libertarian leanings, those break down when it comes to the immense sway parents' decisions have over children, e.g., the disparity of wealth obtained by means of parental assistance. (Shades of Rawls's veil of ignorance, perhaps.) I really need to stop ranting about this. :p From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Mon Feb 11 23:15:29 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:15:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2008 8:04 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > A "bit" of debt? > > I'm in the hole to the tune of over $70,000 USD, and I didn't even > finish my graduate-level education. This is from a *state* school Possible solution: demonopolize the granting of university degrees by allowing degrees to be awarded by the regional accreditation groups on the basis of satisfactory completion of tests rather than attendance at a campus. Thus, individuals could "learn at home" with or without tutors, and use the incredible infrastructure of the internet to bring quality lectures to them like MIT's and UC-Berkeley's free online course materials and video lectures. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 2/11/2008 8:16 AM From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 00:07:45 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:07:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802111607n2fa8ff23l3089a031c8e926f5@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 3:15 PM, James Clement wrote: > Possible solution: demonopolize the granting of university degrees by > allowing degrees to be awarded by the regional accreditation groups on the > basis of satisfactory completion of tests rather than attendance at a > campus. Thus, individuals could "learn at home" with or without tutors, and > use the incredible infrastructure of the internet to bring quality lectures > to them like MIT's and UC-Berkeley's free online course materials and video > lectures. In October, 2006, I wrote the a blog about "Sunrise Semester" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_Semester http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/arch/175/pages/sunrise.htm and it's influence on me as a child, comparing it to the opportunities the free online courses can afford us: http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/2006/10/son-of-sunrise-semester.html Please keep in mind that I wrote this when I was still recuperating from 2 blown discs and on the Oxy, so my writing is perhaps more... feisty... loose and digressive than usual, but it still demonstrates my appreciation for the opportunities for free media learning even with the ancient technology of local affiliate television. PJ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 11 23:43:03 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:43:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802110308.m1B38HwN023644@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <720811.12105.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Avant, your email @ says ucla.edu. and I know they don't let just any > yahoo > in that place. Students are expected to be in debt. Study hard pal, > we are > all cheering for you. We need your future income to keep our social > security checks coming. > > {8^D > > (Ja, I could have stopped one sentence earlier...) > > I leave you with a converstation that took place between Huck Finn > and the > newly freed former slave Jim. > > Jim: See thah, Marse Huck? I tole ya I would be rich some day, and > now I's > rich. > > Huck: What do you mean Jim? You are as broke as I am. > > Jim: No sah, Marse Huck. I owns myself and I's worth seven hunned > dollars. > May each of us own ourselves. > > spike Thanks for cheering me up, Spike. I even got a laugh out of your social security comment. As far as secret shame felt on Ivy League campuses goes, just remember that they let Dubya into Yale and you are a rocket scientist compared to that guy. ;-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Tue Feb 12 00:33:52 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:33:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802111607n2fa8ff23l3089a031c8e926f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802111607n2fa8ff23l3089a031c8e926f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: PJ Manney wrote: In October, 2006, I wrote the a blog about "Sunrise Semester" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_Semester http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/arch/175/pages/sunrise.htm I subscribe to some of the Teaching Company's courses http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281 and could foresee prices of such dropping to the equivalent of music CDs given enough competition. The big difference in how I see online/distance courses developing is that as long as they are tied into institutions granting the degrees, the cost will remain prohibitive. If degrees were granted on the basis of proficiency tests, similar to the G.E.D., then that would allow commercial ventures to produce materials to teach those subjects well enough for students to pass the tests. Universities could specialize in producing such materials, tutoring people who needed (and could afford) help, and for corporate/government research work. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 2/11/2008 8:16 AM From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 01:17:37 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:47:37 +1030 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802111717q3ce80fb5o4683fa9006fa13e@mail.gmail.com> Warning in advance: this is a bit of a rant, not well structured; I'm trying to shape some hazy ideas that are having trouble gelling. On 11/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Salary is a signal of usefulness, Taking Rafal out of context (apologies in advance...) I think this is a prevalent attitude, but doesn't jibe with my experience. I've been working in the startup / SME world for years as a code gun-for-hire, seeing people doing all kinds of different work, being paid at all kinds of levels. As far as I can see, management is consistently rewarded far in excess of technical front line people. The rule seems to be, if you actually do something concrete, like make a thing, you are intrinsically less valuable than if you "manage" said people (whatever that means). So we have a hierarchy, with money generally increasing the higher up you go, the very top levels being paid crazy money. That's not really news of course. Now I've been happy to take at face value the standard explanations of these disparaties, that the market sorts out who's worth what, and that people must be generally being paid what they're worth, or feedback inherent in the system would eventually fix that. ok. However, looking back, it's very hard to see where much value that I can put my finger on has ever been delivered. Lots of man hours are consumed, lots of code written, lots of executive lunches are consumed, but most efforts fail, most small companies fail. When they do, the only tangible results seem to be the technologies developed, which sometimes manage to not go down with the ship. I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that pretty much everything that is done in this sector is waste, and that my commercial efforts are really pointless, the infrequent successes entirely outweighed by commercial failures. So, seen in that light, it's hard not to see my ongoing career as a pointless busywork. Socialism likes to resort to government makework programs, but how is the market economy any better, seen from this angle? And, I tend to be biased towards the frontline. I figure if the front line work ends up being pointless, then how much more useless is massively well rewarded fluffing about at the executive levels? So, I then come back to value. Now you can argue that value is relative, and some value must be being delivered somewhere to someone in this sector, or it wouldn't continue to exist. But I think this is an economist's definition of value being used, and I've come to realise that it's very different to what an ordinary human might mean when they talk about value. That latter would be related to words like valuable, useful, constructive. There's some sense of absoluteness, something existing which is independent of the viewer. When you define value entirely relatively (each person has their own schedule of preferences), you still have money existing absolutely. So what does it represent? As far as I can see, money only represents itself. And there is then an inherent circularity in the economic system... we seem to measure the worth of a contribution by how much is paid for it, while at the same time justifying the amount paid by saying the person must be worth that much. I am worth $X because I am worth $X. As far as my own industry goes, commercial software development is incredibly inefficient. The collective delusion of IP leads to this unbelievable grind, being hired to write the same poorly thought out crap over and over again, people incorrectly believing their secret squirrel ideas are something new under the sun. It's so clear to anyone with some technical nouse that 99% of the codebase of any software system is just plumbing unrelated to whatever the top level idea is. But ask any most commercial developers what they spend the bulk of their time writing, and you'll find it's that stuff. Not even building a better mousetrap, just building another, hopefully at least average mousetrap. Waste. And of course these days we work with the extra hurdle of having to avoid patented techniques. Whatever else I've said about value above notwithstanding, it's clear to me that collective delusions can trump the corrective influence of the invisible hand. Intellectual Property is a wonderful example. In software, the silo effect this has caused in industry (and the aforementioned endless repetition of the same work in company after company) I think has led directly to the open source software movement that we see today. It took me years to understand, from the perspective of a commercial developer, how the open source movement could come to exist. Releasing free code here and there is one thing; an entire movement on the scale of what we have today, with people making all this great stuff for free, and making it free to be built on, well that's something that wants explaining. I used to wonder, maybe someone pays most of these people, ie: they do this stuff at work, but I think that's a minority. Then I thought maybe it's a reputation economy, kind of like academia, and reputation is something you can convert to money. Undoubtedly there is some effect, but I think that's secondary. I now think open source is a collective expression of the technical personality's basic frustration with wrongness. The commercial software world clearly just does this stuff totally wrongly. Software builds on software, ideas build on ideas, but IP blocks the use of one idea as the basis for another. I think technical people en-masse have revolted, they've said "this is wrong, I'm tired of trying to explain it, here we'll show you". Anyway... to wrap up this rant, it comes back to value. Here I am involved in an industry whose entire merit is questionable. The methodology is questionable, the track record is terrible, but there's a godawful amount of money involved. Then there's open source, which for the most part appears to still be a voluntary effort to make things better. To create value, in a way that us poor technical folk understand. And it's hugely successful, on a scale that my poor brain still has trouble grasping. This is a signal of something being not at all right with how things are organised. In light of this, salary is a signal of usefulness? I think salary is a signal of salary getting ability. Networth is an indicator of how good you are at increasing your networth. Real value is something unrelated. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 03:43:31 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:43:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] blog In-Reply-To: <1202707092_21833@S3.cableone.net> References: <1202707092_21833@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802112143.31532.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 10 February 2008, hkhenson wrote: > I have been advised that anyone with a new idea should put up a blog. Care to explain? > Wanting to gain attention and criticism for the space elevator/power > sat as a way to hold back the premature deaths of several billion > people, I could use a bit of suggestion as to where a blog should be > put. I have no particular recommendations, but take a look at these: http://wordpress.com/ http://blogger.com/ No matter what you do, most importantly get an RSS feed up for your blog, use the pinging services (such as for Google blogsearch and over at technorati) and say hello to your old friends already in the blogosphere with linkbacks, trackers, and other little widgets that mostly look like 'clutter' to help proliferation on the social bookmarking websites and so on (try AddMe and a few other extensions to Wordpress). It helps. Btw, has anybody mapped the extropian blogosphere? Personally, I use blosxom for blogging. RSS feed on my site. But it's not exactly a typical setup. Wouldn't recommend it for "I just need it to work like everybody else's." - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 03:50:50 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:50:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) In-Reply-To: <000d01c86cc8$2d66f400$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200802120350.m1C3ooAM014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Olga Bourlin > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) ... > Breaking the Drug Taboo: Group of Traumatized Veterans Get > Experimental Ecstasy Treatment > > http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/76576/ Is ecstasy one of the class of drugs in which it is nearly impossible to overdose? If so, I can imagine it used as a non-lethal deterrent on the battlefield. > > I resent the fact that I have to pay your medical bills even if you > > have to pay mine...Please understand I'm all > > for charity, I just don't like a gun placed at my head. John K Clark > > Well, now ... so, are you doing something about trying to > abolish the 2nd Amendment? ;) Olga Olga without second amendment rights we have no rights at all, but rather only a few grudging permissions which can be rescinded at any time. spike From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 03:56:01 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:56:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802112156.01138.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, PJ Manney wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 8:04 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > A "bit" of debt? > > > > I'm in the hole to the tune of over $70,000 USD, and I didn't even > > finish my graduate-level education. This is from a *state* school > > We're considered rich by global standards. But even we were > concerned about the expenses we'd incur sending two kids to > college/grad school in the 2010's-20's vs. the debt we'd/they'd incur > if we didn't. We're looking down the barrel of a minimum of $500,000 > to send two kids for undergraduate degrees at private institutions. > When we analyzed the numbers and observed the process involved in the > college loan system, there was really no argument. Interesting. I was born in 1990. In the very late 80s, my parents started to look at the market and make some investments to make sure I'd have some good college funding. But for some reason they have seemed to underestimate (and they had the means to fund it well enough with that much foresight). Under by about 50%. What went wrong? Granted, I am not expecting $250k for a private university as you mention there, but some public programs seem to nearly approach that. $40k/yr, undergrad, then there's the extra years if you want to stick around and if you don't get a stipend. Nasty - and luckily I am not opposed to cheaper institutions. I wonder what was the main difference in financial prediction here that has landed me in my situation, which isn't too bad, but also not the best given the level of foresight that my parents were attempting. I think they hired a financial planner instead of doing it themselves. Again, what went wrong? Is this common? > And we've got smart kids. Graduate degrees are not unlikely. Now > we're talking in the millions. Who has that kind of money to pay to > go to school? The system is ridiculous. Maybe the solution is to just not pay. > And to answer Amara's question about why we create a debtors' society > with our young people -- It's obvious. It's good business for > financial institutions. Get 'em young, keep 'em forever. Our > hamster wheel of debt is their profit. What's with this commercialization of education, anyway? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 03:58:39 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:58:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802112158.39647.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, James Clement wrote: > Possible solution: demonopolize the granting of university degrees by > allowing degrees to be awarded by the regional accreditation groups > on the basis of satisfactory completion of tests rather than > attendance at a campus. ?Thus, individuals could "learn at home" with > or without tutors, and use the incredible infrastructure of the > internet to bring quality lectures to them like MIT's and > UC-Berkeley's free online course materials and video lectures. How would we begin to start this system? We would need some incentive for the translation of institutions to come over to the new system in the first place, else there would be little incentive. There have been some new universities in recent years, like Olin up in Boston for engineering, and if those sorts of institutions start signing on then maybe some progress can be made. But what about coming up with an incentive for the likes of MIT to change? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 04:07:09 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:07:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802111717q3ce80fb5o4683fa9006fa13e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802111717q3ce80fb5o4683fa9006fa13e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802112207.09669.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, Emlyn wrote: > Warning in advance: this is a bit of a rant, not well structured; I'm > trying to shape some hazy ideas that are having trouble gelling. Seems very relevant to me. I will try to extract and generalize and provide some more thoughts on the topic. > On 11/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Salary is a signal of usefulness, > > I think this is a prevalent attitude, but doesn't jibe with my > experience. I now think open source is a collective expression of the > technical personality's basic frustration with wrongness. The > commercial software world clearly just does this stuff totally > wrongly. Software builds on software, ideas build on ideas, but IP > blocks the use of one idea as the basis for another. I think technical > people en-masse have revolted, they've said "this is wrong, I'm tired > of trying to explain it, here we'll show you". Again, taken out of context, Rafal's comment looks more like politics than what you describe as a 'revolt' against technical wrongness. Salary is not a cultural signal, and open source has this large cultural background, it's like what people call the United States, "a cultural mixing pot" except the OSS community does it for real. > This is a signal of something being not at all right with how things > are organised. In light of this, salary is a signal of usefulness? I > think salary is a signal of salary getting ability. Networth is an > indicator of how good you are at increasing your networth. Real value > is something unrelated. The 'real value' seems to be some technical addition to the world of ideas and implemented software. Take a look at the Linux communities, like Debian. These packaging systems have hundreds of thousands of different programs packed together, a monumental feat (involving lots of automation, granted). *This* feels like real progress. Building towers. Standing on the shoulders of giants, etc. Has anybody written an essay exploring the connections between the open source community and the extropian philosophy? There are too many parallels to be a coincidence, and yet, socially, there are not too many connections as far as I can tell. What's going on? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 03:36:34 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <875762.67739.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200802120404.m1C44ajF019245@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Tom Nowell ... > Now, small grants towards living costs have started coming > back for students from the poorest families... Thanks for this Tom! Very insight-producing. >... as they realised > many kids from poor backgrounds were terrified of too much debt... How well I can relate to that. When I finished my undergraduate work in 1983, I was about $5000 in debt and my future wife was a little over $11000. I was so appalled by that sum of money. I had no idea how in the hell I would *ever* pay off such a pile of dough. I had a sub-minimum wage job at the time (on campus wage of $2.90/hr). But things got better. When I got my first salary job that year, I was amazed at how easy it was, and how much money I was paid for it, delightfully astounded. Both debts were paid off inside of two years. > ...So you see Spike, some countries do feel it > worthwhile to offer students financial support, so they think > getting an education is worth more than going straight into > the workplace to get money and work experience straight away... Tom Tom you may have hit on something important there. Most Americans have at one time or another in their lives worked at some lousy McJob. Perhaps working crummy minimum wage jobs and working one's way up causes people to be thrifty, industrious, motivated and admirably libertarian. So then, poverty really *does* build character. spike From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Tue Feb 12 04:05:22 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:05:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802112158.39647.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> <200802112158.39647.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bryan Bishop wrote: > How would we begin to start this system? We would need some incentive > for the translation of institutions to come over to the new system in > the first place, else there would be little incentive. There have been > some new universities in recent years, like Olin up in Boston for > engineering, and if those sorts of institutions start signing on then > maybe some progress can be made. But what about coming up with an > incentive for the likes of MIT to change? It could either be started by a State (like Arizona, home to Univ. of Phoenix, the great "distance" learning institution), or one of the regional accrediting organizations. Once they allowed tests to be used for a few basic degrees, course by course, (you wouldn't have to have the full gambit of offerings in the beginning), then places like U. of Phoenix, The Learning Annex, etc. would jump at producing lectures to meet the market. These are just examples - other avenues are plausible also. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 2/11/2008 8:16 AM From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 04:12:35 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:12:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <200802112158.39647.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802112212.35471.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, James Clement wrote: > It could either be started by a State (like Arizona, home to Univ. of > Phoenix, the great "distance" learning institution), or one of the > regional accrediting organizations. ?Once they allowed tests to be > used for a few basic degrees, course by course, (you wouldn't have to > have the full gambit of offerings in the beginning), then places like > U. of Phoenix, The Learning Annex, etc. would jump at producing > lectures to meet the market. ?These are just examples - other avenues > are plausible also. It is my understanding that the distance learning institutions are frowned upon as commercial institutions and not beacons of academic success. So that might be a bad group to be associated with? But on the other hand, they likely have good standings with political representatives in their states, so this seems to be a trade-off. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Feb 12 03:27:47 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:27:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802111717q3ce80fb5o4683fa9006fa13e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002e01c86d27$428f2a50$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "Emlyn" To: ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 5:17 PM > On 11/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> Salary is a signal of usefulness, > > I think this is a prevalent attitude, but doesn't jibe with my > experience. I've been working in the startup / SME world for years as > a code gun-for-hire, seeing people doing all kinds of different work, > being paid at all kinds of levels. > As far as I can see, management is consistently rewarded far in excess > of technical front line people. The rule seems to be, if you actually > do something concrete, like make a thing, you are intrinsically less > valuable than if you "manage" said people (whatever that means). So we > have a hierarchy, with money generally increasing the higher up you > go, the very top levels being paid crazy money. That's not really news > of course. Emlyn, how right you are! We have not had - and do not now have ... much of a meritocracy. One only has to observe what's been going on at history (even biased, self-serving, classist history) to see this. Olga From andres at thoughtware.tv Tue Feb 12 04:43:45 2008 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:43:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Aubrey on The Colbert Report Message-ID: Just saw Aubrey on The Colbert Report. He did very well promoting the Methuselah foundation and the book Ending Aging. We'll be posting the video link soon at Thoughtware.TV. Stay tuned :-) Andr?s Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 12 04:46:01 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:46:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: James Clement clementlawyer at hotmail.com : >It could either be started by a State (like Arizona, home to Univ. of >Phoenix, the great "distance" learning institution), or one of the regional >accrediting organizations. During the time that I taught there (2004-2005), The American University of Rome: http://www.aco.eu.com/italy-american-university.php http://www.aur.edu was in the process of being accredited by the Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS): http://www.acics.org/ The procedure was cumbersome and took about a year, with most of the effort carried by the administrators. I suggest to browse the ACICS web site to see what is involved. (I haven't read all of the material myself) Getting that accreditation to be standardized in the university's education offerings with the rest of the US educational system was supremely important, more for a credible reputation than for how good we actually were! What I remember most about that accreditation process was that without it, any grade that I gave to my students was automatically translated down 1/2 a grade by the institutions that sent those students abroad (American 'Study Abroad' students were about 60% of my students). That little factoid made me furious, especially since it was not well-advertised by the university, but the university passed through that uncomfortable accreditation phase quickly, fortunately. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 04:48:25 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:48:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080211000448.0218e1a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a701c86d32$a40eb9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien inquires > Lee recommended > >> the freedom of not having a tax collector turn to me >> to finance every human aberration occuring anywhere in society. > > Do you have a short list of the most serious aberrations in society > that you resent funding, and some estimate of how much they cost? - Social Security for *teenagers*! - women having children out of wedlock. - subsidized transportation for people who "can't afford" it - people who can't "find" work or who flat out won't and really, God knows how many other things along this line that keep social workers employed by the hundreds of thousands (in the U.S.). Even more sadly, many of the items like this are no longer regarded as "aberrations" by society. Take the manner in which the Federal Government paid out $20 billion per year back in the 1970s to encourage women to have children out of wedlock. And that was back when $20 billion was really a lot of money. Did the bureaucrats have sense enough to understand what *incentive* is? I think they did; I just think that they didn't care. I have at least two old friends who stopped working back in their twenties. One simply convinced the government that he was insane (he's not a bit insane, far from it), and the other has always taken so many weird drugs that his natural hypocondria has been supplemented by real (though induced) medical problems. Each of these people, in my opinion, would have been better off if no such safety nets ever existed. Oh yes, I can hear almost every reader exclaiming, but what about those who really cannot work, or really are ill. Are you going to let them starve? See once again the engineering mentality at work? We are supposed to provide for every conceivable case, regardless of the messages this sends out or what influences it has on upcoming generations, or what it does to people's incentives. I'm not opposed to charity freely given. I was so outraged back in the 80s when I learned that a perfectly innocent teenager may be called up by a social worker eager to see if he qualifies for some program or other. The government thus employs a numbe of "pushers" for their kind of dependence, (the dependence that keeps all the bureaucrats employed, and that makes damn sure that no "aberrations" ever, ever go away). > (I assume you're not speaking of such aberrations as > jailing "soft drug" users, at vast expense, Alas, no, that's an entire other ball of worms that our over-active nanny state has chosen to saddle us with > or punishing the wrong country for the crimes of a religious > splinter group from elsewhere, at even vaster expense, knowing when, and if, to take pre-emptive military action is incredibly difficult, and it wouldn't surprise me greatly if Ron Paul and other libertarians are right that we should not "gamble" on the benefits of that---but yes, that is an entirely different story too Lee > although these might be good motives for disliking tax collection.) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 04:54:08 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:54:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><1202682779.780.1449.camel@localhost.localdomain><008101c86c70$95e2e0f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1202714594.780.1503.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <00ab01c86d33$5911af30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Fred writes >> > First it should be pointed out that there were instances >> > of "involuntary commitment" in the sense that many persons >> > were in jails or prisons >> >> well, yes, but for "our" protection, not theirs! > > The question was not about who was being protected. The question was > about "involuntary commitment" for whatever reason. Hmm? Well, sorry, but I had the definite impression that the thread focused on the issue of commiting those who were a danger to themselves. Whatever. Certainly we all agree here that those that pose a danger to *others* for sure must be sequestered. >> > rather than institutions specifically for their treatment. >> > Secondly it was in the mid 1800s that many of these >> > institutions began to be constructed. There was a >> > reform movement began in the 1840s to construct >> > asylums so that persons commonly classified as >> > "mentally ill" could be treated rather than left in the >> > usually deplorable conditions of the jails. >> >> But who was to pay for it? As always, that's the key >> question. > > No. The key question is often one of getting the history correct. Well :-) perhaps we have different priorities. I did leave the question open for you, since I didn't reseach the question. Who, indeed, did pay for the 19th century housing and care of the mentally ill? I mean, in those cases that you so kindly found for us? For goddamn sure, it wasn't the federal government! (What would shed the most light would be to know if state governments were involved---I do have much less of a problem with communities deciding to do something collectively, for the primary reason---so alien to the thinking of most socialists--- that local knowledge is vital, and cannot be obtained by people sitting in judges robes thousands of miles away, nor by nameless bureacrats eager to expand their departments.) Lee From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 04:35:18 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:35:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802112156.01138.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Bryan Bishop ... > Interesting. I was born in 1990. In the very late 80s, my > parents started to look at the market and make some > investments to make sure I'd have some good college funding... Bryan, one of my college buddies had a daughter, his only larva, in 1993. He started a college fund for her that year, with the amount of money we paid in one year at that college. He reasoned that since she had a long time for the money to grow, the stocks he chose were all high fliers, the wildest dot coms. In 2000, when she was seven, her net worth exceeded mine (I was 40 that year, and 18 years into my career). A year later, her net worth was pretty typical of an eight year old. Today at fifteen, her net worth is about enough to pay for one year at the college her father and I attended. Unfortunately, she is not college material. It's looking like she will not even be able to finish high school, but a GED isn't entirely out of the question. > > What's with this commercialization of education, anyway? > > - Bryan Why not? See what commercialization did for Christmas. Took it from an obscure religious holiday to the wild bacchanalian success it is today, providing profits for stockholders in retailing businesses, giving seasonal employment to millions, all those songs, Snoopy's doghouse, the parades, the football games, all thanks to crass commericalization. Commerce is our friend. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 05:09:42 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:09:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <00af01c86d36$26eeb9a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee... wrote: >> Stathis writes >> >> > If you develop a brain tumour one of the effects of which is that you >> > don't believe there is anything wrong with you, would you (i.e. the >> > present, healthy you) want to be forced to have treatment? >> >> Ideally, only if I had signed up for such a circumstance arising. >> [That is, if I had signed a contract stating that a certain company >> could legally way-lay me and forcibly apply treatment under >> specified circumstances of definite and attested-to infirmity >> on my part] > > Most people would not sign such a contract, because they don't think > it will happen to them. Really, then, that is THEIR problem. Not mine, not even yours. People make all sorts of dumb, or not-so-dumb decisions. Our engineering mentality that wants to have the government take care of every possible contingency will sooner or later focus on every possible mistake anyone might make, that could be "detrimental" to their own lives. And usually, "detrimental" will happen not by chance to relate to greater applications of government force, and greater expansion of existing and new bureaucracies. > You see, if you sign such a contract you are effectively allowing that > *right now* you might be delusional. Is this the sort of thing people complain about as "logic-chopping"? :-) Well, here is a counter-chop: If we replace the individual volition of me deciding what should happen to me, with a government inflicted "one-size-fits-all" arrangement, then we are presuming that right now the government *isn't* delusional. But I think that it is! > You certainly feel confident that you could prove that you are > Lee Corbin, but there are patients in the psychiatric ward who > are just as confident that they are Jesus Christ. Well, then. So we're all on the same footing, are we? Insanity lies in the eye of the beholder? Oh, I forgot. The AUTHORITIES decide who is insane and who is not. They leave it in the hands of professionals who even unconsciously are without the slightest self-interest in expanding the scope of their activities. > It isn't a delusion if you know it's a delusion! And it won't help to > specify that certain trusted family and friends must be consulted > before the contractors drag you off for treatment if those family and > friends have been corrupted or replaced by alien shape-shifters. :-) Of course, you really leave yourself open here to attack, but being the gentleman I am, I will refrain. Heh, heh, I do know what you are driving at, namely, indeed, only professionals such as yourself are capable of determining actual aberrant behavior, and that family or friends might simply be mistaken. If they exist! As we must account for all possibilities, naturally we must suppose that no one knows a particular suspected "deviant", and that these people have no familiies or friends (does indeed happen, though rarely). No offense, but I do think that you may be a bit blinded by the trees when it comes to assessing the forest. Working with delusional or mentally incompetant people day in and day out could generate at least unconsciously a feeling that it's a much more common phenomenon than it actually is, and other disturbed semantic relations,. Lee From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 12 04:52:51 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:52:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802112207.09669.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102325m7febf297mcebcb5d1be675aea@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802111717q3ce80fb5o4683fa9006fa13e@mail.gmail.com> <200802112207.09669.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/11/08, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Has anybody written an essay exploring the connections between the open > source community and the extropian philosophy? There are too many > parallels to be a coincidence, and yet, socially, there are not too > many connections as far as I can tell. What's going on? This intrigues me, as I fall squarely into the intersection of the "open source programmer" and "transhumanist" categories. I'd tentatively suggest that both memeplexes attach to the same underlying personality type, but a difference in interests/skills (in the case of whether one takes up programming) and philosophy (in the case of adopting a transhumanist outlook) cause less overlap than there might be otherwise. In other words, it's very easy to imagine transhumanists with no real desire to program, and likewise open source programmers with no inclination towards transhumanism. (The latter may sound odd at first glance with the stereotypical geek fascination for science fiction, but I consider it quite a jump from thinking, e.g., "cybernetic implants / medical immortality / personality rewriting are cool" to "I *really*, *seriously*, in *real life*, want cybernetic implants / to live forever / to rewire my mind".) From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Feb 12 05:22:53 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:22:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <007601c86d37$51b47930$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:35 PM > Unfortunately, she is not college material. It's looking like she will > not > even be able to finish high school, but a GED isn't entirely out of the > question. Spike, I somewhat understand what you're saying about "not college material." (Whenever I hear that phrase, it brings to mind a high school teacher I had whose idea of praising people was by calling them: "college material!" "college material!") But "college material" is a funny thing. I mean, shit ... George Bush went to college. I've known so very many people who went to college - but whom I do not consider to be very educated. (BTW, I graduated from college, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.) "Why are so many seemingly intelligent, rational people caught in the grip of the irrational beliefs of religion? Law, engineering, chemistry, mathematics... fields that require a great deal of thinking, seem to be no guarantee of rational thinking.": http://freethought.mbdojo.com/compartmentalization.html And there are these inspirational stories about "not college material": http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=rbkelley300&date=20080130&query=athlete+university+of+washington+master%27s Just sayin' ... Olga From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 05:19:57 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:19:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com><954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Our Avantguardian wrote, on Feb 10, 2008 8:34 PM, > Given the continuation of current trends, it seems likely that market > forces will in time result in a "winner take all" economic singularity > where no matter what you buy or where you buy it from, your money ends > up in the same "hands". This is far worse than a simple monopoly since > a classical monopoly only applies to a single commodity whereas an > economic singularity is not so restricted. A "winner take all" economic singularity would *not* a bad thing at all, given all the current economic trends! Would you really disapprove of the following distribution? In 2044 so rich has society become that in 2007 dollars, one person owns the equivalent of 10^46 dollars, and the world's second richest person commands "only" 10^40 dollars. After that, a there are a few hundred people whose wealth puts them in the $10^30 - $10^40, range, and the average person owns a mere 10^20 dollars. Those at the very bottom of society subsist, somehow, upon a mere 10^15 (one quadrillion) dollars, in today's money. "How can this possibly be equitable?", ask the socialists on this list. For although admittedly everyone is doing very, very well by early century standards, the top dog, after all, owns everything! Everything, that is, but a mere insignificant one-millionth or so of all the wealth. Anyone who does not think this distribution of wealth to be an extremely desirable outcome is suffering, purely and simply, from envy. Or at very least, and conscious appreciation of and catering to all the proles out there who suffer from the envy's evil eye. Lee From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Tue Feb 12 05:22:23 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:22:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802112212.35471.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200802112158.39647.kanzure@gmail.com> <200802112212.35471.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bryan Bishop wrote: > It is my understanding that the distance learning institutions are > frowned upon as commercial institutions and not beacons of academic > success. So that might be a bad group to be associated with? But on the > other hand, they likely have good standings with political > representatives in their states, so this seems to be a trade-off. The question is not whether any individual provider is "frowned upon" by commercial institutions, but whether the graduates are better off with such a degree than without. Most would probably not question that a prep-school diploma is better than a G.E.D., but if your option is getting a G.E.D. (or B.S.) or nothing, which do you think is the better choice? Also, as time goes by, degrees from schools like U. of Phoenix will become more and more acceptable, and certainly equal to or greater than lesser-college/community-college degrees. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 2/11/2008 8:16 AM From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 04:58:09 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:58:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802112212.35471.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802120524.m1C5OnJe010442@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Bryan Bishop ... > > It is my understanding that the distance learning > institutions are frowned upon as commercial institutions and > not beacons of academic success... - Bryan Well sure Bryan, but let me try another angle at the whole academia and its discontents. I work at a big engineering firm (Lockheeed). The reason I have stayed there all these years (19) is that it has enormous opportunities for education. There is the formal stuff, with some classed offered by the local universities there on the site (math, space technology and business courses mostly) but there is also tremendous potential for learning from colleagues. I consider it a terrific fringe benefit of working in a big corporation to be able to work in teams, make friends who know cool stuff, then we talk about our work, teach each other of our areas of expertise. That style of learning is not exactly a beacon of academic success, as it grants no actual credentials. But my notion is that if one is in a good job, one should get steadily smarter just from hanging out with smart people. So don't be afraid of going into a big company. They have their advantages. The trick is getting one's foot in the door. Usually that requires a college degree, with an advanced degree preferred. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 05:29:30 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:29:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com><005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080211000448.0218e1a8@satx.rr.com><006001c86cc3$2ec14620$91f04d0c@MyComputer> <000d01c86cc8$2d66f400$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <00ca01c86d38$426dd6f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Olga writes > On a related note, this may be an interesting development to follow: > > Breaking the Drug Taboo: Group of Traumatized Veterans Get Experimental > Ecstasy Treatment > > http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/76576/ Wherever one turns, one runs into things like (this excerpt): According to some estimates, America can expect a minimum of 300,000 cases of PTSD, at a cost of over $600 billion, rivaling the cost of the wars themselves. And that's just the military wing of PTSD's vast network, which leans all too heavily on those who have suffered horrific experiences such as rape, violence, abuse and more. Whose figures are these, and are there any incentives (do you suppose) for inflating them? Never mind. Here is my main point: were we actually a land of *freedom* then long ago people would have discovered using their own free choice whether or not MDMA is effective against this sort of thing. We would not be waiting upon researchers to determine its "safety" or effectiveness, nor would we be facing a $600 billion dollar cost---a cost that, of course, will balloon to ten times that before much time has passed, just so long as the tax-payer is still warm and can be bled. Lee From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 12 05:47:43 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:47:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Spike: >The trick is getting one's foot in the door. Usually that requires a >college degree, with an advanced degree preferred. Note to Bryan: don't put too much weight on Spike's 'Usually that requires a college degree...' Note to Spike: When I was 21, I got my first serious astronomy job, working for the Voyager 2 mission Photopolarimeter team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. My previous jobs were: helping a Caltech astronomer look for asteroids at Palomar Observatory (volunteer, 4 years), teacher's assistant for an observational astronomy class at Saddleback Community College (1 year), delivering phonebooks, inventory manager at 2 scientific bookstores (2 years), Carl's Junior flipping burgers (3 years to 'lead person', woohoo!), cleaning boats and apartments and babysitting (3 years). Since my JPL job, I rarely got my jobs through standard channels, and from my early twenties, my jobs drove my education, rather than the other way around. This is a more logical way to acquire an education, when you think about it. And yes, such an approach was not easy to give attention to my courses sometimes. (*) Amara (*) I still have the letter from the UC Irvine Physics Department, kicking me out of the B.S. program, unless I improved my grades in the next quarter. Note to Rafal: That was the quarter I moved out of my parent's house and was working three jobs to pay for tuition and living costs, a pattern that was repeated several more times during my next 21 years. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 06:15:08 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:15:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <007601c86d37$51b47930$6601a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200802120641.m1C6foej016236@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Olga Bourlin > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > > From: "spike" > > > Unfortunately, she is not college material... ... > > But "college material" is a funny thing... Aspergers. Unable to follow a lecture. > I mean, shit ... George Bush went to college... Yes, at Yale. They don't give those degrees away. Olga keep in mind that the whole notion that W is mentally deficient was an invention of the mainstream press. If you read the books of people who actually worked for him, not one of them say he is stupid (see for instance George Tenet, who disagreed with W but does not argue that he is deficient in any way.) > I've known so very many people who went to college - but whom > I do not consider to be very educated... I hear that a lot regarding engineers. We are told we didn't get real education, but rather mere job training. Granted we may have no clue why those paintings that were recently stolen were considered to be worth $163 million. Why? http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/5/3/armed_robbers_steal_4_masterworks_i n_zurich/ If they were worth that much, why couldn't we digitize photos of them and build a robot which would create arbitrarily many copies using actual oil paints on canvas, copies that are so good that only experts could tell them from the original? Couldn't we replace all the original (absurdly overvalued) originals in the museums with really good copies, thus saving huge sums on the obviated security measures? So we don't understand the art world. No amount of education will change that for me. ... > > "Why are so many seemingly intelligent, rational people > caught in the grip of the irrational beliefs of religion? > Law, engineering, chemistry, mathematics... fields that > require a great deal of thinking, seem to be no guarantee of > rational thinking... Olga This is something I have pondered often. I have personally known many who are very impressive intellectually but carry irrational beliefs. I don't understand why they are not crushed beneath the weight of counter evidence everywhere they look and every time they think. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 06:31:44 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:31:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802120658.m1C6wO9L023220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > > Spike: > >The trick is getting one's foot in the door. Usually that > requires a > >college degree, with an advanced degree preferred. > > Note to Bryan: don't put too much weight on Spike's 'Usually > that requires a college degree...' > > Note to Spike: When I was 21, I got my first serious > astronomy job, working for the Voyager 2 mission > Photopolarimeter team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory... Amara Noted Amara, and note in return: you are a special case in a lotta ways. You do realize that you have had an uncommon life trajectory, ja? {8-] When I started at Lockheeed, the old timers often commented that the new generation (I and my peers) couldn't get hired there unless we had a technical college degree. Before that, sometimes people did get in there without them, some with non-technical degrees. We noted that this was degree inflation. Over the years I have seen degree inflation go into high gear. Of the younger set that has been hired in my area in the past ten years, I would estimate three quarters have masters degrees in the hard sciences or engineering, and many of them have doctorates. I am one of the few remaining dinosaurs with no advanced graduate degree. My opportunities for advancement are limited, but I find the informal educational opportunities make it worthwhile just the same. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 12 06:52:58 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:52:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] elections again In-Reply-To: <200802120524.m1C5OnJe010442@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802120719.m1C7Jcv7004205@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Pardon my overposting today. As a moderator I should spank myself bigtime, however I notice that there is a lot of excellent high-quality meme-age flying about today, and no one is flaming, thanks. I watch the Iowa Electronic Markets, the real money version of IFX Ideas Futures: http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/ A lot of it these days is political stuff. While looking at the trends, it suddenly occurred to me that this provides a perfectly legal (even if neither ethical nor moral) way of buying votes. Imagine a close political contest between Hosenose and Butthead. Imagine a rich person prefers Hosenose, but has already donated to the limit. She checks Iowa Electronic Markets, and sees that Hosenoses are selling for 47 cents a share and Buttheads are selling for 53. She could buy a million shares of Hosenose for 470k, and give them away to random poor people, say a hundred shares each to ten thousand people in a critical state. Then of course if Hosenose wins, those gifts are worth a hundred dollars, otherwise nada. Surely this would encourage Hosenose votes. spike From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 12 08:08:01 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:08:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802120641.m1C6foej016236@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <007601c86d37$51b47930$6601a8c0@brainiac> <200802120641.m1C6foej016236@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080212080801.GP10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:15:08PM -0800, spike wrote: > Yes, at Yale. They don't give those degrees away. Olga keep in mind that > the whole notion that W is mentally deficient was an invention of the He's not the brightest bulb (his grades sucked) but he made it. The speech impediment is either accumulated damage (too much coke and booze) or a shtick. He used to be much more coherent in the past. Apart from that I ashamed to share the same species as him and his. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 12 08:27:00 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:27:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <58867.44013.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Our Avantguardian wrote, on Feb 10, 2008 8:34 PM, > > > Given the continuation of current trends, it seems likely that > market > > forces will in time result in a "winner take all" economic > singularity > > where no matter what you buy or where you buy it from, your money > ends > > up in the same "hands". This is far worse than a simple monopoly > since > > a classical monopoly only applies to a single commodity whereas an > > economic singularity is not so restricted. > > A "winner take all" economic singularity would *not* a bad thing at > all, given all the current economic trends! > > Would you really disapprove of the following distribution? Well I don't generally disapprove of fairy tales. > In 2044 so rich has society become that in 2007 dollars, one > person owns the equivalent of 10^46 dollars, and the world's > second richest person commands "only" 10^40 dollars. After > that, a there are a few hundred people whose wealth puts > them in the $10^30 - $10^40, range, and the average person > owns a mere 10^20 dollars. Those at the very bottom of > society subsist, somehow, upon a mere 10^15 (one quadrillion) > dollars, in today's money. You seem to somehow have gotten the impression that money creates wealth. It doesn't quite work that way. Wealth creates wealth. Money is just a medium of exchange for said wealth. That is what inflation is all about and why governments can't just pay their bills by printing money without screwing up the economy. > "How can this possibly be equitable?", ask the socialists on this > list. For although admittedly everyone is doing very, very well > by early century standards, the top dog, after all, owns everything! > Everything, that is, but a mere insignificant one-millionth or so > of all the wealth. "How can this possibly be possible?", ask the physicists on this list. For although admittedly 10^15 dollars sounds like a generous amount of money to dole out to the wretched poor by early century standards, there are roughly 10^40 dollars in this proposed economy and only 6*10^27 grams of matter comprising the entire planet earth including the bodies those poor! Therefore at a mere 1.6*10^18 dollars per gram, should it be a sellers market on atoms of matter, the poor would be able to afford to own a portion of matter, perhaps a portion of their respective bodies, approximately the mass of a mosquito weighing-in at about 1.6 milligrams. Of course some of the more ecentric proles in Lee world may instead elect to forego their bodies completely and come to own an actual mosquito. And by clipping coupons and being frugal the diligent poor may be able to afford some MP3s as well although how they would store or listen to the MP3s is a matter for debate. > Anyone who does not think this distribution of wealth to be an > extremely desirable outcome is suffering, purely and simply, > from envy. Or at very least, and conscious appreciation of > and catering to all the proles out there who suffer from the > envy's evil eye. Anyone who thinks that this distribution of wealth is a feasible, let alone a desirable, outcome is suffering, purely and simply, from a chemical imbalance. Or at very least high on some very powerful drugs. ;-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Feb 12 08:34:52 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:34:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <007601c86d37$51b47930$6601a8c0@brainiac><200802120641.m1C6foej016236@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20080212080801.GP10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <019701c86d52$23727a70$6601a8c0@brainiac> From: "Eugen Leitl" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:08 AM > He's not the brightest bulb (his grades sucked) but he made it. Yep. 'Twas White affirmative action. ;) Olga From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 09:12:19 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:12:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <58867.44013.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011a01c86d57$c49ac9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes >> A "winner take all" economic singularity would *not* >> a bad thing at all, given all the current economic trends! >> Would you really disapprove of the following distribution? > > Well I don't generally disapprove of fairy tales. Er, one of the points of this list and the SL4 one is that even stranger things than the following are conceivable! >> In 2044 so rich has society become that in 2007 dollars, one >> person owns the equivalent of 10^46 dollars, and the world's >> second richest person commands "only" 10^40 dollars. After >> that, a there are a few hundred people whose wealth puts >> them in the $10^30 - $10^40, range, and the average person >> owns a mere 10^20 dollars. Those at the very bottom of >> society subsist, somehow, upon a mere 10^15 (one quadrillion) >> dollars, in today's money. > > You seem to somehow have gotten the impression that > money creates wealth. Oh, no! Not at all. In explaining this scenario to a coworker today, however, he made the same mistaken interpretation of what I was saying. No. I mean *real* wealth. And it's not impossible. To conceive of such vast disparities, one could begin as follows. Let person X (say, living in the year 1650) compare his wealth with Y who lives in -1650 (B.C., that is). It could easily happen than person X could forfeit 10% of his wealth in an even exchange for all of person Y's wealth. In other words, much of what person X has to offer in the 17th century is very impressive to person Y back in the 17th century B.C. An important fact in the foregoing is that the paraphernalia of the 1600s is for the most part unimaginable to person Y. Literally, until he is shown. We might find that a similar ten-to-one ratio existed between a typical 1800 person and the aforementioned person X. And it could easily happen that someone of the 1910's would have this very same relationship to the 17th century guy: he could hand over some small fraction of his wealth (or toys) for all of the earlier person's wealth. You see, of course, where this is going. Even by 2008 we stand far in advance of those living in 1950---I could easily trade a small part of my electronic gear alone for all my parents' furniture and utilities of 1950 (well, I'd have to throw in my cheaper electricity and cheaper water, food, etc). So it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility on *this* list to suppose that this sequence could continue into the indefinite future. Thus---passing even through an uploaded stage, and encountering algorithms that we consider incredibly valuable---this sequence might be continued from today's typical $10,000 = $10^4 right up to $10^10 and then on, eventually, to $10^46. And the 40 generations that this might require could take place over faster and faster time intervals, without even a singularity! NATURALLY we cannot imagine how the richest person at one point in time who has $10^42 could possible see anyone as being 10000 times better off than he, but the relative power scale I described above does explain it. (Incidentally, in chess there is a ranking scale that calibrates one person rated 300 points higher than another winning 7/8 games of their games, and it geometrically works so that if you are 600 higher than someone, then you should win 63/64th's of the games, and so on...) > It doesn't quite work that way. Wealth creates wealth. > Money is just a medium of exchange for said wealth. Well, I'd put it this way: wealth creation up till now comes from (1) increased trade (sadly limited by the limited extent of the Earth which we are now encountering for the first time) (2) technological advances, and (3) specialization (division of labor). But soon there will be (4) if we're not already there: algorithmic advance. > That is what inflation is all about and why governments > can't just pay their bills by printing money without > screwing up the economy. That's for sure. We need higher interest rates instead of our government and society---who have been on what amounts to a "drinking" binge---giving themselves more "stimulant" to fight the "hangover". > there are roughly 10^40 dollars in this proposed > economy and only 6*10^27 grams of matter > comprising the entire planet earth including > the bodies those poor! Therefore at a mere > 1.6*10^18 dollars per gram, should it be a > sellers market on atoms of matter... Yes. What is the number of possible algorithms in an N-state machine? One gets a small idea from "The Busy Beaver" problem, as you probably know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver > Of course some of the more ecentric proles in Lee > world may instead elect to forego their bodies > completely... Yeah, your logic probably does force me into uploading scenarios. >> Anyone who does not think this distribution of >> wealth to be an extremely desirable outcome is >> suffering, purely and simply, from envy. Or at >> very least, and conscious appreciation of and >> catering to all the proles out there who suffer >> from envy's evil eye. > > Anyone who thinks that this distribution of wealth > is a feasible, let alone a desirable, outcome is > suffering, purely and simply, from a chemical > imbalance. Or at very least high on some very > powerful drugs. ;-) Well, come now. The whole point of laying out an extreme scenario is to make the argument clear. So what if Bill Gates owns 1% of American wealth (or something like that, Rockefeller had even more at one point)? I couldn't care less, provided that I myself (and others) are themselves all on exponentially increasing paths of wealth garnering. There do seem to be two points of view here. One is that relative differences are way less important than absolute levels, and the other is that they actually *more* important than absolute levels. (I doubt if *anyone* here supposes that it's a zero-sum game, although, unconsiously....? ? Lee From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 12 09:49:39 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:49:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) In-Reply-To: <200802120350.m1C3ooAM014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000d01c86cc8$2d66f400$6601a8c0@brainiac> <200802120350.m1C3ooAM014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080212094939.GQ10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:50PM -0800, spike wrote: > Is ecstasy one of the class of drugs in which it is nearly impossible to No, while MDMA/MDA is a remarkably safe recreational drug, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1 the therapeutic bandwidth is only about one order of magnitude. You'll get noticeable hyperthermia after a dose of just a small multiple of the recreational. Also, it's a crystalline solid with a bitter taste. Hard to weaponize. > overdose? If so, I can imagine it used as a non-lethal deterrent on the > battlefield. Spike, we've been through this before. There is no simple administration pathway which could supply an incapacitating agent in a sufficiently narrow corridor between "no effect" and "lots of cadavers". The tactical folks want neither. You're good with math, do the math. No agent can have a therapeutic bandwidth 1:10^6 and more. There are non programmable inhalable nanowidgets for administration. Not yet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 12 10:03:38 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:03:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080212100338.GR10128@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:47:43PM -0700, Amara Graps wrote: > Note to Bryan: don't put too much weight on Spike's 'Usually that > requires a college degree...' I have to side with Spike on that one. The entry ticket to play the game in most disciplines is a PhD, in some you'll need postdoc. Mavericks have prohitibitively high entry levels. > Note to Spike: When I was 21, I got my first serious astronomy job, Amara, the world is a very different place then it was at the time. Also, you're not exactly average. I'm not sure *anyone* could pull that stunt off, now. How many of your young colleagues entered the field without a degree? > working for the Voyager 2 mission Photopolarimeter team at the Jet > Propulsion Laboratory. The funding for space missions has collapsed, too. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 10:54:00 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:54:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <011a01c86d57$c49ac9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <58867.44013.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <011a01c86d57$c49ac9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2008 9:12 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Well, come now. The whole point of laying out > an extreme scenario is to make the argument clear. > So what if Bill Gates owns 1% of American wealth > (or something like that, Rockefeller had even more > at one point)? I couldn't care less, provided that > I myself (and others) are themselves all on > exponentially increasing paths of wealth garnering. > The trouble is that you're not. The US and the UK are rapidly heading towards Brazil-like levels of inequality. Quote: The rich now live in their own world of private education, private health care and gated mansions. They have their own schools and their own banks. They even travel apart - creating a booming industry of private jets and yachts. Their world now has a name, thanks to a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank which has dubbed it 'Richistan'. Defenders of low tax for the very rich point to the theory of trickledown economics - the spending power of the rich benefiting the poor. But while the super-rich have boomed, the earning power of the average and poor citizen has not nearly matched the performance of the elite. In 2005 the top one per cent of earners in the US gained 14 per cent in income in real terms, while the rest of the country gained less than one per cent. The situation is especially bad for the severely poor - those living at half the poverty level - whose numbers are at a 32-year high. The rich are getting richer but are not bringing everyone else with them. 'If you look at the impact of the last 20 years it seems pretty clear that trickledown just does not work,' said Paul Buchheit, economics professor at Chicago's Harold Washington College. -------------------------- So long as the multi-millionaires hand out a few cheap toys to the poor so that they can play music and watch videos, they will be entertained and won't even notice how poor they really are. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 10:56:13 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:56:13 +1100 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <00af01c86d36$26eeb9a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00af01c86d36$26eeb9a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 12/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > > You see, if you sign such a contract you are effectively allowing that > > *right now* you might be delusional. > > Is this the sort of thing people complain about as "logic-chopping"? :-) > Well, here is a counter-chop: If we replace the individual volition of > me deciding what should happen to me, with a government inflicted > "one-size-fits-all" arrangement, then we are presuming that right now > the government *isn't* delusional. But I think that it is! No, I think you are missing the point. It has nothing to do specifically with the government, or professionals, or family. You contract with entity X that if you become mentally ill, a risk to yourself and insightless, X will treat you against your will. X will decide if you are mentally ill and require involuntary treatment; or perhaps X with a second opinion from Y plus a trusted family member Z, or whatever you choose to put in the contract. Now, if you do become mentally ill it will seem to you that you have come to your conclusion or formulated your plan for sound and logical reasons. The only hint that there is something wrong will be that X, Y and Z will come to you and explain that they think you're crazy. So if, say, after very careful consideration you decide to sell your home and move to another state, X, Y and Z may come to you and tell you that you're crazy and force you to have psychiatric treatment, for as long as the allegedly psychotic thinking lasts and perhaps indefinitely thereafter to prevent it returning. And you can't put a clause in the contract allowing you to revoke it in case you decide that X, Y and Z are obviously misinterpreting perfectly reasonable behaviour as psychotic, since that would make the whole thing worthless. You are thus in the position where either you have to accept that someone else is better able to judge than you if you are being rational, or (in a perfect libertarian society) accept the risk that you may become mentally ill and be left untreated. The lifetime incidence of illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is around 1 - 2%, but as Rafal pointed out, if you include organic disorders such as Alzheimer's the incidence approaches 50% and continues to rise once you are into your 80's. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Feb 12 11:44:17 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:44:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) In-Reply-To: <200802120350.m1C3ooAM014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802120350.m1C3ooAM014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33032.12.77.169.52.1202816657.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> >> > I resent the fact that I have to pay your medical bills even if you >> > have to pay mine...Please understand I'm all >> > for charity, I just don't like a gun placed at my head. John K Clark >> >> Well, now ... so, are you doing something about trying to >> abolish the 2nd Amendment? ;) Olga > > Charity isn't charity if it's forced, you know that. Then it's robbery. Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Feb 12 11:50:22 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:50:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <200802120404.m1C44ajF019245@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802120404.m1C44ajF019245@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33036.12.77.169.52.1202817022.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > >> Tom Nowell > ... >> Now, small grants towards living costs have started coming >> back for students from the poorest families... > It is worth noting that some smaller local groups have discovered that even $500 in aid to good students can make a difference. Books for school are horrendously expensive and they change so often that used books are often not an option, alas, no matter where you go to school. As I pointed out to one group, a check towards book purchase would be a great load off some student's mind and purse. That bill must be paid up front at the school bookstore. Regards, MB From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 12:21:19 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:21:19 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802112156.01138.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802111254y5e49c7b2if78113940c2cf0fc@mail.gmail.com> <200802112156.01138.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/02/2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > I wonder what was the main difference > in financial prediction here that has landed me in my situation, which > isn't too bad, but also not the best given the level of foresight that > my parents were attempting. I think they hired a financial planner > instead of doing it themselves. Again, what went wrong? Is this common? "Financial prediction"? I'm guessing you don't mean something like, "how much do I need to invest at n% for t years to have x total at the end", but rather "what will the share market, interest rates, inflation, government policy relating to taxation and education, etc. etc. do over the next 18 years?". I wouldn't be so hard on your parents or their financial planner for not being able to figure it out. Relating to a parallel thread about salaries and managers versus doers, does anyone else think it is unfair that "financial analysts" are paid megabucks to make decisions about investment in equity, currency, and commodity markets when on average the strategy of making random choices would do just as well? In fact, some studies show that funds which simply buy shares on the basis of their index weighting on average do better than the funds with the analysts, perhaps because they waste less money paying them. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 12:37:14 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:37:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2008 6:15 AM, spike wrote: > > I hear that a lot regarding engineers. We are told we didn't get real > education, but rather mere job training. Granted we may have no clue why > those paintings that were recently stolen were considered to be worth $163 > million. Why? > > > > If they were worth that much, why couldn't we digitize photos of them and > build a robot which would create arbitrarily many copies using actual oil > paints on canvas, copies that are so good that only experts could tell them > from the original? Couldn't we replace all the original (absurdly > overvalued) originals in the museums with really good copies, thus saving > huge sums on the obviated security measures? > > So we don't understand the art world. No amount of education will change > that for me. > Surely nanotech must destroy the value of all items that depend on age and provenance. All artwork, paintings, sculpture, furniture, objets d'art, souvenirs, etc that can be copied, molecule by molecule, to produce an identical copy, must lose their million dollar valuations. Nanotech will be a severe blow to the rich investors in such objects. I have never understood how a pair of underpants once worn by Elvis are now worth thousands of dollars. They are still just a pair of underpants, for Dog's sake! (Disclaimer: I don't own any valuable antiques or paintings, so I may be biased. I do however own several pairs of incredibly old underpants, if anyone is interested in investing). BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 13:11:29 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:11:29 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 12/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > "How can this possibly be equitable?", ask the socialists on this > list. For although admittedly everyone is doing very, very well > by early century standards, the top dog, after all, owns everything! > Everything, that is, but a mere insignificant one-millionth or so > of all the wealth. How did the top dog acquire all his wealth? Did he work a million times harder than the next person down? Let's be generous and say that he actually worked ten times as hard as that guy, but the market in its wisdom valued the hourly pay rate for his work 10^5 times as high. Well, good for him, you might say. In that case, your moral position on work is not that a person should be rewarded in proportion to his effort, but that he should be rewarded in proportion to what the market will give for his effort. A very lazy person could work half an hour a week and earn more than a very industrious person who works 70 hours a week, and that would be fine if the market can stand it. I disagree that this is a fair situation, but I don't really have an argument to present. It boils down to an irreducible value judgement. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 13:38:22 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:38:22 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Tax Man (was: A Small Request) In-Reply-To: <33032.12.77.169.52.1202816657.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200802120350.m1C3ooAM014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <33032.12.77.169.52.1202816657.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: On 12/02/2008, MB wrote: > Charity isn't charity if it's forced, you know that. Then it's robbery. Wherever there is a collection of people there is the possibility that you will be forced to pay for something you don't want to pay for. The local council spends money - my money - on Christmas decorations because some of the residents apparently like them. They also spend money giving food vouchers to the poor (who, incidentally, all get at least a government living allowance of $200 per week but are sometimes afflicted with a propensity to spend it on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or gambling rather than buy food). I don't mind the food vouchers, but I resent the Christmas decorations. If I move to any other municipality, state or nation I'm bound to find myself in a similar situation where some of my earnings will be forcibly taken and used for purposes of which I don't approve. -- Stathis Papaioannou From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 12 13:47:21 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:47:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802112156.01138.kanzure@gmail.com> <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 2/11/08, spike wrote: > Why not? See what commercialization did for Christmas. Took it from an > obscure religious holiday to the wild bacchanalian success it is today, > providing profits for stockholders in retailing businesses, giving seasonal > employment to millions, all those songs, Snoopy's doghouse, the parades, the > football games, all thanks to crass commericalization. > > Commerce is our friend. I generally like Commerce ? but after hearing about what he's done in this case, I think I need to have a long talk with him. :p From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Feb 12 14:35:43 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:35:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33057.12.77.169.14.1202826943.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > Unfortunately, she is not college material. It's looking like she will not > even be able to finish high school, but a GED isn't entirely out of the > question. > Ah. :( A good college friend had a sister who was *not* college material and that ws recognized by her parents early on. All the other children were graduate school material, so it really did show. Fortunately the parents were able to deal constructively with this: they turned their daughter towards secretarial courses and she learned to type. This was a skill she was good at, they were fortunate. And for graduation from highschool they gave her a good new typewriter, IIRC. She got a job in a small office somewhere local and did well in life, marrying and having a few kids, working steadily all the while. A success story. Which could have been a real failure story, but for the caring and aware parents. I hope your friend's child will have a good outcome, there still are places in our society for those who are not college material, though they're harder to find. Be on the lookout. They'll need encouragement and ideas perhaps. Perhaps she'll be good with pet care - and people really do want someone like that. :) Regards, MB From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 12 15:39:58 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:39:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org >On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:47:43PM -0700, Amara Graps wrote: >> Note to Spike: When I was 21, I got my first serious astronomy job, >Amara, the world is a very different place then it was at the time. >Also, you're not exactly average. I'm not sure *anyone* could pull that >stunt off, now. It wasn't a stunt, it was a natural progression. Note the years of experience by the time I was 21. And in that long list, I didn't include a couple of other jobs: soldiering capacitors in my university's plasma physics lab, volunteering help at my junior college's planetarium shows. >> Note to Bryan: don't put too much weight on Spike's 'Usually that >> requires a college degree...' >I have to side with Spike on that one. The entry ticket to play >the game in most disciplines is a PhD, in some you'll need postdoc. >Mavericks have prohitibitively high entry levels. Eugene, surely you know the grunt work that is involved in any scientific work. There are many avenues for teenagers to learn about a topic while doing grunt work, volunteering their time on such, while they still have a roof over their head paid by their families. It wasn't a miracle or a 'stunt' that I was at Palomar Observatory, volunteering my time, when I met my JPL boss; the astronomer I was helping came to my local astronomy club and asked for volunteers and I raised my hand. And I wasn't the first in my JPL group that got my JPL job at a young age and was publishing papers before my I earned my bachelor's degree, I was something like the fourth. It doesn't seem like you are giving proper value to a young person who has passion; passion enough to try and learn about something to gain experience, right away. You should. Those are the years when such passion can go the farthest, the young person hasn't yet suffered enough disappointments to jade their world view and slow them down. When I was teaching 18-22 year olds at AUR, I did not meet many students with that passion-and-experience; if I had, then I would have snagged them for getting their hands wet in my grunt scientific work. And then happily written letters of recommendation, or otherwise recommended them to other scientists I know. >> working for the Voyager 2 mission Photopolarimeter team at the Jet >> Propulsion Laboratory. >The funding for space missions has collapsed, too. Do you know that about 80% of my salary since 1982 has been paid by space missions (Voyager, Pioneer Venus, KAO, SpaceLab, NASA Atmospheric Airborne flights, SOHO, Galileo, Cassini, Dawn, New Horizons) ? The money is still there, and there are new players entering (India, China) too. But you have to look and or position yourself for it. And please don't count on Mars missions. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 12 16:01:38 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:01:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080212160138.GY10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:39:58AM -0700, Amara Graps wrote: > Eugene, surely you know the grunt work that is involved in any > scientific work. There are many avenues for teenagers to learn about a > topic while doing grunt work, volunteering their time on such, while > they still have a roof over their head paid by their families. It wasn't It totally makes sense. It's just the world doesn't make too much sense, these days. > a miracle or a 'stunt' that I was at Palomar Observatory, volunteering my > time, when I met my JPL boss; the astronomer I was helping came to my > local astronomy club and asked for volunteers and I raised my hand. And > I wasn't the first in my JPL group that got my JPL job at a young age > and was publishing papers before my I earned my bachelor's degree, I was > something like the fourth. All true -- but this is 2008. A very different world. Have you come across journeyman-style careers for *young* scientists lately? > It doesn't seem like you are giving proper value to a young person who > has passion; passion enough to try and learn about something to gain > experience, right away. You should. Those are the years when such > passion can go the farthest, the young person hasn't yet suffered enough > disappointments to jade their world view and slow them down. I agree 1000% -- but the world unfortunately doesn't. Not that my patch of the world is representative, of course. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 12 16:19:40 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:19:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Eugene: >A very different world. Have you come across >journeyman-style careers for *young* scientists lately? Just a few years ago, I could have asked for some volunteers, when I was in Rome, but the university where I was teaching is a liberal arts university, none of the students were science majors, and most were terrified of logarithms and cosines. Notice the strong interest in SETI-at-home and the success of public outreach that involves (at a deep level) the interest of the young public. That should tell you something, that some mechanisms are still in place in this fear-amplified world for young people to get involved. Plus I think any scientist today would be happy to get volunteer help. Of course the scientists can do a *much better* job advertising what they need; I suggested exactly that line item for the EUROPLANET resource locator/database. In my own local physical area, one local institute whose funding comes in large part from public outreach funds is the Space Sciences Institute. http://www.spacescience.org/about_ssi/index.html All one needs is to look around and investigate one's own interests, and try. And keep trying. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 17:14:11 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:14:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00af01c86d36$26eeb9a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <014501c86d9a$fdf4a900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >You contract with entity X that if you become mentally ill, a risk to > yourself and insightless, X will treat you against your will. X will > decide if you are mentally ill and require involuntary treatment; or > perhaps X with a second opinion from Y plus a trusted family member Z, > or whatever you choose to put in the contract. Very well. > Now, if you do become mentally ill it will seem to you that you > have come to your conclusion or formulated your plan [behavior] > for sound and logical reasons. The only hint that there is something > wrong will be that X, Y and Z will come to you and explain that > they think you're crazy. So if, say, after very careful consideration > you decide to sell your home and move to another state, X, Y > and Z may come to you and tell you that you're crazy and > force you to have psychiatric treatment, for as long as the > allegedly psychotic thinking lasts and perhaps indefinitely > thereafter to prevent it returning. Well, that's what I would have contracted for. Sounds perfectly reasonable so far. > And you can't put a clause in the contract allowing you to > revoke it in case you decide that X, Y and Z are obviously > misinterpreting perfectly reasonable behaviour as psychotic, > since that would make the whole thing worthless. Of course. Yes, that would be pointless. > You are thus in the position where either you have to accept that > someone else is better able to judge than you if you are being > rational, or (in a perfect libertarian society) accept the risk that > you may become mentally ill and be left untreated. I understand. So what is the problem? I don't think that I misunderstood you. Indeed, I've often thought that I would trust the combined judgment of several of my friends (forget family) more than I trust my own judgment. >From your earlier post, perhaps your point was: > You see, if you sign such a contract you are effectively > allowing that *right now* you might be delusional. Perhaps I was not acknowledging that from a totally objective viewpoint I may be delusional at any point? Yes, it's always possible! But *extremely* improbable, especially if *currently* none of my friends or family is suggesting anything of the kind. So I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of such a contract. Lee > The lifetime incidence of illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar > disorder is around 1 - 2%, but as Rafal pointed out, if you include > organic disorders such as Alzheimer's the incidence approaches 50% and > continues to rise once you are into your 80's. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 17:31:36 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:31:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <58867.44013.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><011a01c86d57$c49ac9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <015801c86d9d$cc573720$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > Lee wrote: > >> Well, come now. The whole point of laying out >> an extreme scenario is to make the argument clear. >> So what if Bill Gates owns 1% of American wealth >> (or something like that, Rockefeller had even more >> at one point)? I couldn't care less, provided that >> I myself (and others) are themselves all on >> exponentially increasing paths of wealth garnering. > > The trouble is that you're not. > The US and the UK are rapidly heading towards Brazil-like levels of inequality. Despite my attempts to explain how some of us prefer to look at it, y'all keep coming back to i n e q u a l i t y as some kind of fundamental problem. Basically, see, I don't really *care* about inequality per se (oh yes, all other things being equal--which they never are-- inequality is divisive, and so it weakens the identification that people have with their countries, which for me can be a bad thing) > > > > > Quote: > The rich now live in their own world of private education, private > health care and gated mansions. More power to them. What it really comes down to is this: > But while the super-rich have boomed, the earning power > of the average and poor citizen has not nearly matched > the performance of the elite. In 2005 the top one per cent > of earners in the US gained 14 per cent in income in real > terms, while the rest of the country gained less than one > per cent. I do not *believe* what levelers like Frank say, (e.g. in his books Luxury Fever and The Winner-Take-All-Society). Every few years the average person has quite a bit better performance from the machines he buys, and gets better quality from food and other articles. You really think that in the U.S. and U.K. there are a lot of people who'd like to live the way that people did in the 80s? But here is the core disagreement: > The situation is especially bad for the severely poor - those > living at half the poverty level - whose numbers are at a > 32-year high. Can't you see how *in principle* such a point has utterly no significance for those who believe as I do? The poverty level is, you know, simply a certain percentile! It's like lamenting that half of all people have below average intelligence. > The rich are getting richer but are not bringing everyone > else with them. I do acknowlegde disappointment that the "exponential growth" of the wealth of the less rich is a pretty low exponent. Also, there simply is no better system. Or do you believe that some redistribution scheme won't simply bring everyone down? > So long as the multi-millionaires hand out a few cheap toys to the > poor so that they can play music and watch videos, they will be > entertained and won't even notice how poor they really are. If the people cannot be trusted to say how poor they are, just what kinds of "toys" or other resources do you think that the rich *should* be handing down? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 12 17:42:04 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:42:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee wrote: > >> "How can this possibly be equitable?", ask the socialists on this >> list. For although admittedly everyone is doing very, very well >> by early century standards, the top dog, after all, owns everything! >> Everything, that is, but a mere insignificant one-millionth or so >> of all the wealth. > > How did the top dog acquire all his wealth? I don't know, and I doubt if it's really relevant. It's clear that to you (as you say below) the resentment of what the rich have is driven by a *moral* indictment. > Did he work a million times harder than the next person down? Oh, by no means did he work any harder. Did Bill Gates work even ten times harder than the lowest ranked janitor at Microsoft? It's doubtful. What we reward are ideas, skills, and successful entrepreneurial activity. It's those things, after all, that create wealth. > In that case, your moral position on work is not that a person > should be rewarded in proportion to his effort, but that he > should be rewarded in proportion to what the market will > give for his effort. Precisely. I'm glad we're making progress. You perhaps embrace "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". (Sometimes Americans, when asked, think that that line is in the constitution somewhere :-) > I disagree that this is a fair situation, but I don't really have an > argument to present. It boils down to an irreducible value judgement. Yes, it may be an irreducible value judgment. But on the other hand, it may simply be that you have to make an unpleasant choice. Would in fact you be in favor of an "improvement" in technology or in society that caused each person earning D dollars to rise to wealth e^D dollars? True, everyone would be vastly richer, by my God, the gap between the rich and the poor would become truly astronomical! Could you stand it? Lee From mfj.eav at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 20:31:39 2008 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:31:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LIFESPAN trademark and IEET Longevity Dividend course..attn James Hughes... Message-ID: <61c8738e0802061231u6a6c0cf4ybfb0cff281465fbd@mail.gmail.com> Just got word today that the opponent to our Canadian trademark LIFESPAN has dropped their objection so within 30 or so days we will own the LIFESPAN trademark. It took 8 years of legal stuff. I feel quite happy if nothing else but that the fact that the opponent has a 750 million market capitalization and I do not. James ..... Wondering if the IEET distance ed course is going ahead as | have heard nothing since it was first described? Morris Johnson -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-447-4944 701-240-9411 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Transhumanism ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Francis Fukuyama, June 2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From James.Hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Feb 6 20:44:32 2008 From: James.Hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:44:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] LIFESPAN trademark and IEET Longevity Dividend course..attn James Hughes... In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0802061231u6a6c0cf4ybfb0cff281465fbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0802061231u6a6c0cf4ybfb0cff281465fbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD2803906D7068F@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Congrats Morris. > Wondering if the IEET distance ed course is going ahead Yes, we are planning to announce the course for April 21 to June 29. The cost will be $100US and Aubrey and several other IEET folks will be co-instructors. The ten weeks will cover: 1. Longevity Dividend Overview 2. Demography of Aging 3. Biology of Aging 4. Bioethics of Longevity 5. Safety and Efficacy of Therapies 6. Economics of Longevity: Retirement Age and Social Security 7. Medicare and Health Insurance Reform 8. Disability and Aging 9. Immigration, Emigration and the Encouraging Baby-Making 10. Intergenerational Equity I'll make the announcement shortly. ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Associate Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Public Policy Studies, Trinity College http://internet2.trincoll.edu/facProfiles/Default.aspx?fid=1004332 Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From lists at lumen.nu Tue Feb 12 16:11:36 2008 From: lists at lumen.nu (Joost Rekveld) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:11:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many avant-garde artists have had similar hopes about photography, film and all media of reproduction: they hoped these media would be the end of the cultus of the unique object, and would be a means to merge art with daily life. Outside the art-world this vision has in some respects come true or has at least remained a promise. Within the art world I think the media of reproduction have contributed to ever increasing prices for a small number of 'original' works. What these investors pay for is the aura of the original, they do not pay for access to an aesthetic experience. With the advent of some kind of molecular copying I suspect this aura will only increase in price, not diminish. my 2 cents, Joost. On 12 Feb, 2008, at 1:37 PM, BillK wrote: > Surely nanotech must destroy the value of all items that depend on age > and provenance. > > All artwork, paintings, sculpture, furniture, objets d'art, souvenirs, > etc that can be copied, molecule by molecule, to produce an identical > copy, must lose their million dollar valuations. Nanotech will be a > severe blow to the rich investors in such objects. ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- "There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We are all crew.? (Marshall McLuhan) ------------------------------------------- From frankmac at ripco.com Tue Feb 12 18:05:33 2008 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank McElligott) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:05:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] formerly the rich and famous Message-ID: <001601c86da1$de8bdf50$d75de547@thebigloser> 1. george bush was a legacy at Yale, father side, once in an ivy league school the gradu rate is 90%, as compare to 44% nation wide, it pays to have educated parents:) 2. The art stolen two days ago was valued at 150 million, do you think they were smart to get away with it, or do you think they learned all planning and excution required for a robbery like this while in college getting your advanced degrees, I thin not. 3. My friend the 7 billion dollar man in France, was the son of a hairdresser and a school teacher, maybe with a masters degree he could be walking the streets now 4. Education is overated parents are not From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 19:19:53 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:19:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2008 8:11 AM, Joost Rekveld wrote: > Many avant-garde artists have had similar hopes about photography, > film and all media of reproduction: they hoped these media would be > the end of the cultus of the unique object, and would be a means to > merge art with daily life. > Outside the art-world this vision has in some respects come true or > has at least remained a promise. Within the art world I think the > media of reproduction have contributed to ever increasing prices for > a small number of 'original' works. What these investors pay for is > the aura of the original, they do not pay for access to an aesthetic > experience. With the advent of some kind of molecular copying I > suspect this aura will only increase in price, not diminish. > > my 2 cents, Your 2 cents are correct. The psychology is rife in any form of collecting. It could be art, cars, stamps, etc. In fact, the reproduction often raises the original's value because the fame of the object is heightened and therefore it's more desirable as an object. Does a replica of a Shelby Cobra diminish the value of a real Shelby Cobra? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Cobra What if the real thing was owned by Carroll Shelby? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article29515.ece Does a reproduction of an Inverted Jenny diminish the value of the real thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_Jenny Because I can read a Gutenberg bible online doesn't mean an original is any less valuable. http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/gutenberg/web/pgsdbl560/1_001002_001b002b.html Think of all the dorm rooms that held a copies of Escher or Van Gogh or Picasso. Do you see art prices dropping? On the contrary. We are in the biggest art boom market in history as the super-rich get super-richer and need super art to adorn their super walls. When paintings sell for $100 - 200 million, you know the original is valued as the original by someone who wants everyone to know he owns the original. In fact, one of the problems in the market is the really good art that isn't by name brands is being ignored. So much of an art dealer's job is to create name brands through PR and hype where there weren't any to begin with. The prices reflect the knowledge that these things can be sold at any time to another person just like the buyer. They are valued commodities and investments in a psychology that is unlikely to change, as long as there are a small group of people with unbelievable amounts of money and many more without. You can add my 2 cents to Joost's and make it 4. Then you'll have a collection of cents. It might be worth something some day. :) PJ From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Feb 12 19:20:18 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:20:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] formerly the rich and famous Message-ID: <021220081920.22939.47B1F172000EE1D10000599B2200761438979A09070E@comcast.net> Frank said.... > 1. george bush was a legacy at Yale, father side, once in > an ivy league school the gradu rate is 90%, as compare to 44% nation wide, > it pays to have educated parents:) > The reason the drop out rate is so high nationwide is three-fold. 1. People run out of money, grants, and loans and can not complete their degrees. 2. People apply for schools just to get the grants and loans and then show up just long enough to collect the check and blow it on drugs, booze and whatever. 3. Colleges are so greedy for this grant and loan money of which they are sure to get paid before the student gets his hands on it that they admit students without even the rudimentary reading and writing skills necessary to legitimately graduate highschool. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andres at thoughtware.tv Tue Feb 12 20:09:27 2008 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:09:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV: Spore's Release Date Announced! Message-ID: *The highly anticipated Spores Game has had its release date announced and set to September 7, 2008. Spore* is a multi-platform god game under development by Maxis and designed by Will Wright that allows a player to control the evolution of a species from its beginnings as a multicellular organism, through development as a sapient and social land-walking creature, to levels of interstellar exploration as a spacefaring culture. The game has drawn wide attention for its massive scope, and its use of open-ended gameplay and procedural generation. Release date clip: http://www.spore.com/screenshots.php?movieID=7&play=hi Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 20:55:34 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:55:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2008 7:19 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > Your 2 cents are correct. The psychology is rife in any form of > collecting. It could be art, cars, stamps, etc. In fact, the > reproduction often raises the original's value because the fame of the > object is heightened and therefore it's more desirable as an object. > > > The prices reflect the knowledge that these things can be sold at any > time to another person just like the buyer. They are valued > commodities and investments in a psychology that is unlikely to > change, as long as there are a small group of people with unbelievable > amounts of money and many more without. > Agreed 100%! That is exactly the way the art and antique market operates today. My point is that (still to be invented nanotech) molecular copying will produce another absolutely identical specimen. Not a copy, not a print, not a similar object, but an object that is atom by atom identical. Put two in the same room and nobody will be able to tell the difference. They will both have the same spots of the artist's blood where he cut his finger, etc. Every test you can do, x-rays, carbon dating, chemical paint testing, will all come up with the same results. If you cannot know which is the original, where is the added value? BillK From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:40:32 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:40:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <200802112207.09669.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802121740.32210.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > This intrigues me, as I fall squarely into the intersection of the > "open source programmer" and "transhumanist" categories. ?I'd > tentatively suggest that both memeplexes attach to the same > underlying personality type, but a difference in interests/skills (in > the case of whether one takes up programming) and philosophy (in the > case of adopting a transhumanist outlook) cause less overlap than > there might be otherwise. ?In other words, it's very easy to imagine > transhumanists with no real desire to program, and likewise open > source programmers with no inclination towards transhumanism. The thing about it is that programming is the art of design and creation, and the basic extropian idea is that of self-creation -- it's the simple elaboration of 'programming' to a more generalized context. Maybe I have an essay to write, what structure might it take? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:44:36 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:44:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802120501.m1C51vZj022431@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802121744.36988.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, spike wrote: > Commerce is our friend. Not with the amount of regulations that are put into the education system. Too much 'status quo' stuff going on. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:51:26 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:51:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802121751.26525.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 11 February 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > Note to Bryan: don't put too much weight on Spike's 'Usually that > requires a college degree...' The actual physical engineering seems to not require the paperwork, but popular acceptance seems to require it. This is ridiculous and a useless system. I should fix it. From what I can tell, there's this massive backing of people who agree that these papers and accrediation services are nearly useless (although awesome for providing curriculum information, references, what to study, etc.) ... perhaps we just need to assemble a quick website to use as a community outlet? I think we will quickly have many hundreds of thousands of college students and engineers (spike buddy?) on board. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:52:46 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:52:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802120658.m1C6wO9L023220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802120658.m1C6wO9L023220@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802121752.46163.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, spike wrote: > Noted Amara, and note in return: you are a special case in a lotta > ways. You do realize that you have had an uncommon life trajectory, > ja? ?{8-] Isn't the extropic idea that of self-transformation to become Special? > degree inflation As for degree inflation, I wish this meant more content to learn, not the other way around meaning more hoops to jump through just to get to the same technical topics. ;) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 23:55:29 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:55:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <20080212100338.GR10128@leitl.org> References: <20080212100338.GR10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802121755.29940.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > working for the Voyager 2 mission Photopolarimeter team at the Jet > > Propulsion Laboratory. > > The funding for space missions has collapsed, too. I am reminded of: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=415652;cid=22012706 > In the mid-1960s my father worked for a contractor on the Apollo > program. Realizing that once the moon rocket design was substantially > complete, engineers would be superfluous (a Briton would say > redundant), in 1968 he transfered, within his company, out of the > space program to a group in another state designing time-shared > mainframes for business applications. It was the best decision of his > career, but one that was very controversial at the time ("you're > leaving the space program?!?"). I will carry the memory of the period > that followed to my grave. Some time after the transfer, the NASA cuts > began, and we started getting phone calls (at home!) from my father's > former coworkers, looking for work -- any work, any where, in any > field. More than 20,000 engineers, scientists, and technicians in the > state of Florida alone -- and probably 100,000 or more around the > country -- were laid of as fast as the mimeograph machines could > reproduce the pink slips. Engineers were driving taxis and bagging > groceries in the towns around the Kennedy Space Center. The ultimate > was when my father returned to the dinner table from another call to > announce that the caller had been his former boss's boss's boss, > looking for any work -- even a drafting position (six levels down the > corporate ladder, and one that did not require a college degree). Like > all the other callers, he had a wife, x young children, and a mortgage > to support. (Homes were essentially unsellable in the areas around the > major contractors' plants; the mortgages were greater than their > market value, so foreclosures were the norm.) I hope I have > sufficiently expressed the desperate nature of the situation. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 00:00:29 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:00:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802121600yacd4404l7a4b2b19ade4fb23@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 2:43 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Rafal, > > Did you read any of the words that I wrote? I don't find any correspondence > to the words I just spent my time and fingers writing, and what you wrote > (in a continuous rant from your previous message). ### Sorry if my post didn't win your approval :) I am not sure to which post you refer but if you mean my comment on "ewige Studenten" in response to your analysis of the disciplining influence of PhD deadlines, I agree that it was not a straightforward answer. I do not deny that the threat of not finishing a PhD may have a disciplining influence, especially on those who Patiently hope for a Degree, while working as PhD (Pizza hut Delivery), even when Parents have Doubts, and more importantly, Professor has Doubts...You are right, there are non-financial reasons why people finish school. Still, in the greater scheme of life, monetary incentives matter more, and that's why I continued on the initial issue of this branch of this gargantuan thread, the appropriateness of expecting individuals to pay for their education. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 00:09:07 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:09:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 11:04 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/11/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2008 12:46 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > > > > > > > Do you know that this makes me feel kind of sick? Not you directly, but > > > at a culture where these kinds of expectations are part of mainstream > > > thinking. It is a philosophical issue on the other side of the Atlantic. > > > I think few people in Europe would understand why a 'civilized', western > > > society would want to burden a young person, who is just starting their > > > independent lives, with a thousands or tens of thousands of euros debt. > > > > > ### But, you know, a bit of debt works wonders to focus your mind on > > doing something useful to the rest of us, and therefore capable of > > commanding a price. Otherwise, the young person could decide to > > squander other people's money on the pursuit of trivial or useless > > credentials, wouldn't you think? > > A "bit" of debt? > > I'm in the hole to the tune of over $70,000 USD, and I didn't even > finish my graduate-level education. This is from a *state* school > (State University of New York / SUNY), funded completely by a > combination of grants and loans on my head (not my parents ? I was > already into my mid 20s when I went back to school). If I were to > make the choice over again, I *never* would have gone back to school; > a degree is worthless in my current field, anyway (web development / > programming), and I'm making more than I would have had I finished > graduate school and worked in the field (library science). ### But this Damocles' sword does focus your mind on the future usefulness of your education, doesn't it? Yeah, I know it's not fun to be in debt but I am trying to look at things in perspective: Going to work every day for 4 or 5 months of the year before ever earning enough to pay your taxes for that year, that's no fun either. I prefer to have to get loans as a young person, if this is what's needed to make a good salary later, rather than have "free" school and then end up languishing in servitude to the taxman for the rest of my life. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 00:48:59 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:48:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Small Request In-Reply-To: <00af01c86d36$26eeb9a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802090621.m196LAZH009951@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <005601c86c29$1afd83a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008401c86c71$fd24c9d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00af01c86d36$26eeb9a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802121648o382f96b6k8ae96a2717503fd5@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2008 12:09 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > Lee... wrote: > >> Stathis writes > >> > >> > If you develop a brain tumour one of the effects of which is that you > >> > don't believe there is anything wrong with you, would you (i.e. the > >> > present, healthy you) want to be forced to have treatment? > >> > >> Ideally, only if I had signed up for such a circumstance arising. > >> [That is, if I had signed a contract stating that a certain company > >> could legally way-lay me and forcibly apply treatment under > >> specified circumstances of definite and attested-to infirmity > >> on my part] > > > > Most people would not sign such a contract, because they don't think > > it will happen to them. > > Really, then, that is THEIR problem. Not mine, not even yours. > People make all sorts of dumb, or not-so-dumb decisions. ### Let me chime in on Lee's side here. I also would have little compassion for those who had a good opportunity to protect themselves but chose not to. Furthermore, I don't think that such "commitment contracts" would be as unpopular as Stathis expects. Lot's of people have life insurance, although accepting your mortality in this way is pretty difficult. Even with Medicare around a lot of people have long-term care insurance. If people are expected to take care of themselves, most of them/us will do. Rafal From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 13 01:02:54 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:02:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/12/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### But this Damocles' sword does focus your mind on the future > usefulness of your education, doesn't it? Yeah, I know it's not fun to > be in debt but I am trying to look at things in perspective: Going to > work every day for 4 or 5 months of the year before ever earning > enough to pay your taxes for that year, that's no fun either. I prefer > to have to get loans as a young person, if this is what's needed to > make a good salary later, rather than have "free" school and then end > up languishing in servitude to the taxman for the rest of my life. If one's goal is "accumulate as many goodies as possible", and one starts out from a secure position (financially, health-wise, etc.), sure, I might imagine feeling frustration at taxes. If one doesn't start out from a secure position, and/or doesn't really care to accumulate that much, the low-tax low-service bargain doesn't quite look so great. From my position, it looks positively awful; by the time I fight my way to decent health care, a paid-off debt, etc., I might have spent a third of my life working a job I don't care for (but, perhaps, pays well), the health issues might have accumulated (since early attention is just *too expensive*), and I'll be left wondering what the hell it was all for. American society does not treat its fledglings well. If I had an ounce of the hard-earned wisdom I have now (at 29), I would have rejected out-of-hand quite a few options young adults are barraged with (educational debt, credit cards) that haunt for decades thereafter. I'd hand back my diploma *today* if it allowed me to declare bankruptcy on my educational debt. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 01:17:38 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:17:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2008 12:42 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Would in fact you be in favor of an "improvement" in technology > or in society that caused each person earning D dollars to rise > to wealth e^D dollars? True, everyone would be vastly richer, > by my God, the gap between the rich and the poor would become > truly astronomical! Could you stand it? ### You mean, I would have more money (inflation-adjusted, I assume?) than was made in the whole history of the Earth, maybe even in the whole galaxy?! That's a no-brainer! I would be genuinely baffled by anybody who would refuse his e^D dollars only so that Mr Gates doesn't get e^(D+10e10) dollars. This would be painfully stupid, not to mention criminally destructive. Lee, just tell me who to call to get in this get-everybody-rich-quick scheme and I'll handle the negotiations. Rafal From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 13 02:20:26 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <011a01c86d57$c49ac9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Er, one of the points of this list and the SL4 one is that even > stranger > things than the following are conceivable! > No. I mean *real* wealth. And it's not impossible. To > conceive of such vast disparities, one could begin as > follows. Let person X (say, living in the year 1650) > compare his wealth with Y who lives in -1650 (B.C., > that is). It could easily happen than person X could > forfeit 10% of his wealth in an even exchange for all > of person Y's wealth. In other words, much of what > person X has to offer in the 17th century is very > impressive to person Y back in the 17th century B.C. Ok. So you are saying that if Newton went back in time, he could sell his pocket watch, his slide rule, and his horse and buggy to Amenhotep for all of Egypt? I just don't see that happening. Instead I see Newton being enslaved and forced to build pyramids, while Amenhotep admires his new aquisitions. > So it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility > on *this* list to suppose that this sequence could > continue into the indefinite future. Of course it could but that does not mean it should. > NATURALLY we cannot imagine how the richest person > at one point in time who has $10^42 could possible see > anyone as being 10000 times better off than he, but the > relative power scale I described above does explain it. > (Incidentally, in chess there is a ranking scale that > calibrates one person rated 300 points higher than another > winning 7/8 games of their games, and it geometrically > works so that if you are 600 higher than someone, > then you should win 63/64th's of the games, and so on...) Would this still be a fair scoring system if children inherited their parents chess rankings? > > It doesn't quite work that way. Wealth creates wealth. > > Money is just a medium of exchange for said wealth. > > Well, I'd put it this way: wealth creation up till now comes > from (1) increased trade (sadly limited by the limited extent > of the Earth which we are now encountering for the first time) > (2) technological advances, and (3) specialization (division > of labor). But soon there will be (4) if we're not already > there: algorithmic advance. You forgot about compound interest, which essentially trumps 1-4 above. > > That is what inflation is all about and why governments > > can't just pay their bills by printing money without > > screwing up the economy. > > That's for sure. We need higher interest rates instead of > our government and society---who have been on what > amounts to a "drinking" binge---giving themselves more > "stimulant" to fight the "hangover". At least we agree on something. It's like the administration is *trying* to make the dollar worthless. > > there are roughly 10^40 dollars in this proposed > > economy and only 6*10^27 grams of matter > > comprising the entire planet earth including > > the bodies those poor! Therefore at a mere > > 1.6*10^18 dollars per gram, should it be a > > sellers market on atoms of matter... > > Yes. What is the number of possible algorithms > in an N-state machine? One gets a small idea from > "The Busy Beaver" problem, as you probably > know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver I don't see how this relevant to the discussion. Software is a commodity that ought to be as fungible as water and any scarcity is artificially induced by "extortion networks" as per Rafal. Unless you are suggesting that a capitalist economy is actually an algorithm subject to the "Turing Undecidibility and the Halting Problem". > > Of course some of the more ecentric proles in Lee > > world may instead elect to forego their bodies > > completely... > > Yeah, your logic probably does force me into > uploading scenarios. Well that was my point. The condensation of wealth if allowed to continue unchecked may lead to the forced uploading of the poor via the "economic singularity" which is equivalent to genocide since the poor will no longer be in the gene pool. > Well, come now. The whole point of laying out > an extreme scenario is to make the argument clear. > So what if Bill Gates owns 1% of American wealth > (or something like that, Rockefeller had even more > at one point)? I couldn't care less, provided that > I myself (and others) are themselves all on > exponentially increasing paths of wealth garnering. I am just saying that it clarifies my argument as much as yours. I happen to like Bill Gates especially since he became more philanthropic. He actually earned his fortune through cleverness instead of murder or the inheritance of blood money. My indictment is against the rules of the game and not against those who are winning the game by those rules, i.e. "the rich". > There do seem to be two points of view here. > One is that relative differences are way less > important than absolute levels, and the other > is that they actually *more* important than > absolute levels. The absolute levels are not increasing as fast they could be *because* of the relative differences. The rich act as analogously to routers in Rafal's "network model" of the economy. The rich thereby act as "choke points" in the economic network and because of their scarcity. Just as having too few routers in a computer network can impede bandwidth, so too can having too few rich people impede the generation of absolute wealth by an economy. Think about all the Thomas Edisons that languish in poverty all over the world because they lack funding for R&D for their inventions. All the new businesses and new industries that cannot be built because young entrepeneurs lack the seed capital for their ideas. Think about all the people willing to put everything they own into their wacky invention but don't have enough to even get started because the handful of rich are too risk averse to fund them even if they happened to have any kind of social access to the rich. Do you realize how many times Henry Ford was turned down by venture capitalists before he finally got the green light for his "wacky idea"? What if he had been half as stubborn and twice as creative? The opportunity cost to society due to inequity are enourmous. > (I doubt if *anyone* here supposes that it's > a zero-sum game, although, unconsiously....? ? Monkey status *is* a zero-sum game. Human society and economics need not be. We have the capacity to be better than the monkeys therefore we should choose to be. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 03:10:33 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:10:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2008 8:02 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/12/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### But this Damocles' sword does focus your mind on the future > > usefulness of your education, doesn't it? Yeah, I know it's not fun to > > be in debt but I am trying to look at things in perspective: Going to > > work every day for 4 or 5 months of the year before ever earning > > enough to pay your taxes for that year, that's no fun either. I prefer > > to have to get loans as a young person, if this is what's needed to > > make a good salary later, rather than have "free" school and then end > > up languishing in servitude to the taxman for the rest of my life. > > If one's goal is "accumulate as many goodies as possible", and one > starts out from a secure position (financially, health-wise, etc.), > sure, I might imagine feeling frustration at taxes. If one doesn't > start out from a secure position, and/or doesn't really care to > accumulate that much, the low-tax low-service bargain doesn't quite > look so great. From my position, it looks positively awful; by the > time I fight my way to decent health care, a paid-off debt, etc., I > might have spent a third of my life working a job I don't care for > (but, perhaps, pays well), the health issues might have accumulated > (since early attention is just *too expensive*), and I'll be left > wondering what the hell it was all for. ### I am not sure why you have such dismal expectations. Decent health care costs about 2,000$/year per person (and that's without pinching pennies), and if you have no preexisting conditions, it's just a phone call away. A job is usually something you don't really care about that much, it's a place where you make money, preferably without too much aggravation. If you really hate your job, it's not difficult to find another. If you hate everything you can get, well, that's a non-enviable position, indeed. As an American you have started from a very secure position, and it's primarily up to you to make the best of it. BTW, the point of not being a slave to others is not "accumulating as many goodies as possible" but being free to choose. I refuse to accept the legitimacy of any peremptory claims on my life, time and property. ----------------------------------------------------- > > American society does not treat its fledglings well. ### On the contrary, I would confidently state that young modern Americans are some of the most mollycoddled groups in the world, surpassed only by the 10,000 Saudi princes and the like. Almost nobody else in the world has ready access to 400,000$ per capita in wealth-producing infrastructure (i.e. companies, legal institutions, etc.) that can be used to easily get a starting salary of on average 40 to 60k, with a well-chosen bachelor's degree or more. ------------------------------------------------- If I had an > ounce of the hard-earned wisdom I have now (at 29), I would have > rejected out-of-hand quite a few options young adults are barraged > with (educational debt, credit cards) that haunt for decades > thereafter. I'd hand back my diploma *today* if it allowed me to > declare bankruptcy on my educational debt. ### Well, there is a significant premium to a college degree in the workplace (which, of course, does not prove causation), so the majority of graduates, especially those who were very careful in choosing their majors, can expect to easily recoup their educational expenses, by a wide margin. Rafal From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 13 03:42:40 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:42:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <015801c86d9d$cc573720$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200802130409.m1D49JcE020044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Lee Corbin ... > > Despite my attempts to explain how some of us prefer to look > at it, y'all keep coming back to > > i n e q u a l i t y > > as some kind of fundamental problem... Lee When one is tempted to see things this way, consider all the ways in which inequality is some kind of fundamental solution. If you have a few people with a ton of money, they can do cool things that governments cannot do, because they cannot agree on what should be done. The gigarich can sponsor a particular area of stem cell research for instance, or take on a particular orphan disease. They can build big cool stuff, such as Disneyland. Big concentrated piles of wealth create bigger piles of wealth. A classic error is to assume that we compete with the super rich for wealth, but we really don't. We compete with the other proles next door for wealth. In a similar manner, low level workers see the enormous salary of the CEO and feel resentful. They assume they are competing with her, but they are actually competing with the prole in the next cubicle. The CEO is competing with the CEO from the other company that makes a similar product to yours. Someone quoted: The rich now live in their own world of private education... (Which we do not pay for. But they help pay for ours.) ...private health care... Which we do not pay for. ...and gated mansions... I would live in a gated mansion too if I had their money. I would be afraid of people like me. ...They have their own schools... Which we do not pay for. ...and their own banks... Ja, they would need bigger banks than I do, to hold all that money. ...They even travel apart... Couldn't blame them there. If one can afford it, why not eliminate the risk of travelling with the proletariat, and possibly catching the flu? Hell I travel apart: I don't take people with me when I drive somewhere. Don't you? ... - creating a booming industry of private jets and yachts... Prime example of what I spoke of in the first paragraph. The rest of us make our living building the jets and yachts, or perhaps serving the needs of those who build jets and yachts. ... Their world now has a name, thanks to a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank which has dubbed it 'Richistan'... In the valley here we are ringed by rolling hills. The really rich build houses up there, in sight of everyone down here. This can serve as an inspiration to the young, an inspiration to all of us. I can tell my boy: See there Isaac? Study hard, be smart, work like a madman, get in with the right bunch, be lucky and someday you may live up there. I will cheerfully and proudly tell the neighbors that is my son up there. You can wave at us. Or them rather, since you will be generous and build the old man an annex on that nice house up there. The super rich are our friends. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 13 04:00:43 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:00:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802121751.26525.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802130427.m1D4RMsr007597@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Bryan Bishop > > ... perhaps we > just need to assemble a quick website to use as a community > outlet? I think we will quickly have many hundreds of > thousands of college students and engineers (spike buddy?) on board. - Bryan It isn't clear what exactly you are proposing. A community outlet? Do explain please. Regarding education, the potential of that which is before us right this moment boggles my mind. My young friends, I am old enough to remember when we didn't have all the world's knowledge right in our own homes. It blows my mind to think about just the math knowledge alone that I can google up and learn all for FREE. All this stuff, on the web just sitting there waiting for our brains to gobble it up in a wild memetic feast. It's a feast of knowledge that would have made my grandfather weep, for joy that it finally came about and simultaneously for sorrow that he was just a little old to use it. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 04:30:50 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:30:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <011a01c86d57$c49ac9c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802122030v1a6e4d38iaad2da026bb8b427@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2008 9:20 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I don't see how this relevant to the discussion. Software is a > commodity that ought to be as fungible as water and any scarcity is > artificially induced by "extortion networks" as per Rafal. ### Not quite. I agree that the software that results in a network-related vendor lock-in, such as Windows, is overpriced, although I wouldn't call it "artificially induced" - Microsoft dominance happened naturally because there are too few people with enough foresight to care about vendor lock-in. However, most software is fungible (i.e. you can choose another vendor without risking incompatibility with other network members) and its occasionally high price reflects the difficulty of making it. ---------------------------------------- > The absolute levels are not increasing as fast they could be *because* > of the relative differences. The rich act as analogously to routers in > Rafal's "network model" of the economy. The rich thereby act as "choke > points" in the economic network and because of their scarcity. ### Only in feudal and other similar economies based on extortion. Yes, feudal lords gained by physically extorting money, they were choking the economy. This notion is easy to understand, since such state of affairs has persisted since time immemorial. Capitalist rich *are* different. Capitalists stimulate the economy, by taking risks, by deferring their compensation, by organizing workers to serve consumers. Yes, the economy is limited by capitalists - there are simply too few of us to go around. If you want the economy to grow, make sure never to punish a capitalist for making money. ------------------------------------------ Just as > having too few routers in a computer network can impede bandwidth, so > too can having too few rich people impede the generation of absolute > wealth by an economy. ### Yes! That's why you need more rich people, and the best method to make them breed, like the giant panda, is to stop messing with them, ---------------------------------------- > > Think about all the Thomas Edisons that languish in poverty all over > the world because they lack funding for R&D for their inventions. All > the new businesses and new industries that cannot be built because > young entrepeneurs lack the seed capital for their ideas. Think about > all the people willing to put everything they own into their wacky > invention but don't have enough to even get started because the handful > of rich are too risk averse to fund them even if they happened to have > any kind of social access to the rich. > > Do you realize how many times Henry Ford was turned down by venture > capitalists before he finally got the green light for his "wacky idea"? > What if he had been half as stubborn and twice as creative? The > opportunity cost to society due to inequity are enourmous. > ### You seem to be putting the cart before the horse - you say we need to soak the rich to get cash for bright young entrepreneurs. But, why bother being an entrepreneur, if you know they'll take away your money if you make it? This is the kind of problem that in the long run brought down the commies. All ambitious and smart people (except the honest ones) wanted to be bureaucrats, who got to push people around. There was just no money in inventing stuff, or in raising cattle, so there was no meat in shops and inventions, like a pocket calculator, were things I got from my aunt in Chicago. In real life, if you want to get cash for poor inventors, make sure that the rich investor (who, chances are, started out as a hungry wannabe years earlier) gets his money back and then some, so he may become even richer, and willing to provide even more cash for the next big thing. BTW, do you know what percentage of income is invested by the rich (i.e. upper 1%)? What is the percentage for the average American? I leave this as a googling exercise, since I don't have my copy of "The Mystery of Capital" where AFAIK you can find the data. Still, the rich keep the majority of their wealth in investments already, and there isn't that much more that they can invest. People of average net worth still own a huge amount of wealth and could invest much more but they don't. So, it's not the rich but everybody else's lack of willingness to invest that's choking the economy. Rafal From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 04:38:44 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:38:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802130427.m1D4RMsr007597@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802130427.m1D4RMsr007597@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802122238.44381.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, spike wrote: > It isn't clear what exactly you are proposing. ?A community outlet? > ?Do explain please. I am talking about a 'campaign' (though not necessarily political at its roots) for the promotion of the dismissal of the importance of degrees as a quantifier of 'success', knowledge, motivation, etc., and instead only as a signal of an ability to get a degree. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From sentience at pobox.com Wed Feb 13 04:41:06 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:41:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802130409.m1D49JcE020044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802130409.m1D49JcE020044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <47B274E2.7000506@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > The super rich are our friends. Some of them are, some of them aren't. Peter Thiel is your friend. I don't know if Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is your friend. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From amara at amara.com Wed Feb 13 04:42:23 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:42:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Bryan Bishop, quoting from the slashdot article: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=415652;cid=22012706 >Engineers were driving taxis and bagging >groceries in the towns around the Kennedy Space Center. Wow! I tend to think that the engineers 'have it made', but maybe I have a special example of my dad; not 'made' as in 'rich', but as a creative individual who pulled himself up from nothing with only his 'noggin and is doing well. Now physics, on the other hand, I cannot in good conscience suggest as a lucrative field for any young person to go into (unless I can have a good talk with him), and especially not for a woman (unless I can have *two* good talks with her :-)). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 04:57:10 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:57:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <47B274E2.7000506@pobox.com> References: <200802130409.m1D49JcE020044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <47B274E2.7000506@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200802122257.10200.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Peter Thiel is your friend. He should contact me more. We haven't talked in a while. In fact, ever. Some friend. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 04:58:30 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:28:30 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802122058g203ee021uedb678f86ba60f74@mail.gmail.com> On 13/02/2008, BillK wrote: > On Feb 12, 2008 7:19 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > > Your 2 cents are correct. The psychology is rife in any form of > > collecting. It could be art, cars, stamps, etc. In fact, the > > reproduction often raises the original's value because the fame of the > > object is heightened and therefore it's more desirable as an object. > > > > > > > The prices reflect the knowledge that these things can be sold at any > > time to another person just like the buyer. They are valued > > commodities and investments in a psychology that is unlikely to > > change, as long as there are a small group of people with unbelievable > > amounts of money and many more without. > > > > > Agreed 100%! That is exactly the way the art and antique market operates today. > > My point is that (still to be invented nanotech) molecular copying > will produce another absolutely identical specimen. Not a copy, not a > print, not a similar object, but an object that is atom by atom > identical. > Put two in the same room and nobody will be able to tell the difference. > They will both have the same spots of the artist's blood where he cut > his finger, etc. Every test you can do, x-rays, carbon dating, > chemical paint testing, will all come up with the same results. > > If you cannot know which is the original, where is the added value? And there's the rub. You can know which is the original, but you have to keep your eye on it. It becomes a shell game. I'd expect these markets to respond to the kinds of copying you propose with an increasingly intense system of tracking the originals at all times. As long as you can keep some hopefully trustworthy, hopefully infallible technological eye on the prize at all times, it stays a prize. It might break down eventually due to fraud, of course. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 13 05:14:21 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:14:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] don't count out mars missions Message-ID: <200802130514.m1D5EKvV002265@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ...But you have to look and or position yourself for it. And please don't count on Mars missions. Amara Wait, Amara, check this guy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_articl e_id=513820 &in_page_id=1811 At 19 years, he weighs less than 9 kg, height 84 cm. Remember that the weight of a pressure vessel scales as the cube of its linear dimension. A vehicle built around Romeo Dev would weigh about a tenth what a vehicle would weigh were it to be built around me. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 13 04:49:58 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:49:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802130516.m1D5GaPg012494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > On Feb 12, 2008 8:02 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: ... > American society does not treat its fledglings well. Oh Tom, I do disagree sir, heartily. This is a terrific time to be a young person in America. Opportunity does not just knock, it is tearing the door off the hinges. You mentioned you are 29 years. Seize the day my young friend. There is so much to be seized, much more that your parents' generation had. This whole planet has societies with aging populations. Our needs are changing. Many businesses are crying out for smart energetic young employees. Consider for instance, starting an eBay business. Take your favorite hobby, find a marketing niche therein, and work your ass off at it. That is what asses are for! spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 13 04:49:58 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:49:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802121755.29940.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802130516.m1D5Gbdf006040@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Bryan Bishop ... > > I am reminded of: > http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=415652;cid=22012706 > > > In the mid-1960s my father worked for a contractor on the Apollo > > program. Realizing that once the moon rocket design was > > substantially complete, engineers would be superfluous... Bryan, I can tell you as one who lived thru this period, the guy who wrote it understated the case. My father was on Apollo in the 60s, as were most of the fathers in the neighborhood (Titusville Florida). We saw all this stuff first hand. After Mercury, there was the follow-on Gemini, which had the follow-on Apollo. But after that, there were no follow-on programs. My father had been so busy leading up to that first moon launch that we had no time to go on vacation for the couple years previous. Then when Apollo 11 launched, we went on a family camping trip. I was out of school, having just finished third grade. We watched the landing from a portable TV at Juniper Springs. My father knew when he came back from that weeklong camping trip he would find a pink slip on his desk. He was right. We saw plenty of engineers who loved the space program and wanted to stay around, even if it meant underemployment for some time. They started dippy little businesses around town, few of which succeeded (competition for any remaining money was just too great). Many picked up and left town, walking away from homes, mortgages abandoned, dreams shattered. A few of the workers just fell to ruin, some took up other lines of business. Skylab provided work for a few, but it really didn't start picking up again for ten full years, until the space shuttle work started coming in. Thanks for the article Bryan! spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 13 04:56:30 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:56:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802122238.44381.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802130523.m1D5NAjA018313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Bryan Bishop > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, spike wrote: > > It isn't clear what exactly you are proposing. ?A community outlet? > > ?Do explain please. > > I am talking about a 'campaign' (though not necessarily > political at its > roots) for the promotion of the dismissal of the importance > of degrees as a quantifier of 'success', knowledge, > motivation, etc., and instead only as a signal of an ability > to get a degree. > > - Bryan No campaign necessary Bryan. This stuff is all free market driven. When someone comes along and starts making a ton of money hiring smart non-degreed engineers and scientists (at an appropriately lower cost that the degreed variety) and those visionary entrepreneurs brutally throttle their competition, then your notion will take off on wings of capital. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 05:31:50 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:31:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] U.S. Federal Budget (was Tax Man) Message-ID: <01d601c86e02$0edaf640$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> On the subject of taxes and all, I found a pie chart of a modern socialist state's total spending budget: http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/fedbudget-spending-income-chart.htm Here are the payouts in billions of dollars: Social Security 545 Defence 520 Medicare and Medicaid 505 Discretionary 322 Interest 227 Income Security 200 Other Entitlements 162 Education 93 Environment 52 International Affairs 30 Oddly, I am far less outraged by the same data expressed in percentages: Social Security 20% Defence 20% Medicare and Medicaid 19% Discretionary 12% Interest 9% Income Security 7% Other Entitlements 6% Education 4% Environment 2% International Affairs 1% I would gradually eliminate all of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Interest, "Income Security" (evidently to deal with the aberration of being out of a job) Other Entitlements, Education, and Environment, and I'd cut the Defence and Discretionary (gradually) by about half. When I got through all I would have left is: Defence 250 Discretionary 160 International Affairs 30 And as for departments, certainly gone would be all the ones that begin with the letters "E" and "A". Isn't it strange that no one you or I know at *all* favors agriculture and tobacco subsidies? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 05:40:15 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:40:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01db01c86e03$76371de0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal writes >> Would in fact you be in favor of an "improvement" in technology >> or in society that caused each person earning D dollars to rise >> to wealth e^D dollars? True, everyone would be vastly richer, >> by my God, the gap between the rich and the poor would become >> truly astronomical! Could you stand it? > > ### You mean, I would have more money (inflation-adjusted, I assume?) > than was made in the whole history of the Earth, maybe even in the > whole galaxy?! That's a no-brainer! > > I would be genuinely baffled by anybody who would refuse his e^D > dollars only so that Mr Gates doesn't get e^(D+10e10) dollars. This > would be painfully stupid, not to mention criminally destructive. But I guess it depends on your values. If inequality is more important than actual wealth (beyond food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment, I presume), then it will make a number of people ill to even think about the disparity. > Lee, just tell me who to call to get in this get-everybody-rich-quick > scheme and I'll handle the negotiations. Unfortunately, the wealth-creation bit is going to take a while, it seems. But we could resort to just printing it, I suppose. All the politicians favoring the quick-check stimulus ought to be highly in favor. lee P.S. A friend from the Middle-East set me straight on priorities. "Food, shelter, clothing", isn't as realistic as "Food, Clothing, and Water" he pointed out :-) And I owe to a very wise friend that there really are *four* basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment. If we are so lucky as to supplement the nanny-state with the nano-state, then everyone *ought* to be happy. From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 06:00:43 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:00:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802122058g203ee021uedb678f86ba60f74@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0802122058g203ee021uedb678f86ba60f74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802122200m49601f16n593392322d86a08a@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2008 8:58 PM, Emlyn wrote: > On 13/02/2008, BillK wrote: > > My point is that (still to be invented nanotech) molecular copying > > will produce another absolutely identical specimen. Not a copy, not a > > print, not a similar object, but an object that is atom by atom > > identical. > > Put two in the same room and nobody will be able to tell the difference. > > They will both have the same spots of the artist's blood where he cut > > his finger, etc. Every test you can do, x-rays, carbon dating, > > chemical paint testing, will all come up with the same results. > > > > If you cannot know which is the original, where is the added value? > > And there's the rub. You can know which is the original, but you have > to keep your eye on it. It becomes a shell game. > > I'd expect these markets to respond to the kinds of copying you > propose with an increasingly intense system of tracking the originals > at all times. As long as you can keep some hopefully trustworthy, > hopefully infallible technological eye on the prize at all times, it > stays a prize. > > It might break down eventually due to fraud, of course. Sorry, I misunderstood Bill. I understand now. You're talking about authentication in a nanotech world. And you have a good theoretical point. But the problem already exists. As the science of forgery detection improves, so does the science of forgery itself. But there have always been forgeries. Art forgery has a long and ignoble history. Even Michaelangelo made forged pieces. Some experts think up to 40% of the art market are fakes! Having seen some of the stuff out there, I wouldn't be surprised. ;-) There is, however, a precedent to Emlyn's notion of tracking. It's called provenance. Let's say there are two pieces of equal artistic value by the same artist. The piece that is owned by Sting or Jackie Kennedy or Catherine the Great has greater value than the identical piece owned by Joe Smith of Middletown, just by association with a famous person. So provenance would add value. It can also add proof of authenticity, which in turn adds value. Because of this, provenance has always been important, but will only become more so in the future. Of course, provenance can be forged, too. You're also saying a switcheroo could take place. That's true. Rumor has it that switcheroos have happened already, where fakes replace originals, but I can't remember the specific cases. Also, theft of valuable art objects is a big business. Some think stolen and forged art and collectibles is the third largest business on Earth, because of the huge amount that passes out of and through Asia, Africa, etc. Imagine if you could make perfect copies... According to the article about the Swiss theft, only 20% of stolen art objects are recovered, although it's damned hard to fence a world famous piece of art. Sometimes it's stolen for ransom, sometimes on contract. I have been told by those who should know that some of the famous pieces not recovered will be eventually discovered in the collections of certain Middle Eastern sultanates and Russian oligarchs. So keep your eyes out for that stolen Monet next time you visit your friendly neighborhood Gazprom tycoon! (Not that it would matter -- Europe has lax laws regarding stolen merchandise that protects the supposed "innocent buyer" by conferring ownership after 5 years. Since some major artworks are stolen on contract and anyone can call themselves 'innocent' while bellowing, "Get me that Van Gogh!" -- it's a joke of a law.) There are already companies who do nothing but track stolen art. Now take the world I just outlined and add your nano-scenario. Entire protective and tracking industries will grow from this! Buy stock now! Bottomline: Where money flows, crime follows. PJ From sentience at pobox.com Wed Feb 13 06:03:35 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:03:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] U.S. Federal Budget (was Tax Man) In-Reply-To: <01d601c86e02$0edaf640$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <01d601c86e02$0edaf640$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <47B28837.2020503@pobox.com> I sometimes think that this cartoon says a lot about the basic difference between libertarians and socialists: http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF106-Billy_the_Bunny.jpg -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 06:33:29 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:33:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e001c86e0a$76c74bc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes > Ok. So you are saying that if Newton went back in time, he could sell > his pocket watch, his slide rule, and his horse and buggy to Amenhotep > for all of Egypt? I just don't see that happening. Instead I see Newton > being enslaved and forced to build pyramids, while Amenhotep admires > his new aquisitions. :-) Yes, I guess that would happen all right. But seriously, I was implying that the typical well-to-do Egyptian would perhaps give up all his possessions for 10% or 5% of Newton's (excluding food, clothing, and water). Now in this thought experiment, it is not fair, of course, for the ancient one to get to trade his new, unbelievably rare pocket watch, etc. He must value those 17th century items for themselves for my comparison idea to work. >> So it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility >> on *this* list to suppose that this sequence could >> continue into the indefinite future. > > Of course it could but that does not mean it should. But surely you would prefer everyone being on an exponentially growing path of wealth accumulation? I did once catch a leveller who was literally opposed to everyone being twice as wealthy as they are now, on the grounds that the gap between rich and poor would be even greater. >> wealth creation up till now comes >> from (1) increased trade (sadly limited by the limited extent >> of the Earth which we are now encountering for the first time) >> (2) technological advances, and (3) specialization (division >> of labor). But soon there will be (4) if we're not already >> there: algorithmic advance. > > You forgot about compound interest, which essentially trumps 1-4 above. But the compound interest is *only* a function of the basic wealth creation abilities of a civilization! Back, again, to (1) - (4). >> What is the number of possible algorithms >> in an N-state machine? One gets a small idea from >> "The Busy Beaver" problem, as you probably >> know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver > > I don't see how this relevant to the discussion. Software is a > commodity that ought to be as fungible as water and any scarcity is > artificially induced by "extortion networks" as per Rafal. In the Busy Beaver problem, every time we (metaphorically) add a single neuron, the possibility of vastly more programs, vastly longer running programs, vastly more complicated running programs, etc., increases to an unbelieveable extent. Now if we become so enchanted with algorithms (which, as a class, includes *us*), then we bypass your seeming limitation of dollars/atom. That is, indeed measured in today's dollars, the amount of wealth in the solar system in terms of dollars could (and I hope, will) dwarf the number of atoms. >> Yeah, your logic probably does force me into >> uploading scenarios. > > Well that was my point. The condensation of wealth if allowed to > continue unchecked may lead to the forced uploading of the > poor via the "economic singularity" which is equivalent to > genocide since the poor will no longer be in the gene pool. Boy, do we look at it differently! So many of the people I know can hardly wait to be uploaded. And I think that even the most reactionary of the poor would jump at the chance of getting uploaded when they hear how it's going for their friends and relatives who did. Surely we can avoid forced uploading. I do hope we preserve enough of our present laws and traditions to ensure that people at least own their atoms. >> Well, come now. The whole point of laying out >> an extreme scenario is to make the argument clear. >> So what if Bill Gates owns 1% of American wealth >> (or something like that, Rockefeller had even more >> at one point)? I couldn't care less, provided that >> I myself (and others) are themselves all on >> exponentially increasing paths of wealth garnering. > > I am just saying that it clarifies my argument as much as yours. I > happen to like Bill Gates especially since he became more > philanthropic. Strange. Just the opposite occurred with me. Since he's started to destroy wealth this way, he is trying to undo the wealth he contributed to the world. Would humanity ever have accumulated capital, evaded the Malthusian traps, and brought about our modern world and its riches if all the rich people in 1820 had just given their money away? No! > He actually earned his fortune through cleverness > instead of murder or the inheritance of blood money. > My indictment is against the rules of the game and not > against those who are winning What system would you propose to replace it? >> There do seem to be two points of view here. >> One is that relative differences are way less >> important than absolute levels, and the other >> is that they actually *more* important than >> absolute levels. > > Think about all the Thomas Edisons that languish in poverty all over > the world because they lack funding for R&D for their inventions. All > the new businesses and new industries that cannot be built because > young entrepeneurs lack the seed capital for their ideas. Well, the only people I've ever known with great world-changing ideas have been unrealistic enough to make me conclude they were flakes. But that's just the people I know, I guess. > Think about all the people willing to put everything they > own into their wacky invention but don't have enough to > even get started because the handful of rich are too risk > averse to fund them even if they happened to have > any kind of social access to the rich. I think that you underestimate the greed and rapacity of the rich. If there is *any* way to make money off of someone's idea, count on the VPs to smell them out. The sad truth is that the VPs lose money hand over fist in 9 out of 10 ventures. So it's simply not true that the rich aren't trying to get richer this way. > Do you realize how many times Henry Ford was turned > down by venture capitalists before he finally got the green > light for his "wacky idea"? But no one can KNOW what is wacky and what isn't. Do you realize just how *many* "Einsteins" and "Edisons" there are out there who are absolute loons? >> (I doubt if *anyone* here supposes that it's >> a zero-sum game, although, unconsiously....? ? > > Monkey status *is* a zero-sum game. Human society > and economics need not be. Status may be a zero-sum game, but economics *certainly* is not---except in those cases where some genius like Lenin supposes that he has a better way to organize everything. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 06:53:44 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:53:44 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 13/02/2008, BillK wrote: > Put two in the same room and nobody will be able to tell the difference. > They will both have the same spots of the artist's blood where he cut > his finger, etc. Every test you can do, x-rays, carbon dating, > chemical paint testing, will all come up with the same results. How will nanotech fool carbon dating? The assemblers would have to distinguish between isotopes. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 07:00:40 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:00:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] I meant "VCs" not "VPs" in screed References: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <01e001c86e0a$76c74bc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <020601c86e0e$2aab5c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> "I think that you underestimate the greed and rapacity of the rich. If there is *any* way to make money off of someone's idea, count on the VCs to smell them out. The sad truth is that the VCs lose money hand over fist in 9 out of 10 ventures. So it's simply not true that the rich aren't trying to get richer this way." I meant VC (for Venture Capitalist), not VP (for president of vice). Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 07:14:42 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:14:42 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 13/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Would in fact you be in favor of an "improvement" in technology > or in society that caused each person earning D dollars to rise > to wealth e^D dollars? True, everyone would be vastly richer, > by my God, the gap between the rich and the poor would become > truly astronomical! Could you stand it? Unless it could be shown that the cost of the increased inequality would outweigh the benefit of the increased wealth, I'd be in favour of this. But the value of equality is not negligible. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at att.net Wed Feb 13 07:22:08 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:22:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The James Joyce award References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070531145844.024d96f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <015f01c86e11$6f396170$a0ef4d0c@MyComputer> Because of my resent badmouthing of Mr. James Joyce I was astonished and a little embarrassed to learn that JK Rowling just won the James Joyce award from the literary and historical society of Dublin. They said "She receives the award for her tremendous contribution to the field of literature, both in terms of the quality of her work and the impact that it has made over the last decade". What the hell?! I can't imagine two more dissimilar writers and quite frankly I don't know what the devil to make of it. Help me out Damien. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 13 07:54:59 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:54:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Antiques as a store of value In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30802121119k610f85bj385aac4b66b4e956@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080213075459.GI10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:53:44PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > How will nanotech fool carbon dating? The assemblers would have to > distinguish between isotopes. We can already sort CO on Cu by the isotopes by STM-picking, so what's the problem? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amara at amara.com Wed Feb 13 07:57:21 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:57:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com : >I am not sure to which post you refer but if you mean my comment on >"ewige Studenten" in response to your analysis of the disciplining >influence of PhD deadlines, I agree that it was not a straightforward >answer. No it wasn't, and it didn't help that you threw in as many sneers and barbs as you could muster for that diatribe against German government-funded PhDs. And you didn't address either of my two points: reputation and time. For a libertarian, I don't know how you could ignore the importance of one's reputation. In the sciences, reputation is king. If a PhD advisor chooses a slacker PhD student, then he/she must answer to that choice to his own department and superiors, and in the process his/her reputation is mud. Science research is not usually well-funded, anywhere, and that advisor just wasted precious money and time. On the student's side, he/she has two years to finish that PhD, or three, if he/she applies formally for an extension. Not only is student's reputation on the line (because he/she must have a postdoc job lined up when that PhD is finished), their money is gone on the day after the two or three years. If he or she is in Germany on a student visa, that means that they must leave the country, the day that PhD contract no longer applies, too. I suggest you ask the people you know who have Physics PhDs if three years is enough time for the research, writing, defense of a good Physics PhD project and for finding a postdoc position. No 50,000 dollar debt is needed to 'focus' these people. Amara P.S. The Physics PhD Universitaet Heidelberg students wouldn't relax on the Haupstrasse, provided that they could find a free-time lunch period, because there are too many tourists, such as yourself there. They would be eating their lunch on the Neckarwiese, instead. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From ABlainey at aol.com Wed Feb 13 08:21:40 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:21:40 EST Subject: [ExI] same old faces Message-ID: Hi all, a few years ago I decided to leave the EXI list and concentrate my focus on areas closer to home. Since then the world has change almost beyond recognition, but it is nice to see the list hasn't! Same old faces (you know who you are), and it seems a whole bunch of new ones. There is a few more than the 40 or so Extropians when I first joined 'way back when'. I think i'll lurk for a while and see what i've been missing regards Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 08:54:10 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:54:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <200802120404.m1C44ajF019245@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <875762.67739.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <200802120404.m1C44ajF019245@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080213085410.GA17356@ofb.net> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 07:36:34PM -0800, spike wrote: > Tom you may have hit on something important there. Most Americans have at > one time or another in their lives worked at some lousy McJob. Perhaps > working crummy minimum wage jobs and working one's way up causes people to > be thrifty, industrious, motivated and admirably libertarian. So then, > poverty really *does* build character. So we'd expect the US to have a higher personal savings rate than indolent European socialists who don't have to pay for their education or health care or retirement, right? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 09:26:00 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:26:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] You know what? In-Reply-To: <02ad01c85d7d$bed00c60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02ad01c85d7d$bed00c60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080213092600.GB17356@ofb.net> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:03:28PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > And there are bigger questions at issue here. First, are people > really so mindless that they can be taken over by a meme without > any awareness? And speaking of fashion in general, why are > people so eager to conform, anyway? Some would posit that being an imitative species is how we managed to learn language, not to mention all sorts of useful things for staying alive. A bunch of researchers say that monkeys and apes don't in fact 'ape', or at least that it's hard to get much general evidence of their doing so (counterpoint: some mothers -> daughter tool use transmission in chimps, and young males imitating alpha male chimps. But of course those too have obvious survival value, and still, young human children seem to have a unmatched generality of who they attend to -- including each other, which helps with the collective re-invention of language every generation.) -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 09:33:25 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:33:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Politics In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60801250733v7a12899eyd7346978573fcb81@mail.gmail.com> References: <200801241553.m0OFrJqo029494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60801241351g96547bcua47c22b8816da73f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60801250733v7a12899eyd7346978573fcb81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080213093325.GC17356@ofb.net> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:33:11AM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > probably dismiss that as lies and propaganda. Similarly Rafal will > > probably dismiss the WHO statistics that put the US health services > > way down the league table of nations. Similarly with the WHO measures > > of average life expectancy, etc. > You could begin the discussion by linking to the statistics you mention. Hopefully I've been scooped, but: http://mindstalk.net/socialhealth or you can check NationMaster health statistics, for a check (though there's a good chance they hark back to the same sources I do.) -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 09:43:09 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:43:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Politics In-Reply-To: <37788.72.236.103.182.1201355213.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200801252124.m0PLOsvp008133@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <37788.72.236.103.182.1201355213.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20080213094309.GD17356@ofb.net> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:46:53AM -0500, MB wrote: > > > The idea is that if you get sick and need expensive medical treatment, > > the government will pay for it out of the taxes it collects, just as > > it pays for the police and the armed forces. [...] > > > > The US gvt already does this, although the rest of the world seems not > to believe. As I put it, the United States already has universal health care; it just has a particularly expensive and ineffective version thereof, through the mandate that emergency rooms not turn anyone away. Though paid for not so much through taxes (except for public hospitals) as through high bills and thus high insurance premiums for the rest of us. So the real choice is to muddle along, switch to a cheaper and more explicit universal system as done by every other developed country except for South Africa (done in many ways, from a government run system like Britain -- or our VA -- to government paid like Canada or our Medicare, to some system of mandated coverage) or remove the mandate and let people die in the streets. -xx- Damien X-) From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 10:02:32 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:02:32 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Politics In-Reply-To: <20080213093325.GC17356@ofb.net> References: <200801241553.m0OFrJqo029494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60801241351g96547bcua47c22b8816da73f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60801250733v7a12899eyd7346978573fcb81@mail.gmail.com> <20080213093325.GC17356@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 13/02/2008, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Hopefully I've been scooped, but: > http://mindstalk.net/socialhealth > > or you can check NationMaster health statistics, for a check (though > there's a good chance they hark back to the same sources I do.) Yes, the striking thing is not just that the US is in most measures near the bottom, but that the US spends around 50% more than other developed countries to achieve this. It isn't consistent with the theory that free enterprise will provide either better quality or greater efficiency than the socialised or quasi-socialised alternatives. -- Stathis Papaioannou From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 13 10:16:43 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:16:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] here's your astronaut, Spike Message-ID: <20080213101643.GK10128@leitl.org> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513820&in_page_id=1811 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 13 10:53:58 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:53:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <47B274E2.7000506@pobox.com> References: <200802130409.m1D49JcE020044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <47B274E2.7000506@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20080213105358.GL10128@leitl.org> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:41:06PM -0800, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Some of them are, some of them aren't. Peter Thiel is your friend. I Do you issue reports on how the donated money is used, and how do you track success? > don't know if Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is your friend. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Feb 13 11:40:04 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:40:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <33246.12.77.168.218.1202902804.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Rafal writes: > Decent health > care costs about 2,000$/year per person (and that's without pinching > pennies), and if you have no preexisting conditions, it's just a phone > call away. IIRC we've had this little discussion before. I sure can't find health insurance for $2000 per year unless I simply have no insurance whatsoever and pay my regular doctor visits out of pocket. If I get really sick I'd better find a bridge to jump off then. My accountant and I have discussed the Savings Accounts, but I do not qualify. :( Health insurance for me is more than $3500, and I've never yet met my deductable (which is a very good thing, but a bit annoying $$wise as I'm paying for the care *and* the insurance!) Much depends on where one lives and what kind of "group" one falls into - which I don't, buying an individual policy. I wanted a Catastrophic policy, but could not find such a thing in my state that wasn't even more than the the policy I have. Amazing. Other than that, I've been very fortunate with doctors, there've been only a couple I wanted to smack upside the head, so I left them and found others more to my liking. ;) Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 13:40:12 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:40:12 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <01e001c86e0a$76c74bc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <01e001c86e0a$76c74bc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 13, 2008 6:33 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Status may be a zero-sum game, but economics *certainly* > is not---except in those cases where some genius like Lenin > supposes that he has a better way to organize everything. > But in human society, status trumps economics. That's inbuilt to human nature. 'Why people believe weird things about money' Evolution accounts for a lot of our strange ideas about finances. By Michael Shermer January 13, 2008 Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000? Assume for the moment that prices of goods and services will stay the same. Surprisingly -- stunningly, in fact -- research shows that the majority of people select the first option; they would rather make twice as much as others even if that meant earning half as much as they could otherwise have. How irrational is that? etc............. ---------------------------- 'Perception of fairness' and 'status' are far more important drivers for the majority of humanity than mere money and wealth. BillK From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 13 15:55:14 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:55:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/12/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### I am not sure why you have such dismal expectations. Decent health > care costs about 2,000$/year per person (and that's without pinching > pennies), and if you have no preexisting conditions, it's just a phone > call away. I'll be getting coverage from my new job starting in April; considering that my health already isn't great, I either need to 1) sign up for COBRA connected to my previous job before the deadline runs out this month, or 2) avoid any talk of "preexisting" conditions ... everything is "new", of course. Either way, the American system is great *if* you start out with a good set of genes. > A job is usually something you don't really care about that > much, it's a place where you make money, preferably without too much > aggravation. I couldn't disagree with you more. A job is what I'll be spending 1/4 of my life doing (approaching 1/3, if you only count waking hours); I damn well *better* enjoy it, lest it aggravate and depress the hell out of me. I've been fortunate enough to (mostly) enjoy my current and previous jobs (web-oriented programming using open source tools), but the salary demon keeps haunting me due to my debt. If not for the debt, I could stop chasing money ? I'm perfectly content with a handful of gadgets (laptop, etc.) and renting apartments indefinitely. > If you really hate your job, it's not difficult to find > another. If you hate everything you can get, well, that's a > non-enviable position, indeed. It's difficult to find something I enjoy; I'm the sort of person who would rather work in a field I had absolutely *no* interest in rather than take a job where I had to engage in an awful distortion of my interests (e.g., software development using C# or Java). Of course, *either* would depress me. > As an American you have started from a > very secure position, and it's primarily up to you to make the best of > it. "As an American" needs to be qualified. I started from a situation much more secure than some, and much less secure than others. I try to make the best of it, but it's all too easy to despair on some days. > BTW, the point of not being a slave to others is not "accumulating as > many goodies as possible" but being free to choose. I refuse to accept > the legitimacy of any peremptory claims on my life, time and property. I don't quite get how taxes make me a "slave" to others; I appreciate many of the things that taxes accomplish, even if I wince at many others. I've never bought into the libertarian "taxes are the root of all evil" argument; hell, without public roads, libertarian property interests could keep me physically boxed into one area, unable to move, forever. :p > > American society does not treat its fledglings well. > > ### On the contrary, I would confidently state that young modern > Americans are some of the most mollycoddled groups in the world, > surpassed only by the 10,000 Saudi princes and the like. Almost nobody > else in the world has ready access to 400,000$ per capita in > wealth-producing infrastructure (i.e. companies, legal institutions, > etc.) that can be used to easily get a starting salary of on average > 40 to 60k, with a well-chosen bachelor's degree or more. Again, qualifiers ? both of us should have used them. ^_^ > ### Well, there is a significant premium to a college degree in the > workplace (which, of course, does not prove causation), so the > majority of graduates, especially those who were very careful in > choosing their majors, can expect to easily recoup their educational > expenses, by a wide margin. The highest-paying fields are also the ones that hold absolutely no (or even negative) interest for me. This comes back to my distaste: the bargain isn't a good one if you don't want many possessions (particularly children) in the first place. From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 13 15:59:20 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:59:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802130516.m1D5GaPg012494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <200802130516.m1D5GaPg012494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 2/12/08, spike wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2008 8:02 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > American society does not treat its fledglings well. > > Oh Tom, I do disagree sir, heartily. This is a terrific time to be a young > person in America. Opportunity does not just knock, it is tearing the door > off the hinges. You mentioned you are 29 years. Seize the day my young > friend. There is so much to be seized, much more that your parents' > generation had. This whole planet has societies with aging populations. > Our needs are changing. Many businesses are crying out for smart energetic > young employees. I already work for a great company in a job I largely enjoy; what scares me is that I haven't even begun to pay off my educational debt, and my (much lower, by comparison) credit card debt is proving difficult to make a dent in. I don't want to go chasing *salary* my entire life, since I already have enough to make me quite comfortable (minus the debt, of course). From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 17:27:26 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:27:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 10:55 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > A job is what I'll be spending 1/4 of my life doing (approaching 1/3, > if you only count waking hours); I damn well *better* enjoy it, lest > it aggravate and depress the hell out of me. I've been fortunate > enough to (mostly) enjoy my current and previous jobs (web-oriented > programming using open source tools), but the salary demon keeps > haunting me due to my debt. If not for the debt, I could stop chasing > money ? I'm perfectly content with a handful of gadgets (laptop, etc.) > and renting apartments indefinitely. ### Yeah, I agree that since you don't feel like making money, spending it wasn't a good idea. -------------------------- > > > BTW, the point of not being a slave to others is not "accumulating as > > many goodies as possible" but being free to choose. I refuse to accept > > the legitimacy of any peremptory claims on my life, time and property. > > I don't quite get how taxes make me a "slave" to others; I appreciate > many of the things that taxes accomplish, even if I wince at many > others. I've never bought into the libertarian "taxes are the root of > all evil" argument; hell, without public roads, libertarian property > interests could keep me physically boxed into one area, unable to > move, forever. :p ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could use to attain your goals - obviously, right? Slavery is being forcibly deprived of the use of all your resources (body and mind). In both cases the resources taken from you are used by others to achieve their goals, which frequently may be immoral and repugnant on their own (like slaughtering brown people, jailing drug sellers). There is only a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money. I wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop, among other things. Would that change your POV? In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force) others to give it to you. As an aside, this public roads argument is an old canard - of course you don't need taxes to have excellent, widely accessible roads. The theory and practice of non-state road ownership are/were well-established. If you think that your taxes efficiently accomplish many of the things you appreciate, you may be a victim of political salesmanship. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Feb 13 17:34:21 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:34:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <01e001c86e0a$76c74bc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080213111919.02333730@satx.rr.com> At 01:40 PM 2/13/2008 +0000, BillK quoted Michael Shermer : >Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, >or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get >$250,000? Assume for the moment that prices of goods and services will >stay the same. > >Surprisingly -- stunningly, in fact -- research shows that the >majority of people select the first option; they would rather make >twice as much as others even if that meant earning half as much as >they could otherwise have. How irrational is that? But this misunderstands how we evaluate the world. (I haven't read Shermer's essay, so maybe he elaborates on this.) What's irrational, as given above, is to assume that it's possible under such constraints that "prices of goods and services will stay the same." Change the challenge slightly. At the moment, as a westerner using the internet, you'll live to 80 (say), while an Australian Aborigine living rough can only expect to live to 40. A new genetic/medical advance will let you live to 120, in good health until near the end. But because of their unusual alleles, it will also permit the Aborigine and his kin to live to 250. The treatment is only effective if *almost everyone* is exposed to it. (Some conscientious objectors can abstain.) Would most people insist that the treatment must be refused or banned? Or what about an inoculation that prevents some people from catching colds for 10 years while others will be spared for life. You only rarely catch a cold; would you spitefully ban such treatment if you turn out to be in the single-decade group? Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 17:48:18 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:48:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802130948n5d23c9b2y8efeb7828605932c@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 2:57 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com : > >I am not sure to which post you refer but if you mean my comment on > >"ewige Studenten" in response to your analysis of the disciplining > >influence of PhD deadlines, I agree that it was not a straightforward > >answer. > > No it wasn't, and it didn't help that you threw in as many sneers and > barbs as you could muster for that diatribe against German > government-funded PhDs. And you didn't address either of my two points: > reputation and time. ### Well, you know, I am a German government-funded PhD too...but the main thrust of my rhetoric was not directed at PhD-level education but rather at BA/MA/MD schooling. ---------------------------------------- > > For a libertarian, I don't know how you could ignore the importance of > one's reputation. In the sciences, reputation is king. If a PhD advisor > chooses a slacker PhD student, then he/she must answer to that choice to > his own department and superiors, and in the process his/her reputation > is mud. Science research is not usually well-funded, anywhere, and that > advisor just wasted precious money and time. On the student's side, > he/she has two years to finish that PhD, or three, if he/she applies > formally for an extension. Not only is student's reputation on the line > (because he/she must have a postdoc job lined up when that PhD is > finished), their money is gone on the day after the two or three years. > If he or she is in Germany on a student visa, that means that they must > leave the country, the day that PhD contract no longer applies, too. I > suggest you ask the people you know who have Physics PhDs if three years > is enough time for the research, writing, defense of a good Physics > PhD project and for finding a postdoc position. No 50,000 dollar debt > is needed to 'focus' these people. ### PhD's are a small fraction of the total post-secondary school population. As I said, I agree about your point regarding reputation and other incentives in this situation, since most PhD's are internally motivated to succeed in the field they love (presumably) but for the rest you cannot rely on that. ---------------------------------------- > > P.S. The Physics PhD Universitaet Heidelberg students wouldn't relax on > the Haupstrasse, provided that they could find a free-time lunch period, > because there are too many tourists, such as yourself there. They would > be eating their lunch on the Neckarwiese, instead. ### Aber nein, Amara, ich war doch kein Turist! Ich arbeitete im Neuenheimer Feld, im Institut fuer Humangenetik. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 18:25:33 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:25:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <01db01c86e03$76371de0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> <01db01c86e03$76371de0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802131025l4ccf1249y16b2428ddd113cce@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 12:40 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Rafal writes > > >> Would in fact you be in favor of an "improvement" in technology > >> or in society that caused each person earning D dollars to rise > >> to wealth e^D dollars? True, everyone would be vastly richer, > >> by my God, the gap between the rich and the poor would become > >> truly astronomical! Could you stand it? > > > > ### You mean, I would have more money (inflation-adjusted, I assume?) > > than was made in the whole history of the Earth, maybe even in the > > whole galaxy?! That's a no-brainer! > > > > I would be genuinely baffled by anybody who would refuse his e^D > > dollars only so that Mr Gates doesn't get e^(D+10e10) dollars. This > > would be painfully stupid, not to mention criminally destructive. > > But I guess it depends on your values. If inequality is more important > than actual wealth (beyond food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment, > I presume), then it will make a number of people ill to even think > about the disparity. > ### That refusing the deal would be destructive (in the sense on causing the continuation of literally billions of premature deaths, suffering from malnutrition, curable disease, etc.) is a fact, quite independent of values. I make a motion that choosing such immense atrocities be made criminal. Choosing that we live in misery and die wretchedly instead of luxuriating in material paradise would be, for anybody who cares the least whit about other humans' wellbeing, irrational in the extreme. Lee, don't try to understand envious people - they are different from you and me :) Rafal From shannonvyff at yahoo.com Wed Feb 13 19:16:52 2008 From: shannonvyff at yahoo.com (Shannon) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:16:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Methuselah Foundation Message-ID: <80104.67008.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi all, Just in case any of you haven't checked out the Methuselah Foundation lately I wanted to put out the link to their forum (perhaps Peter Thiel reads it ;-) ) : http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/forums/index.php?referrerid=299 I've been excited to see Aubrey in the press more as of late, and even on the Colbert Report. I'd love to see more people support our current science of ending aging, I think this will happen after more 'famous or rich' people do--but before the super wealthy put large amounts of money into ending aging-- the stigma of selfishness must be removed. Since the super rich would be the first to benefit from anti-aging treatments--they'd have to be people who give back a lot to help end inequality in some way, for the majority of people to be supportive. Life Extension may come from A.I., or brain uploading--but many have the idea that is 'not human' and they want to keep their own bodies re-rejuvenated. I think that is why it is important to support the Mprize, as well as support the A.I. field. Shannon Health, Happiness, Wisdom & Longevity :-) -- best wishes from... Austin, Texas --Shannon Vyff (512) 673-3431 2011 Lantana Drive, Round Rock, TX, 78664 "21st Century Kids" http://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Kids-Shannon-Vyff/dp/1886057001 From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 20:02:41 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:02:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080213200241.GA6749@ofb.net> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > BTW, the point of not being a slave to others is not "accumulating as > many goodies as possible" but being free to choose. I refuse to accept > the legitimacy of any peremptory claims on my life, time and property. What if you were born in the Netherlands, and were told you had to do your fair share of work to maintain the dikes without which you'd be underwater? -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 20:16:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:16:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics References: <129935.38259.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><01e001c86e0a$76c74bc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes >> Status may be a zero-sum game, but economics *certainly* >> is not---except in those cases where some genius like Lenin >> supposes that he has a better way to organize everything. > > But in human society, status trumps economics. That's inbuilt to human nature. > > > > 'Why people believe weird things about money' > Evolution accounts for a lot of our strange ideas about finances. > By Michael Shermer January 13, 2008 > > Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, > or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000? The latter. And I would sincerely appreciate it if people who would prefer the former, would either say so, or flip a coin and if the answer is "heads", state their true preference. :-) > Surprisingly -- stunningly, in fact -- research shows that the > majority of people select the first option; they would rather make > twice as much as others even if that meant earning half as much as > they could otherwise have. How irrational is that? I would not argue that it is *irrational* at all! No, not at all. If annoyance at inequality really is greater than value received from greater riches, then it would be irrational *not* to prefer the closer-equality. > 'Perception of fairness' and 'status' are far more important drivers > for the majority of humanity than mere money and wealth. This preference for wealth equality may indeed be more important for the majority at any given time (so far, in history), but it has not remained constant over history. Religion has done a great deal to help people accept that others may have more wealth and that this is not a problem. Also other memes help: it is often said that Americans believe more than others, everything else being equal, that they can "get ahead". If so, then this has also helped them to evade envy and dwell less on how rich Bill Gates is, say. Would you not agree to this: 1) it is good that people want to be richer 2) it is unfortunate, and needs to be worked against that people are so interested in relative differences Lee From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 20:20:22 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:20:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080213202021.GB6749@ofb.net> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:17:38PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > I would be genuinely baffled by anybody who would refuse his e^D > dollars only so that Mr Gates doesn't get e^(D+10e10) dollars. This > would be painfully stupid, not to mention criminally destructive. Actually it could be quite rational, from two entirely different directions. 1) As evolved beings, the ultimate purpose our emotions are designed to serve is reproductive success. Status, whether social or relative wealth, easily translates to relative reproductive success. Feelings of envy and fairness are rooted in our genes not wanting to go extinct. 2) Even for non-reproducing immortals, such a wealth disparity could be disturbing, unless one assumes that it will never be abused for purposes of power. If everyone is a perfectly moral libertarian, well, fine! But if not, more money can mean more bribes to politicians, more hired soldiers, more hunter-killer robots built. If I have 10 dollars and you have 20, it's not that easy for you to shove me around. If I have (2^D) 1000 dollars and you have a million, you can blot me out. Of course, you might have less incentive to, since I have only 1/1000 of what you, but if I've got something else you want, like a house with a nice view, or any other limited resource which didn't enjoy an exponential increase in availability, I'd have reason to be worried. Especially if part of the reason you have 20 dollars is that you're a bit more ruthless than everyone else. -xx- Damien X-) From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 13 19:53:07 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:53:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Feb 13, 2008 10:55 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > > A job is what I'll be spending 1/4 of my life doing (approaching 1/3, > > if you only count waking hours); I damn well *better* enjoy it, lest > > it aggravate and depress the hell out of me. I've been fortunate > > enough to (mostly) enjoy my current and previous jobs (web-oriented > > programming using open source tools), but the salary demon keeps > > haunting me due to my debt. If not for the debt, I could stop chasing > > money ? I'm perfectly content with a handful of gadgets (laptop, etc.) > > and renting apartments indefinitely. > > ### Yeah, I agree that since you don't feel like making money, > spending it wasn't a good idea. Debt isn't a good idea, period. No arguments there. I was stupid. > > I don't quite get how taxes make me a "slave" to others; I appreciate > > many of the things that taxes accomplish, even if I wince at many > > others. I've never bought into the libertarian "taxes are the root of > > all evil" argument; hell, without public roads, libertarian property > > interests could keep me physically boxed into one area, unable to > > move, forever. :p > > ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could > use to attain your goals - obviously, right? Err, no, not "obviously" at all. Leaving my society is always an option; taxes happen to be part of the ruleset of this society, same as any corporation-state might impose. If I really want to leave, I can; I had better not try to come back, of course. > Slavery is being forcibly > deprived of the use of all your resources (body and mind). In both > cases the resources taken from you are used by others to achieve their > goals, which frequently may be immoral and repugnant on their own > (like slaughtering brown people, jailing drug sellers). All too true; if that's *all* taxes got me, I wouldn't be sticking around. > There is only > a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am > owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money. You're "owned"? Really? Your boss can kill you with impunity? > I > wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of > your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop, > among other things. Would that change your POV? From my point of view, if all my basic needs are taken care of, and I'm not looking to obtain anything else (like ::cough:: children, which I remain convinced are the ultimate luxury items), I damned well could afford that laptop, that cellphone, and connectivity. And I'd be perfectly content, since that's *all I'd need*. > In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on > your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to > others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force) > others to give it to you. Money is a product, one of the glues, of society; it doesn't have any value on its own. I don't why libertarians haven't figured out that the only way they can obtain resources as efficiently as they do is because we have a framework to do it with. (Don't get me started on the joke of "natural rights", either.) ^_^ > As an aside, this public roads argument is an old canard - of course > you don't need taxes to have excellent, widely accessible roads. The > theory and practice of non-state road ownership are/were > well-established. If you think that your taxes efficiently accomplish > many of the things you appreciate, you may be a victim of political > salesmanship. What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a malicious entity. Said entity won't let me cross its land. How do I get out? A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to attack me if I tried. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 20:23:49 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:23:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics In-Reply-To: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:16:09PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > 1) it is good that people want to be richer > 2) it is unfortunate, and needs to be worked against > that people are so interested in relative differences Hypothetical rephrase: 1) it is good that people want to have more power over each other 2) it's unfortunate, and needs to be worked against that people are so interested in relative differences in power. Material wealth gives us comfort and security, and needn't be zero-sum. But it can also be used for social power, which is zero-sum. -xx- Damien X-) From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 13 20:25:31 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:25:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Geez. I just realized that I'm sitting on the Extropy Institute mailing list ... the libertarian transhumanist mailing list ... complaining about libertarianism. I must sound like a troll. I'm sorry. I'll go somewhere else. ^_^ On 2/13/08, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/13/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On Feb 13, 2008 10:55 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > > > > A job is what I'll be spending 1/4 of my life doing (approaching 1/3, > > > if you only count waking hours); I damn well *better* enjoy it, lest > > > it aggravate and depress the hell out of me. I've been fortunate > > > enough to (mostly) enjoy my current and previous jobs (web-oriented > > > programming using open source tools), but the salary demon keeps > > > haunting me due to my debt. If not for the debt, I could stop chasing > > > money ? I'm perfectly content with a handful of gadgets (laptop, etc.) > > > and renting apartments indefinitely. > > > > ### Yeah, I agree that since you don't feel like making money, > > spending it wasn't a good idea. > > Debt isn't a good idea, period. No arguments there. I was stupid. > > > > > I don't quite get how taxes make me a "slave" to others; I appreciate > > > many of the things that taxes accomplish, even if I wince at many > > > others. I've never bought into the libertarian "taxes are the root of > > > all evil" argument; hell, without public roads, libertarian property > > > interests could keep me physically boxed into one area, unable to > > > move, forever. :p > > > > ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could > > use to attain your goals - obviously, right? > > Err, no, not "obviously" at all. Leaving my society is always an > option; taxes happen to be part of the ruleset of this society, same > as any corporation-state might impose. If I really want to leave, I > can; I had better not try to come back, of course. > > > Slavery is being forcibly > > deprived of the use of all your resources (body and mind). In both > > cases the resources taken from you are used by others to achieve their > > goals, which frequently may be immoral and repugnant on their own > > (like slaughtering brown people, jailing drug sellers). > > All too true; if that's *all* taxes got me, I wouldn't be sticking around. > > > There is only > > a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am > > owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money. > > You're "owned"? Really? Your boss can kill you with impunity? > > > I > > wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of > > your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop, > > among other things. Would that change your POV? > > From my point of view, if all my basic needs are taken care of, and > I'm not looking to obtain anything else (like ::cough:: children, > which I remain convinced are the ultimate luxury items), I damned well > could afford that laptop, that cellphone, and connectivity. And I'd > be perfectly content, since that's *all I'd need*. > > > In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on > > your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to > > others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force) > > others to give it to you. > > Money is a product, one of the glues, of society; it doesn't have any > value on its own. I don't why libertarians haven't figured out that > the only way they can obtain resources as efficiently as they do is > because we have a framework to do it with. (Don't get me started on > the joke of "natural rights", either.) ^_^ > > > As an aside, this public roads argument is an old canard - of course > > you don't need taxes to have excellent, widely accessible roads. The > > theory and practice of non-state road ownership are/were > > well-established. If you think that your taxes efficiently accomplish > > many of the things you appreciate, you may be a victim of political > > salesmanship. > > What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I > could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a > malicious entity. Said entity won't let me cross its land. How do I > get out? A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely > within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to > attack me if I tried. > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 20:35:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:35:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> <01db01c86e03$76371de0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802131025l4ccf1249y16b2428ddd113cce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <023501c86e80$56f894e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal writes >> But I guess it depends on your values. If inequality is more important >> than actual wealth (beyond food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment, >> I presume), then it will make a number of people ill to even think >> about the disparity. >> > ### That refusing the deal would be destructive (in the sense on > causing the continuation of literally billions of premature deaths, > suffering from malnutrition, curable disease, etc.) is a fact, quite > independent of values. Yes, that does seem inarguable. Richer societies have to be healthier ones, within a huge range of inequality. > I make a motion that choosing such immense atrocities be made > criminal. Choosing that we live in misery and die wretchedly > instead of luxuriating in material paradise would be, for anybody > who cares the least whit about other humans' wellbeing, irrational > in the extreme. I have a problem with the word "irrational" here. I hope you understand. (For one thing, you can't have a satisfactory discussion with people if your thesis is that they are irrational. Besides, it's simply false.) > Lee, don't try to understand envious people - they are different from > you and me :) The envious? Yes, they're different. Since the proper memes are now freely available, they have no excuse for their envy. They just have to work at it. I am not without envy. But I keep it under very, very tight control, and it does rarely affect my decisions and never does it affect my stances. But those who simply see inequality as a very big and dangerous evil, are quite like me in the sense that they would prefer societies to avoid dangerous developments---even though we probably disagree about exactly how dangerous inequality is, and how successfully it may be possible to combat its effects. Action items: 1 - if you are envious, get a grip, and encourage others around you who are envious to do the same 2 - continue to point out to others, whenever the opportunity arises, that the situation is as Rafal says: ### Choosing less overall wealth for a society is criminal and will result in curable diseases going untreated and in some places malnutrition and infant mortality---mere inequality is by far a lesser evil Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 20:39:22 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:39:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] You know what? References: <02ad01c85d7d$bed00c60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213092600.GB17356@ofb.net> Message-ID: <023901c86e81$0b41b030$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > [Lee wrote] > >> And there are bigger questions at issue here. First, are people >> really so mindless that they can be taken over by a meme without >> any awareness? And speaking of fashion in general, why are >> people so eager to conform, anyway? > > Some would posit that being an imitative species is how we managed to > learn language, not to mention all sorts of useful things for staying alive. And that is certainly true. This indeed, as you point out, helps greatly to explain fashions. But as a comparitively highly evolved memetic species, we are certainly capable of overriding impulses to imitate, and we must encourage people to do so. In other words, we should not hesitate to point out to people that the mindless following of fashion is beneath humanity. Lee > A bunch of researchers say that monkeys and apes don't in fact > 'ape', or at least that it's hard to get much general evidence of their > doing so (counterpoint: some mothers -> daughter tool use transmission > in chimps, and young males imitating alpha male chimps. But of course > those too have obvious survival value, and still, young human children > seem to have a unmatched generality of who they attend to -- including > each other, which helps with the collective re-invention of language > every generation.) From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Wed Feb 13 20:41:41 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:41:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Methuselah Foundation In-Reply-To: <80104.67008.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <80104.67008.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Shannon wrote: I think this will happen after more 'famous or rich' people do--but before the super wealthy put large amounts of money into ending aging-- the stigma of selfishness must be removed. Since the super rich would be the first to benefit from anti-aging treatments--they'd have to be people who give back a lot to help end inequality in some way, for the majority of people to be supportive. Don't forget that the "Rich & Famous" already spend a lot of discretionary money on facelifts, botox, spas, etc. because those therapies WORK and show immediate results. The issue has more to do with the perception that because previously touted anti-aging treatments (like HGH) don't work and have been publicly discredited, that nothing else is likely to work... We need to keep reinforcing the idea that given proper funding we could be the first generation to witness true rejuvenation, versus being the last generation to get old and die... -------------------------- James Clement, J.D., LL.M. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date: 2/13/2008 9:41 AM From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 13 20:43:13 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:43:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Methuselah Foundation In-Reply-To: <80104.67008.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <80104.67008.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080213204313.GC10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:16:52AM -0800, Shannon wrote: > Just in case any of you haven't checked out the > Methuselah Foundation lately I wanted to put out the > link to their forum (perhaps Peter Thiel reads it ;-) > ) : > > http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/forums/index.php?referrerid=299 > > I've been excited to see Aubrey in the press more as > of late, and even on the Colbert Report. Cool shit. I've been a speaker on the same panel as Audrey once. > I'd love to see more people support our current > science of ending aging, I think this will happen > after more 'famous or rich' people do--but before the > super wealthy put large amounts of money into ending > aging-- the stigma of selfishness must be removed. > Since the super rich would be the first to benefit > from anti-aging treatments--they'd have to be people > who give back a lot to help end inequality in some > way, for the majority of people to be supportive. Thiel was the largest donor so far. I hope the others will follow suit. Also, frozen heads (Saul Kent and a couple others (Laughlin) figure prominently there). > Life Extension may come from A.I., or brain > uploading--but many have the idea that is 'not human' Czech this shit out: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/connectomics > and they want to keep their own bodies re-rejuvenated. > I think that is why it is important to support the > Mprize, as well as support the A.I. field. You don't really want to fund SkyNet. > Shannon > > Health, Happiness, Wisdom & Longevity :-) -- best wishes from... Austin, Texas --Shannon Vyff (512) 673-3431 2011 Lantana Drive, Round Rock, TX, 78664 "21st Century Kids" http://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Kids-Shannon-Vyff/dp/1886057001 Weird. I'd've never pegged you for a trashumus. Will wonders never cease. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 13 20:48:10 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:48:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Methuselah Foundation In-Reply-To: <20080213204313.GC10128@leitl.org> References: <80104.67008.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20080213204313.GC10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20080213204810.GA11702@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:43:13PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Weird. I'd've never pegged you for a trashumus. > Will wonders never cease. Whoops. This is not the Shannon I shannon shannons. And just what have you done to the Schweinehunden list?! Serves me right. http://burks.bton.ac.uk/burks/language/shoot.htm -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 13 20:54:28 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:54:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> Message-ID: <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien S. writes > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:16:09PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> 1) it is good that people want to be richer >> 2) it is unfortunate, and needs to be worked against >> that people are so interested in relative differences > > Hypothetical rephrase: > > 1) it is good that people want to have more power over each other No, no! Not the same thing at all! If I only go up to making 250K per year and everyone else gets to go up to making 500K, that does not necessarily in any way cause them to have power over me. Now if you want to define power as the ability to build some new artifact, then yes, they can do that. But that is not what I mean by "power", especially in this context of "power over others". (N.B. See below---I have come to agree with you about part of this.) > 2) it's unfortunate, and needs to be worked against that people are so > interested in relative differences in power. But I think that we *all* are interested in relative differences in power of the kind you are speaking of, and I think that we all agree that is is a very *good* thing to be so interested. Nothing is more important that equal protection of the laws (rule of law) and total respect for private property. So I can spend my 250K and keep the results, regardless of what the others do. > Material wealth gives us comfort and security, and needn't be zero-sum. > But it can also be used for social power, which is zero-sum. Perhaps you should elaborate on the ways that material wealth can be used for social power. I will of course respond that when it can be so used, we merely have uncovered a defect in the law or in goverment abuse of power or something, and that *that* is what needs correcting. You may perhaps respond that it seems inevitable in human societies that material wealth can be so misused... (Perhaps you don't need to respond at all since I am doing such a swell job of holding up both sides of the conversation :-) Ah, WAIT! I see that you have addressed some of this just now in a reply to Rafal, from which I now quote: > If everyone is a perfectly moral libertarian, well, fine! > But if not, more money can mean more bribes to > politicians, more hired soldiers, more hunter-killer > robots built. If I have 10 dollars and you have 20, > it's not that easy for you to shove me around. > If I have (2^D) 1000 dollars and you have a million, > you can blot me out. Here I will concede: if it proves impossible to stop such unlawful processes, then you are right and we cannot afford to allow very much inequality to develop. But we don't know that we will be ineffective in stamping out corruption, just as we don't know if it's even possible at all to diminish inequality. There are many unknowns here, and many risks. It does seem interesting that some of the countries that have been most adept at snuffing out corruption have also permitted inequality to rise to its "natural", i.e., free market levels. More transparency (e.g. The Transparent Society) should help, and that's perhaps the way we should risk going forward. Lee From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 20:58:01 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:58:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802131258o1a734d63kead38604aa679622@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 12:25 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > Geez. I just realized that I'm sitting on the Extropy Institute > mailing list ... the libertarian transhumanist mailing list ... > complaining about libertarianism. I must sound like a troll. I'm > sorry. I'll go somewhere else. ^_^ Don't you go anywhere! It's good to shake things up and the guys who are debating you live for this debate. They lie in wait, crouched by their computers for a bright young thing to give them lip and you gave them their fresh meat. They may not realize it, but they're actually grateful. You revived their raison d'?tre, like a shot of political Viagra. As long as you're game and civil, they will be, too. Frankly, I'm happy to see bright young people like you and Bryan bravely join the fray. You bring a necessary energy to this group it sometimes lacks with all us grumpy geezers. I'm happy for you to stay. Of course, I don't control the list. And I don't disagree with you, either. At least so far... ;-) PJ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 13 21:02:19 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:02:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802131258o1a734d63kead38604aa679622@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802131258o1a734d63kead38604aa679622@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080213210219.GD10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:58:01PM -0800, PJ Manney wrote: > Of course, I don't control the list. And I don't disagree with you, While I don't control the list either, the gentleman might as well check in to Hotel California. He might attempt to leave, but... > either. At least so far... ;-) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 21:21:53 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:21:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080213212153.GA20701@ofb.net> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:25:31PM -0600, Tom Tobin wrote: > Geez. I just realized that I'm sitting on the Extropy Institute > mailing list ... the libertarian transhumanist mailing list ... > complaining about libertarianism. I must sound like a troll. I'm > sorry. I'll go somewhere else. ^_^ Well, back in the day, the list heads, while pretty libertarian themselves, I thought tried to avoid having extropianism solidly tied to libertarianism. And in fact one of the big old-timers, David Krieger, helped crack my teenage libertarian idealism. And the Principles, while strongly pro-liberty, aren't explicitly libertarian or anti-government; there's a lot in the fifth principle which social democrats could get behind and say they foster better than laissez faire. Hmm, I see that "Self-direction" is more direct, though: 'Coercion of mature, sound minds outside the realm of self-protection, whether for the purported "good of the whole" or for the paternalistic protection of the individual, is unacceptable.' Still, extropianism is also supposed to be rational and empirical, so what does one do if one feels radical libertarianism is neither? Ah well. -xx- Damien X-) From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 13 21:32:08 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:32:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802131258o1a734d63kead38604aa679622@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802131258o1a734d63kead38604aa679622@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/08, PJ Manney wrote: > On Feb 13, 2008 12:25 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > Geez. I just realized that I'm sitting on the Extropy Institute > > mailing list ... the libertarian transhumanist mailing list ... > > complaining about libertarianism. I must sound like a troll. I'm > > sorry. I'll go somewhere else. ^_^ > > Don't you go anywhere! It's good to shake things up and the guys who > are debating you live for this debate. They lie in wait, crouched by > their computers for a bright young thing to give them lip and you gave > them their fresh meat. They may not realize it, but they're actually > grateful. You revived their raison d'?tre, like a shot of political > Viagra. As long as you're game and civil, they will be, too. > > Frankly, I'm happy to see bright young people like you and Bryan > bravely join the fray. You bring a necessary energy to this group it > sometimes lacks with all us grumpy geezers. I'm happy for you to > stay. > > Of course, I don't control the list. And I don't disagree with you, > either. At least so far... ;-) Okay, I'm not going anywhere. ^_^ From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Feb 13 21:44:09 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:44:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics In-Reply-To: <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080213214409.GC20701@ofb.net> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:28PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Damien S. writes > > Material wealth gives us comfort and security, and needn't be zero-sum. > > But it can also be used for social power, which is zero-sum. > > Perhaps you should elaborate on the ways that material wealth > can be used for social power. I will of course respond that when > it can be so used, we merely have uncovered a defect in the law > or in goverment abuse of power or something, and that *that* is > what needs correcting. You may perhaps respond that it seems I listed some. Bribes. Buying up monopolies. Armed goons/private soldiers. (later tech: armed robots) You talk about absolute respect for private property but *how is that enforced*? I forget about you, but some around here are anarcho-capitalists. No government, so what to do if after this magical exponentiation of wealth, someone has more material power than everyone else combined? Or 100x more power? What's going to stop him from taking over, if he chooses to? Heck, not that a pre-existing government would necessarily survive such a shock, but if progressive taxes got to take a cut there might be a chance of democratic balance. > Ah, WAIT! I see that you have addressed some of this just now > in a reply to Rafal, from which I now quote: Ah, right. > Here I will concede: if it proves impossible to stop such > unlawful processes, then you are right and we cannot > afford to allow very much inequality to develop. But we > don't know that we will be ineffective in stamping out > corruption, just as we don't know if it's even possible Stamping out corruption how? I mean, apart from the bribes, I'm worried less about corruption of gov't officials and basic greed, drive for power, and psychopathy. Stamping those out sounds like Communist-level re-working of human nature. > at all to diminish inequality. There are many unknowns Eh? We know damn well it's possible to diminish economic inequality, every First World country does it to varying degrees, via progressive taxes and welfare payments and various labor laws. > It does seem interesting that some of the countries that > have been most adept at snuffing out corruption have > also permitted inequality to rise to its "natural", i.e., > free market levels. More transparency (e.g. The Actually that's not the case. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007 The *most* adept countries are largely low-inequality social democracies: the Usual Suspects of the Nordics and Netherlands, plus Canada and New Zealand... also Singapore and Switzerland. USA is #20 on the list, with a high score (7.6) well below the low score of even #12 on the list. We do somewhat better on the Bribe Payers Index: http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2006/en_2006_10_04_bpi_2006 Not that it's clear to me what a free market level of inequality means, or if any country has it. -xx- Damien X-) From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 22:53:57 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:53:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <20080213202021.GB6749@ofb.net> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> <20080213202021.GB6749@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802131453w4499e59aifa3f0186ba2288bf@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 3:20 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:17:38PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > I would be genuinely baffled by anybody who would refuse his e^D > > dollars only so that Mr Gates doesn't get e^(D+10e10) dollars. This > > would be painfully stupid, not to mention criminally destructive. > > Actually it could be quite rational, from two entirely different > directions. > > 1) As evolved beings, the ultimate purpose our emotions are designed to > serve is reproductive success. Status, whether social or relative > wealth, easily translates to relative reproductive success. Feelings of > envy and fairness are rooted in our genes not wanting to go extinct. ### The only kind of human for whom this could be rational (in the textbook sense of leading to achievement of goals) is a fanatically status-obsessed, envious person who measures success strictly in dollars, and cares exclusively about the integral of wealth among his betters (derives negative utility from his inferiority) while disregarding the integral of wealth of his inferiors (fails to realize utility from his superiority). I would be quite baffled if I were to see such strange creature in real life.Otherwise, however you slice, you are worse off with that much less money. If you want reproductive success, with e^100,000 dollars, inflation-adjusted, you can buy yourself enough nannies and wombs to have a trillion children on the interest, every day. Feelings of envy don't scale with money - most people are more pissed off with their richer neighbor than with Mr Slim. ------------------------------------------------- > > 2) Even for non-reproducing immortals, such a wealth disparity could be > disturbing, unless one assumes that it will never be abused for purposes > of power. If everyone is a perfectly moral libertarian, well, fine! > But if not, more money can mean more bribes to politicians, more hired > soldiers, more hunter-killer robots built. If I have 10 dollars and you > have 20, it's not that easy for you to shove me around. If I have (2^D) > 1000 dollars and you have a million, you can blot me out. Of course, > you might have less incentive to, since I have only 1/1000 of what you, > but if I've got something else you want, like a house with a nice view, > or any other limited resource which didn't enjoy an exponential increase > in availability, I'd have reason to be worried. Especially if part of > the reason you have 20 dollars is that you're a bit more ruthless than > everyone else. > ### Now, here you do have a point. If money here translated monotonously into inflation-adjusted resources, the richest person could buy enough weaponry and mercenaries to annihilate everything around him, even if the second-richest was only 100 dollars poorer than him before the enrichment took place. This would be a good reason to ask the money-giving genie to disallow any involuntary transfers of property, before letting him out of the bottle. Yes, only good, property-respecting libertarians can be trusted with a lot of money.... Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 23:08:47 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:08:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics In-Reply-To: <023501c86e80$56f894e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802092155s49b9352bice253a364dcb0c98@mail.gmail.com> <954327.64109.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802102310l7ce6d8f2s56b15d72bca89bdd@mail.gmail.com> <00c601c86d37$8e1419d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <015b01c86d9f$34179ed0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802121717o5cf664fap46b7bd7c4c5c85b8@mail.gmail.com> <01db01c86e03$76371de0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802131025l4ccf1249y16b2428ddd113cce@mail.gmail.com> <023501c86e80$56f894e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802131508y1bfb1436l741c57f39d23e893@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 3:35 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Rafal writes > > > Lee, don't try to understand envious people - they are different from > > you and me :) > > The envious? Yes, they're different. Since the proper memes are now > freely available, they have no excuse for their envy. They just have > to work at it. I am not without envy. But I keep it under very, very > tight control, and it does rarely affect my decisions and never does it > affect my stances. > ### Me too. A few years back I looked into myself to see envy masquerading as a feeling for fairness. I became disgusted with this part of myself, and managed to expunge envy from my political views (not so much from daily life but I am working on it). --------------------------------------- > But those who simply see inequality as a very big and dangerous > evil, are quite like me in the sense that they would prefer societies > to avoid dangerous developments---even though we probably > disagree about exactly how dangerous inequality is, and how > successfully it may be possible to combat its effects. ### Yes, I agree - inequality of wealth, insofar as it may translate into inequality of power, can be a real problem but I tend to see it this way: In predatory societies, accumulating money is a side-effect of having power, rather than a true source of power of its own. In honest, capitalist societies money is accumulated without the use of asymmetrical power, and does not easily lend itself to the subversion of the society. That's why Mr Buffett's money is not much of a threat to me, while Mr Hussein's money was a testament of his power of life and death over every Iraqi. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 23:26:21 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:26:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <20080213200241.GA6749@ofb.net> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <20080213200241.GA6749@ofb.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802131526n1e730ec1m9edfa2ca19b83b55@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 3:02 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > BTW, the point of not being a slave to others is not "accumulating as > > many goodies as possible" but being free to choose. I refuse to accept > > the legitimacy of any peremptory claims on my life, time and property. > > What if you were born in the Netherlands, and were told you had to do > your fair share of work to maintain the dikes without which you'd be > underwater? > ### All landowners in the Netherlands have an incentive to maintain dikes, for obvious reasons. It could be also claimed that letting a dike fail on you property, which would inundate your neighbors, would be a harm inflicted on them, and could make you liable for damages (just like setting fires on your property makes you liable for the destruction of your neighbors' property should your fire spread). A Coasian bargain among property owners could produce a network of interdependent legal claims, in close parallel to the physical structure of the dikes. Naturally, costs stemming from such bargains would be a part of any rental agreement, and would further be incorporated, fully voluntarily, into the prices of goods. So yes, living in Liberlands I would pay my fair, market share of dike costs, with every transaction I make, and no goons in sight to make peremptory claims on me. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 23:27:30 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:27:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802131258o1a734d63kead38604aa679622@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802131527l3015c6d3tc660d79a58884a0c@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 4:32 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > Okay, I'm not going anywhere. ^_^ ### Yeah, stay! We old geezers need somebody to tussle with :) Rafal From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Wed Feb 13 23:20:14 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:20:14 -0300 (ART) Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics In-Reply-To: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <734228.41055.qm@web50604.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > > Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other > people make $25,000, > > or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while > other people get $250,000? > > The latter. And I would sincerely appreciate it if > people who > would prefer the former, would either say so, or > flip a coin > and if the answer is "heads", state their true > preference. :-) > That will depend on how large you consider your 'other people' group. Mark. Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o ?nico sem limite de espa?o para armazenamento! http://br.mail.yahoo.com/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 00:06:28 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:06:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 13, 2008 2:53 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > > ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could > > use to attain your goals - obviously, right? > > Err, no, not "obviously" at all. Leaving my society is always an > option; taxes happen to be part of the ruleset of this society, same > as any corporation-state might impose. If I really want to leave, I > can; I had better not try to come back, of course. ### Well, yeah, like running away from slavery. Saying that "it's just the way things are done here" doesn't make it right, you know? And why should *I* leave? Did I do something wrong? If somebody doesn't like the lack of "free" healthcare, they can leave anytime. Violence is wrong no matter if you call yourself a state or a corporation, no matter if there are "laws" that say otherwise. ----------------------------------------------- > > > There is only > > a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am > > owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money. > > You're "owned"? Really? Your boss can kill you with impunity? ### Well, yes. Have you ever tried not paying your taxes, and resisting a visit from IRS agents (they are armed)? Any resistance would end up with the resister ruined, and any serious resistance would end with him dead, while some goons would be getting a bonus for offing him. --------------------------------------- > > > I > > wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of > > your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop, > > among other things. Would that change your POV? > > From my point of view, if all my basic needs are taken care of, and > I'm not looking to obtain anything else (like ::cough:: children, > which I remain convinced are the ultimate luxury items), I damned well > could afford that laptop, that cellphone, and connectivity. And I'd > be perfectly content, since that's *all I'd need*. ### I would disagree with the assessment of children as luxury items. If you want to have your "basic needs" taken care of in about 30 - 40 years, children are a necessity. Are you honestly telling me you would be happy with losing 80% of your current income while having to work just as mucht? That's strange. --------------------------- > > > In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on > > your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to > > others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force) > > others to give it to you. > > Money is a product, one of the glues, of society; it doesn't have any > value on its own. I don't why libertarians haven't figured out that > the only way they can obtain resources as efficiently as they do is > because we have a framework to do it with. (Don't get me started on > the joke of "natural rights", either.) ^_^ ### I don't understand your paragraph. BTW, I am not a natural rights libertarian, except in the most roundabout and indirect way. -------------------------- > > > As an aside, this public roads argument is an old canard - of course > > you don't need taxes to have excellent, widely accessible roads. The > > theory and practice of non-state road ownership are/were > > well-established. If you think that your taxes efficiently accomplish > > many of the things you appreciate, you may be a victim of political > > salesmanship. > > What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I > could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a > malicious entity. Said entity won't let me cross its land. How do I > get out? A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely > within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to > attack me if I tried. ### Yes, if you trespassed. Other ancaps would ask, "So why did you buy this land if you know it's surrounded by a malicious entity? Why didn't you make sure you have rights of way to the nearest roads you are subscriber of?" If the entity was not too large you could perhaps call some mercenaries to help you fight your way out and next time you buy land you would be more cautious. And, actually, the same thought experiment can be directly used in favor of anarchocapitalism: Imagine you are minding your own business, living quietly somewhere in Germany, Turkey, or Spain. One day the huge malicious entity you have been feeding with your taxes all your life decides you need to be killed, because you are Jewish, Armenian, or Jewish, or whatever. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Since the entity is definitely much larger than whatever could have surrounded you in Ancapistan, you can't run. No mercenaries to do your bidding, all were hired by the entity or killed already. And at least in Ancapistan you could hang tough under siege, since the entity would be breaking the law if it invaded your land, and you'd still have your cell phone, maybe you could pay for airmail delivery of stuff. But there in Govtland, they just send in some Gestapo and a body disposal van. Rafal From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 00:16:37 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:16:37 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 14/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Are you honestly telling me you would be happy with losing 80% of your > current income while having to work just as mucht? That's strange. You're assuming that taxes are completely useless. The fact is, every population that has the choice, has decided that a level of taxation is important. What that level is and and what the money is spent on varies from place to place. -- Stathis Papaioannou From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 14 00:30:24 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:30:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Rafal, >## Aber nein, Amara, ich war doch kein Turist! Ich arbeitete im >Neuenheimer Feld, im Institut fuer Humangenetik. Well, if you were there in the later 90s, then we could have bumped into each other (I visited the Pathologisches Institut at Neuenheimer Feld, several times). But then we might have had to have a duel or something. I was in: http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/fileadmin/pathologie/pdf/Wissenschaftliche_Arbeiten_2000.pdf 87. Sinn HP, Graps A (2000) Tumorweb - an intranet-based tumor documentation system for breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 126: R46 as part of this project: Tumorweb http://www.med.uni-giessen.de/akkk/info/13/abstracts/sinn.htm Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 14 00:30:11 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:30:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... Message-ID: Rafal, >## Aber nein, Amara, ich war doch kein Turist! Ich arbeitete im >Neuenheimer Feld, im Institut fuer Humangenetik. Well, if you were there in the later 90s, then we could have bumped into each other (I visited the Pathologisches Institut at Neuenheimer Feld, several times). But then we might have had to have a duel or something. I was in: http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/fileadmin/pathologie/pdf/Wissenschaftliche_Arbeiten_2000.pdf 87. Sinn HP, Graps A (2000) Tumorweb - an intranet-based tumor documentation system for breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 126: R46 as part of this project: Tumorweb http://www.med.uni-giessen.de/akkk/info/13/abstracts/sinn.htm Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Feb 14 01:08:23 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:08:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] You know what? References: <02ad01c85d7d$bed00c60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213092600.GB17356@ofb.net> <023901c86e81$0b41b030$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213205833.GA16291@ofb.net> Message-ID: <025501c86ea6$3351bb40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien S. writes >> In other words, we should not hesitate to point out to people that >> the mindless following of fashion is beneath humanity. > > What about self-aware adoption of local customs, to fit in? Around > different groups I find myself picking up various verbal tics or > stereotypes. It can happen to the best of us. > But I do find myself, and I don't mind, or even gain pleasure that's sick > from the flexible adoption, not to mention the social bonding > benefits. Well, if that's the way the world is, then naturally, I don't expect you to punish yourself by failing to conform. But fie on those who'd discriminate against you for not adopting their customs. Have they no ability to cherish your individuality? :-) > If I followed local fashion in a manner which compromised deeper morals > or values, that'd be one thing, but verbal patterns are hardly that > important. Clothing fashions strike me as sillier, since you spend > actual money on them, but I'll no longer go so far as to say they're > outright stupid. Have it your way. But if I knew the people you hang out with, I'd put them up to wearing beany hats, just to see how long it would take you to get in step! Lee, die-hard individualist From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 14 02:28:01 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:28:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802140228.m1E2SBKY005536@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tom Tobin > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > > Geez. I just realized that I'm sitting on the Extropy > Institute mailing list ... the libertarian transhumanist > mailing list ... > complaining about libertarianism. I must sound like a troll. > I'm sorry. I'll go somewhere else. ^_^ ... Tom we are highly tolerant libertarians here. Feel free to complain. We know libertarianism isn' the answer to every question. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 14 02:10:41 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:10:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <20080213085410.GA17356@ofb.net> Message-ID: <200802140237.m1E2bRou028835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Damien Sullivan > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 07:36:34PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > ...So then, poverty really *does* build character. > > So we'd expect the US to have a higher personal savings rate > than indolent European socialists who don't have to pay for > their education or health care or retirement, right? > > -xx- Damien X-) Oh no. I only said poverty builds character. I didn't say it builds savings. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 14 03:04:36 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:04:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] libertarians In-Reply-To: <200802140228.m1E2SBKY005536@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802140228.m1E2SBKY005536@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080213210230.024bdea8@satx.rr.com> At 06:28 PM 2/13/2008 -0800, Spike Jones wrote: >Tom we are highly tolerant libertarians here. Feel free to complain. We >know libertarianism isn' the answer to every question. And some of us are so highly tolerant we aren't libertarians at all. Well, just a bit. Damien Broderick [aka Damien B.] From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 14 03:10:03 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:10:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802140310.m1E3AAWG004408@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Amara Graps >... > ... But then we might have had to have a duel or something. Amara Back in the old days when life was cheap and honor was expensive, a coupla guys would get into a major argument, then decide to step ten paces in either direction, turn and shoot each other. What if the argument involved three people? Would they pace off at angles of 2pi/3, then choose one or the other to shoot, hoping the other doesn't choose to shoot you? spike From korpios at korpios.com Thu Feb 14 03:32:59 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:32:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Feb 13, 2008 2:53 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > > > > ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could > > > use to attain your goals - obviously, right? > > > > Err, no, not "obviously" at all. Leaving my society is always an > > option; taxes happen to be part of the ruleset of this society, same > > as any corporation-state might impose. If I really want to leave, I > > can; I had better not try to come back, of course. > > ### Well, yeah, like running away from slavery. Saying that "it's just > the way things are done here" doesn't make it right, you know? And why > should *I* leave? Did I do something wrong? If somebody doesn't like > the lack of "free" healthcare, they can leave anytime. You could apply that sort of logic to an employee working for a corporation; the corporation tells them "that's just the way things are done here", and the employee is free to leave if they don't like it. It doesn't make the corporation *right* (or wrong, for that matter). I don't get what makes a nation any different than a very large corporation in a libertarian world, unless they use coercion to prevent citizens from leaving. > Violence is wrong no matter if you call yourself a state or a > corporation, no matter if there are "laws" that say otherwise. We agree here! :-) > > > There is only > > > a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am > > > owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money. > > > > You're "owned"? Really? Your boss can kill you with impunity? > > ### Well, yes. Have you ever tried not paying your taxes, and > resisting a visit from IRS agents (they are armed)? Any resistance > would end up with the resister ruined, and any serious resistance > would end with him dead, while some goons would be getting a bonus for > offing him. I've never liked this. The proper response from the government in terms of "libertarian non-aggression-speak", IMHO, would be to inform the non-tax-paying citizens that they are violating their citizenship, and will be considered trespassing if the violation continues. The individual should then have the option of either paying taxes or leaving the nation; if they refuse both, force would be reasonable only to the extent necessary to remove the former citizens from the nation. > > > I > > > wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of > > > your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop, > > > among other things. Would that change your POV? > > > > From my point of view, if all my basic needs are taken care of, and > > I'm not looking to obtain anything else (like ::cough:: children, > > which I remain convinced are the ultimate luxury items), I damned well > > could afford that laptop, that cellphone, and connectivity. And I'd > > be perfectly content, since that's *all I'd need*. > > ### I would disagree with the assessment of children as luxury items. > If you want to have your "basic needs" taken care of in about 30 - 40 > years, children are a necessity. Wow. Relying on the tug of genetic heartstrings for potential medical care down the road doesn't strike you as both cynical *and* fallible? ;-) But that doesn't address your claim of necessity, of course. When there are so many other paths towards such care that are much less expensive both for oneself and for everyone else (including a libertarian's private health insurance), I'll stand by my claim. > Are you honestly telling me you would be happy with losing 80% of your > current income while having to work just as mucht? That's strange. Assuming the 80% went into projects that benefited me, directly or indirectly? Yeah. Not having to even *think* about whether I can afford a doctor's visit if sick, or an ambulance run if injured, is one benefit I'll gladly pay taxes towards. You make it sound like taxes are a black hole, when that's not even the case in fairly inefficient America. > > > In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on > > > your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to > > > others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force) > > > others to give it to you. > > > > Money is a product, one of the glues, of society; it doesn't have any > > value on its own. I don't why libertarians haven't figured out that > > the only way they can obtain resources as efficiently as they do is > > because we have a framework to do it with. (Don't get me started on > > the joke of "natural rights", either.) ^_^ > > ### I don't understand your paragraph. BTW, I am not a natural rights > libertarian, except in the most roundabout and indirect way. I was trying to anticipate a potential line of argument, and I predicted wrong. ^_^ What I was saying is this: the only value of money is in the society that backs it. > > What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I > > could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a > > malicious entity. Said entity won't let me cross its land. How do I > > get out? A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely > > within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to > > attack me if I tried. > > ### Yes, if you trespassed. Other ancaps would ask, "So why did you > buy this land if you know it's surrounded by a malicious entity? Why > didn't you make sure you have rights of way to the nearest roads you > are subscriber of?" If the entity was not too large you could perhaps > call some mercenaries to help you fight your way out and next time you > buy land you would be more cautious. What if I *did* take those precautions, and it happened anyway? And if I called in mercenaries, assuming I successfully got out, wouldn't I be attacked by other entities deciding that I had broken a "no initiation of violence" rule? And what's to prevent said malicious entity from simply using its mercenaries from seizing land at whim? (This quickly turns into a "ancap eventually devolves into a standard nation-state scenario" argument; I still haven't come across a solid rebuttal to that, but I'd be willing to follow any links/references and read up.) > And, actually, the same thought experiment can be directly used in > favor of anarchocapitalism: Imagine you are minding your own business, > living quietly somewhere in Germany, Turkey, or Spain. One day the > huge malicious entity you have been feeding with your taxes all your > life decides you need to be killed, because you are Jewish, Armenian, > or Jewish, or whatever. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Since > the entity is definitely much larger than whatever could have > surrounded you in Ancapistan, you can't run. No mercenaries to do your > bidding, all were hired by the entity or killed already. And at least > in Ancapistan you could hang tough under siege, since the entity would > be breaking the law if it invaded your land, and you'd still have your > cell phone, maybe you could pay for airmail delivery of stuff. But > there in Govtland, they just send in some Gestapo and a body disposal > van. I don't grasp how laws are enforced against an entity powerful enough to smack down all challengers, which leaves me back at the point I raised above ? what's so different under anarcho-capitalism from traditional nation-states? The "law" is mutually-agreed convention, and only works when it can be (and *is*) enforced. (Again, I'm willing to read up before continuing on this line, because I don't want to drive anyone nuts.) :-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Feb 14 04:45:19 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:45:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802102220l40fa3ee5o9061361d68244205@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080214044519.GA24729@ofb.net> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:59PM -0600, Tom Tobin wrote: > I've never liked this. The proper response from the government in > terms of "libertarian non-aggression-speak", IMHO, would be to inform > the non-tax-paying citizens that they are violating their citizenship, > and will be considered trespassing if the violation continues. The > individual should then have the option of either paying taxes or > leaving the nation; if they refuse both, force would be reasonable > only to the extent necessary to remove the former citizens from the > nation. But what if there's nowhere else to go? If no other nation/landowner want to take the delinquent citizen? Push him over the border, he gets pushed back. I foresee a re-invention of 'jail'. > > ### I would disagree with the assessment of children as luxury items. > > If you want to have your "basic needs" taken care of in about 30 - 40 > > years, children are a necessity. > > Wow. Relying on the tug of genetic heartstrings for potential medical > care down the road doesn't strike you as both cynical *and* fallible? They might not care for you, they might die before you do... > indirectly? Yeah. Not having to even *think* about whether I can > afford a doctor's visit if sick, or an ambulance run if injured, is > one benefit I'll gladly pay taxes towards. You make it sound like It's said that other systems are less able than the US at curing cancer. I don't know if this is true, vs. biased reporting. But if it were true, I wonder if they might be better at preventing (or more likely, delaying) cancer. Which is better, a system which lets you pay $50,000 to keep you alive an extra year after diagnosis, or a system which takes the $50,000 and spends $10,000 each to delay the onset of cancer in five people? And there's been a bunch of research about the harm of long-term stress. Perhaps the mere existence of a guaranteed health system, and not having to worry about whether getting sick will mean bankruptcy, in itself makes people healthier. Having low social status seems to be bad for people, even controlling for money, which might make us wonder about the health benefts of systems which reduce social differences. > What if I *did* take those precautions, and it happened anyway? And I view good government as part enforcer of the law, part environmental manager (what temperature should the Earth be? How do we decide?), and part insurer of last resort, stepping in in cases where insurance couldn't ("no one thought that could happen") or didn't exist. > (This quickly turns into a "ancap eventually devolves into a standard > nation-state scenario" argument; I still haven't come across a solid Indeed. -xx- Damien X-) From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 14 04:41:39 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:41:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802140508.m1E58NTD015979@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Have you ever seen a baby who couldn't sleep? Perhaps he is sick or teething or something else is bothering him. When the mama comes in, picks him up, cuddles him, instantly it is ahhh, life is gooood, and he's off to dreamland. He will sleep peacefully, even if he isn't entirely well. Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) mother pick us up and hold us when we can't sleep? It would make us feel like an infant again. Would we would react as we did then? Perhaps we could actually build such a thing: a heated robotic device with actuators and sensors, set up with feedback systems, humanistic skin, soft enormous boobs in which to settle in a most non-sexual way, sound system producing a soothing lullaby, heartbeat and breathing sounds. I do not propose anything that would completely replace a bed. It is unclear, for instance, how one could copulate in such a device. Could we build that? spike (Isaac is feeling much better today, thanks.) From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 14 05:10:32 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:10:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <20080214044519.GA24729@ofb.net> Message-ID: <200802140510.m1E5AaVE002742@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Damien Sullivan > ...Which is better, a system which lets you > pay $50,000 to keep you alive an extra year after diagnosis, > or a system which takes the $50,000 and spends $10,000 each > to delay the onset of cancer in five people? -xx- Damien X-) Damien your question is undefined in its present form. The first part says *you pay* $50,000 (so it is your money) so of course it is perfectly reasonable that YOU GET an extra year of life for YOUR MONEY. The second part says *takes THE $50,000* which implies a different 50k. Otherwise the question would have specified *takes YOUR $50,000*. The question you pose contains an unnecessary "or" being as the same system can do both, simultaneously. If you meant a system which takes MY $50,000 to prevent cancer in five, I prefer a system which keeps its grubbies off of MY MONEY (tm) so I can use it to buy myself an extra year, or should I decide that it is hopeless, to use MY fifty Grovers to pay for cryonic suspension. If that system has its own 50k to delay cancer in five people, may it do so with my sincerest blessing. spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 14 07:59:44 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:59:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <200802140237.m1E2bRou028835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20080213085410.GA17356@ofb.net> <200802140237.m1E2bRou028835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080214075944.GK10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:10:41PM -0800, spike wrote: > Oh no. I only said poverty builds character. I didn't say it builds > savings. Jesus saves, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Feb 14 12:03:53 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:03:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802140510.m1E5AaVE002742@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802140510.m1E5AaVE002742@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33556.12.77.169.12.1202990633.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > If you meant a system which takes MY $50,000 to prevent cancer in five, I > prefer a system which keeps its grubbies off of MY MONEY (tm) so I can use > it to buy myself an extra year, or should I decide that it is hopeless, to > use MY fifty Grovers to pay for cryonic suspension. If that system has its > own 50k to delay cancer in five people, may it do so with my sincerest > blessing. > And if it were your $50k to help Isaac, you'd do it in a heartbeat. Probably using the $50k you were expecting to use for yourself. I'm glad Isaac is feeling better, I didn't realize he was unwell. The Big Mother idea is alluring, but there's this added aura to the *real* mother - safety. The baby feels secure, but will adults? We well remember damn near walking our legs off trying to comfort a crying unhappy baby and lull it to sleep. Hell of a way to spend a night when you have to go to work in the morning! Regards, MB From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 14 15:17:55 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:17:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <20080214075944.GK10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802141544.m1EFicMs017232@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:10:41PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > Oh no. I only said poverty builds character. I didn't say > > it builds savings. > > Jesus saves, though. -- Eugen* Leitl Ja. He would probably do better if he invested, however. {8^D spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 16:29:26 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:29:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <200802140310.m1E3AAWG004408@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802140310.m1E3AAWG004408@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802140829u20adb7a0vc20818f15d873843@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:10 PM, spike wrote: > > > Amara Graps > >... > > ... But then we might have had to have a duel or something. Amara > > > Back in the old days when life was cheap and honor was expensive, a coupla > guys would get into a major argument, then decide to step ten paces in > either direction, turn and shoot each other. > > What if the argument involved three people? Would they pace off at angles > of 2pi/3, then choose one or the other to shoot, hoping the other doesn't > choose to shoot you? ### The duels Amara means are fought with swords, and the objective is to get a small facial scar, as proof of belonging to a "schlagende Verbindung", or the German Greeks with an attitude. I was there from 1990 to 1993....would rather settle ideological disputes over some diet caffeine-free coke, no ice. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 17:04:52 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:04:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 14/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > Are you honestly telling me you would be happy with losing 80% of your > > current income while having to work just as mucht? That's strange. > > You're assuming that taxes are completely useless. The fact is, every > population that has the choice, has decided that a level of taxation > is important. What that level is and and what the money is spent on > varies from place to place. ### Oh, sure, not completely - of my taxes only about 85 to 90% is useless (or worse) - the War, always at least 1 or 2 going on, Medicaid, the SS, all kinds of subsidies, etc., the only useful items are NIH, NSF, NIST, a small part of DoD and DoJ budgets, but it's peanuts in a sea of pork. What the population does with their money is their problem. Just leave the decisions about mine to me. Rafal From korpios at korpios.com Thu Feb 14 17:48:32 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:48:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother In-Reply-To: <200802140508.m1E58NTD015979@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802140508.m1E58NTD015979@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/08, spike wrote: > Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) mother pick us up and > hold us when we can't sleep? You're going to give me nightmares. ^_^ I'd much rather be drugged into dreamland. From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 14 18:17:00 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:17:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother Message-ID: Spike: >Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) mother pick us up and >hold us when we can't sleep? Heh... Well here is a small part of the 'cuddly' aspect... http://www.pregnancystore.com/zaky.htm Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Feb 14 18:22:43 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:22:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213214409.GC20701@ofb.net> Message-ID: <027101c86f36$d54a42b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien S. writes >> Perhaps you should elaborate on the ways that material wealth >> can be used for social power. > > I listed some. Bribes. Buying up monopolies. Armed goons/private > soldiers. (later tech: armed robots) You talk about absolute respect > for private property but *how is that enforced*? Yes, those things are very terrible, etc. But are you *sure* that your fear of rampant inequality is merely based on "the powerful" getting out of hand? [Oh, okay----below you admit that it's not.] I ask since, so far, the rich have been rather well behaved (here in the west). Yes, there has been corruption---too much, of course. But the benefits we get from having a lot of rich people around vastly outweighs their corrupting the system. I'm not sure what you mean by "*how's that enforced*?". The same way all our laws are. That is, regardless of how rich Bill Gates get, the actual guns and badges do remain in the hands of the properly authorized. Private soldiers have not been a threat. You presume that unless we ramp down the inequality, then private armies will be inevitable. Rich people do not own guided missles, tanks, machine guns, and atom bombs even now, although surely (it would seem) following your logic they ought to. > I forget about you, that's nice. OTOH I do try to keep you in mind. :-) > but some around here are anarcho-capitalists. No government, > so what to do if after this magical exponentiation of wealth, > someone has more material power than everyone else combined? Yeah, well try harder not to forget about us actual people on this list, to avoid being charged with attacking straw men. Certainly I agree with Thomas Jefferson or whoever it was that said that the worst government was no government at all. > I mean, apart from the bribes, I'm worried less about corruption > of gov't officials and basic greed, drive for power, and psychopathy. I don't know why you care what delusions of grandeur and what mental deviations the rich may have. After all, it's what they *do* that counts. And you haven't made a good case that in the modern rich here in the west form any threat to due process. > Eh? We know damn well it's possible to diminish > economic inequality, every First World country > does it to varying degrees, via progressive > taxes and welfare payments and various labor laws. Yeah, and the more they do it, the more their economies suck. To some extent, the great Scandanavian nations you admire so much are technically being pulled along by the U.S. and other advanced nations. I believe that technical progress would come to a complete stop if we leveled wealth as much as you seem to want to. And just how much *do* you want to take from the rich (damaging their incentives and motivations) and give to the poor (damaging theirs even more)? Want to go back to tax rates of 98%, but this time no loop holes? What about just flat out "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need"? The all-wise government need not even be solely involved ---we can just vote on how much money everyone should get. Put some limits here, thanks. >> It does seem interesting that some of the countries that >> have been most adept at snuffing out corruption have >> also permitted inequality to rise to its "natural", i.e., >> free market levels. > > Actually that's not the case. > http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007 A mere glance at that map make seems to make exactly the opposite point. Considering the whole range of corruption that is possible, the entire west does well. > The *most* adept countries are largely low-inequality social > democracies: the Usual Suspects of the Nordics and Netherlands, plus > Canada and New Zealand... also Singapore and Switzerland. Don't underestimate the degree also to which the beloved nordic countries still have their share of rich people despite some successful leveling. You can't prove that there is a strong relationship between what may be a little less corruption there and high tax rates, and I really doubt it: do you really suppose if we diminished by half the portion of the wealth that the rich possess it would result in fewer bribes and less buying of votes, etc.? No, there are *cultural* and historical differences that account for these (minor) disparities between the separate advanced nations that you're making hay of. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Feb 14 18:42:18 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:42:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Haidt's Five Foundations of Morality References: <47AE586A.4070200@evolute.com> Message-ID: <028b01c86f39$a3b3fcc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> On this list about six months ago we discussed Jonathan Haidt's ideas a bit. He's this Virginia (American) liberal who's got the system of "five foundations for morality". You remember: conservatives seem to use all five, or at least more than liberals do. Liberals are concerned almost solely with fairness and caring, and others are motivated by respect for authority, or loyalty, or purity. It's great the way he explains how all of us so often indulge in post hoc reasoning in trying to validate our separate visions. (Finally someone joins Thomas Sowell in contributing to this general investigation.) Listening to his very nice talk made clear his own political sympathies, but nonetheless I do believe that this is progress towards understanding what really lies behind so many of our discussions, namely a conflict of visions. http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt Lee From jedwebb at hotmail.com Thu Feb 14 18:48:41 2008 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:48:41 +0000 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > http://www.pregnancystore.com/zaky.htm This is a great website and it's subject matter exactly describes what I enjoy facilitating most! :0) Jeremy Webb > > Amara> -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com> Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado> _______________________________________________> extropy-chat mailing list> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _________________________________________________________________ Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Thu Feb 14 18:45:45 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:45:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <200802140310.m1E3AAWG004408@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000301c86f39$d0fb2c80$9b931f97@archimede> > What if the argument involved three people? Would they pace off at angles > of 2pi/3, then choose one or the other to shoot, hoping the other doesn't > choose to shoot you? > > spike you mean ... the 'spaghetti' duel? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlbNon5wTiw From scerir at libero.it Thu Feb 14 19:13:38 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:13:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother References: <200802140508.m1E58NTD015979@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000301c86f3d$b5f63980$9b931f97@archimede> > Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) > mother pick us up and hold us when we can't sleep? along the same vein (more or less) there is the 'nutella' solution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdXrzt6H1Uk From korpios at korpios.com Thu Feb 14 20:09:05 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:09:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/14/08, Amara Graps wrote: > Spike: > >Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) mother pick us up and > >hold us when we can't sleep? > > Heh... Well here is a small part of the 'cuddly' aspect... > http://www.pregnancystore.com/zaky.htm Now I'm *definitely* going to have nightmares. From santostasigio at yahoo.com Thu Feb 14 19:53:56 2008 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:53:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] building a big mother Message-ID: <180925.73408.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, bellissimo, I will show this video to my wife to explain the mysticism of Nutella, this should answer her questions (or maybe cause even more of them) about why in the middle of the night she catches me (naked) eating from a jar of Nutella (that it was not that easy to find here in the USA). Thank you Giovanni ----- Original Message ---- From: scerir To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:13:38 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] building a big mother > Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) > mother pick us up and hold us when we can't sleep? along the same vein (more or less) there is the 'nutella' solution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdXrzt6H1Uk _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 14 20:25:11 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:25:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] settling ideological disputes (was the formerly rich and their larvae...) Message-ID: Rafal: >would rather settle ideological >disputes over some diet caffeine-free coke, no ice. Or with futbol ...? ;-) http://tubearoo.com/articles/81911/Monty_Python_s_International_Philosophy_Greece_vs_Germany.html Amara From korpios at korpios.com Thu Feb 14 20:08:13 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:08:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Haidt's Five Foundations of Morality In-Reply-To: <028b01c86f39$a3b3fcc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <47AE586A.4070200@evolute.com> <028b01c86f39$a3b3fcc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 2/14/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > Listening to his very nice talk made clear his own political > sympathies, but nonetheless I do believe that this is progress > towards understanding what really lies behind so many > of our discussions, namely a conflict of visions. But we then hit a brick wall; since moral stances aren't rational, what do we *do* about our conflict of visions? We can't just "talk it out" ? all the facts can be on the table, and agreed upon, and we can still differ. The only suggestion that might succeed isn't likely to happen: namely, that we all pick up and physically (and legally, etc.) segregate ourselves by our ethics. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Feb 14 21:11:39 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:11:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics In-Reply-To: <027101c86f36$d54a42b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213214409.GC20701@ofb.net> <027101c86f36$d54a42b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080214211139.GA17157@ofb.net> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > I ask since, so far, the rich have been rather well behaved (here > in the west). Yes, there has been corruption---too much, of course. > But the benefits we get from having a lot of rich people around vastly The West also has strong governments enforcing the laws and redistributing income to the desperate. Even the richest people are small before the budget of the central government. > I'm not sure what you mean by "*how's that enforced*?". The same > way all our laws are. That is, regardless of how rich Bill Gates get, > the actual guns and badges do remain in the hands of the properly > authorized. Private soldiers have not been a threat. You presume But would that remain true if Bill Gates went from having at most 1% the combined income of everyone else in the country to have a million times the combined income of everyone else? > that unless we ramp down the inequality, then private armies will > be inevitable. And you're presuming that exponentially greater inequality than we've experienced would not be a problem. > Rich people do not own guided missles, tanks, machine guns, and > atom bombs even now, although surely (it would seem) following > your logic they ought to. Hardly; those progressive-tax-supported governments would raise an objection. > > I forget about you, > that's nice. OTOH I do try to keep you in mind. :-) Heh. I remember you, I just don't remember where everyone is on the libertarian scale. It's been a while since I've dipped in, after all. > > Eh? We know damn well it's possible to diminish > > economic inequality, every First World country > > does it to varying degrees, via progressive > > taxes and welfare payments and various labor laws. > > Yeah, and the more they do it, the more their economies > suck. To some extent, the great Scandanavian nations > you admire so much are technically being pulled along > by the U.S. and other advanced nations. I believe that > technical progress would come to a complete stop if Do you have evidence for those beliefs? I'll pre-empt with http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17726 And how do you define economies sucking? Productivity? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp has the US showing 25% higher GDP/capita than France. But going by Judt, Americans are probably working 20% more hours, so most of the difference is just working longer, not better. And the stat is GDP(PPP); PPP makes a lot of countries look poorer than the US, I suspect *because* they're more egalitarian and so there's less local cheap labor (but no one has to be the local cheap labor.) Raw GDP -- which is relevant for imports, and international competetiveness -- is much closer, meaning that lots of those countries are probably *more* productive than the US. Patents per capita might be another measure. Japan and S. Korea kick our butt, Sweden comes in right behind the US, other major social democracies aren't far behind, though some trail down a lot (Canada, Italy.) All the Nordics are doing decently for themselves, apart from Denmark and Iceland. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra-economy-patents-granted Economic Freedom? By the rankings of the Heritage Foundation -- which is rather conservative -- Denmark ties the US (which isn't nearly first), and Sweden and Finland are right behind. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom I have no idea what this "technological achievement" is measuring, but the US bracketed by Finland above and Sweden and Japan below. The US tops "innovation" but not by a huge margin. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inn-economy-innovation Then there's this funky http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_com_sco-economy-growth-competitiveness-score again, Finland US Sweden leading. US is 7th in R&D, or 6th discounting the Togo outlier: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_res_and_dev_spe-economy-research-and-development-spending > we leveled wealth as much as you seem to want to. So, other countries have high GDP/capita, especially adjusting for hours worked; they have high patents/capita and "innovation", some of them have high levels of high-tech exports -- Canada or Australia might depend heavily on exporting natural resources or agriculture, but Sweden and Finland don't... what's your basis for "suck", or "technical progress would come to a complete stop"? (Which reminds me; back in 1999, the Wall Street Journal reported how Europe was 1.5 years ahead of us in cell phone technology, and Japan 1.5 years ahead of Europe.) > And just how much *do* you want to take from the > rich (damaging their incentives and motivations) and > give to the poor (damaging theirs even more)? Want > to go back to tax rates of 98%, but this time no loop > holes? What about just flat out "from each according Excluded middle, much? > >> It does seem interesting that some of the countries that > >> have been most adept at snuffing out corruption have > >> also permitted inequality to rise to its "natural", i.e., > >> free market levels. > > > > Actually that's not the case. > > http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007 > > A mere glance at that map make seems to make exactly the > opposite point. Considering the whole range of corruption that > is possible, the entire west does well. ...yes, but does anywhere in the West allow inequality to rise to "natural" or "free market" levels? Even the US has a somewhat decent social welfare system, compared to the total lack of one. > > The *most* adept countries are largely low-inequality social > > democracies: the Usual Suspects of the Nordics and Netherlands, plus > > Canada and New Zealand... also Singapore and Switzerland. > > Don't underestimate the degree also to which the beloved nordic > countries still have their share of rich people despite some successful > leveling. You can't prove that there is a strong relationship between How is that relevant? The point is that they do level, or raise the bottom, famously much more so than anyone else, and they're the least corrupt. > what may be a little less corruption there and high tax rates, I've at least offered some evidence; what do you have? Thinking out my ass, I'd guess that corruption of the civil service is diminished most by paying them a decent salary in the first place, followed by a culture that believes in civil *service* vs. civil exploitation. Commonly held memes that the government does in fact exist to serve the public, rather than prey upon or hinder the public. As for the corruption of high-level politics, that's probably a function of transparency of official lives and campaigning, and perhaps yes, how much extra economic power the rich have over everyone else. > No, there are *cultural* and historical differences that account for > these (minor) disparities between the separate advanced nations How do you know? And why are non-overlapping margines of error "minor"? -xx- Damien X-) From scerir at libero.it Thu Feb 14 22:58:20 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:58:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother References: <180925.73408.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002201c86f5d$1bd7fa80$4c941f97@archimede> giovanni scrive: > I will show this video to my wife to explain > the mysticism of Nutella, [...] There is a little paper too (I did not read it) D. Radin, G. Hayssen, J. Walsh, Effects of Intentionally Enhanced Chocolate on Mood, 'EXPLORE' - The Journal of Science and Healing, volume 3, issue 5, pages 485-492, sept. 2007 http://www.intentionalchocolate.com/ http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/10/intentional-chocolate-article-publishe d.html From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 15 00:15:30 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:15:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213214409.GC20701@ofb.net> <027101c86f36$d54a42b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080214211139.GA17157@ofb.net> Message-ID: <02b301c86f68$8e7eb690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien S. writes >> I ask since, so far, the rich have been rather well behaved (here >> in the west). Yes, there has been corruption---too much, of course. >> But the benefits we get from having a lot of rich people around vastly > > The West also has strong governments enforcing the laws and > redistributing income to the desperate. The redistribution of money to the desperate is irrelevant, I think, to the main issue of the moment, namely whether anyone will get "out of hand" as riches increase exponentially. >> ...regardless of how rich Bill Gates get, the actual guns and >> badges do remain in the hands of the properly authorized. >> Private soldiers have not been a threat. You presume > > But would that remain true if Bill Gates went from having at most 1% the > combined income of everyone else in the country to have a million times > the combined income of everyone else? I don't see why that would affect it. Unlike most libertarians or conservatives, to me it seems essential that people get *very* closely watched by future governments. Right now almost any disaffected person can slay thousands. So if a Bill Gates had 99% of the wealth, it would be incumbent upon the elected officials to keep a wary eye on him---or, by that time I say, a wary eye on everyone. The truly dangerous weapons of any era must remain in the hands of the community (i.e. the government), simply for practical reasons. Now of course, this wanders into just how you go about monitoring very clever AI researchers who're working for Bill and so forth. But that's been addressed before, and a lot, and also elsewhere. Just making Bill as poor as everyone else doesn't remove that challenge. > And you're presuming that exponentially greater inequality than we've > experienced would not be a problem. Right. The greater inequality in and of itself does not seem to be a problem. The only valid reason (everything thing else being equal) that greater inequality is undesireable is that it weakens the social bonds of a nation; but probably you and a number of others here would actually see that as a benefit. >> To some extent, the great Scandanavian nations >> you admire so much are technically being pulled along >> by the U.S. and other advanced nations. I believe that >> technical progress would come to a complete stop if > > Do you have evidence for those beliefs? No, you've got me there. It's just something I find likely. > has the US showing 25% higher GDP/capita than France. But going by > Judt, Americans are probably working 20% more hours, so most of the > difference is just working longer, not better. And the stat is GDP(PPP); > PPP makes a lot of countries look poorer than the US, I suspect > *because* they're more egalitarian and so there's less local cheap labor > (but no one has to be the local cheap labor.) Raw GDP -- which is > relevant for imports, and international competetiveness -- is much > closer, meaning that lots of those countries are probably *more* > productive than the US. I don't know, it's possible I suppose. But on principle it stands to reason that the greater economic freedoms of the U.S. are what have made Silicon Valley and other innovations possible. You do know how hard it is to start a company in Germany, for instance. Sincerely sorry I don't have time to research this (or even to follow your links). You win by default here. Perhaps I can reply to some of your other stuff later. Lee > Patents per capita might be another measure. Japan and S. Korea kick > our butt, Sweden comes in right behind the US, other major social > democracies aren't far behind, though some trail down a lot (Canada, > Italy.) All the Nordics are doing decently for themselves, apart from > Denmark and Iceland. > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra-economy-patents-granted > > Economic Freedom? By the rankings of the Heritage Foundation -- which > is rather conservative -- Denmark ties the US (which isn't nearly > first), and Sweden and Finland are right behind. > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom > > I have no idea what this "technological achievement" is measuring, but > the US bracketed by Finland above and Sweden and Japan below. The US > tops "innovation" but not by a huge margin. > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inn-economy-innovation > Then there's this funky > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_com_sco-economy-growth-competitiveness-score > again, Finland US Sweden leading. > US is 7th in R&D, or 6th discounting the Togo outlier: > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_res_and_dev_spe-economy-research-and-development-spending From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 15 01:16:30 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:16:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours Message-ID: Woo hoo! Happy Valentines Day, a sweet gift, to us all ... :-) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/science/space/14cnd-planet.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print February 14, 2008 Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours By DENNIS OVERBYE Astronomers say they have found a miniature version of our own solar system 5,000 light years across the galaxy - the first planetary system that really looks like our own, with outer giant planets and room for smaller inner planets. The discovery, they said, means that our solar system might be more typical of planetary systems across the universe than had been thought. "It looks like a scale model of our solar system," said Scott Gaudi of Ohio State University. He led an international team of 69 professional and amateur astronomers, who announced the discovery in a news conference with reporters Wednesday. on Their results are being published Friday in the journal Science. In the newly discovered system, a planet about two-thirds of the mass of Jupiter and another about 90 percent of the mass of Saturn are orbiting a reddish star about half the mass of the Sun, at about half the distances that Jupiter and Saturn circle our own Sun. Neither of the two giant planets is a likely abode for life as we know it, but, as Dr. Gaudi pointed out, warm, rocky planets - suitable for life - could exist undetected in the inner parts of the system. "This could be a true solar system analogue," he said. Sara Seager, a theorist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not part of the team, said, "Right now in exoplanets we are on an inexorable path to finding other Earths." She praised the new discovery as "a big step in finding out if our planetary system is alone." Since 1995, around 250 so-called exoplanets have been discovered, but few of them are in systems that even faintly resemble our own. In many cases, giant Jupiter-like planets are whizzing around inside the orbit of Mercury. But are these typical of the universe? Almost all of those planets were discovered by the so-called wobble method, in which astronomers measure the gravitational tug of planets on their parent star as they whir around it. This technique is most sensitive to massive planets close to their stars. The new discovery was made by a different technique that favors planets more distant from their star. It is based on a trick of Einsteinian gravity called microlensing. If, in the ceaseless shifting of the stars, two stars should become perfectly aligned with the Earth, the gravity of the nearer star can bend and magnify the light from the more distant one, causing it to suddenly get much brighter for a few days. If the alignment is especially perfect, any big planets attending the nearer star will get into the act, adding their own little bumps to the more distant starlight. That is exactly what started happening on March 28, 2006, when a star 5,000 light years away in the constellation Scorpius began to pass in front of one 21,000 light years more distant, causing it to flash. It was picked up by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment, or Ogle, a worldwide collaboration of observers who keep watch for such events. Ogle in turn immediately issued a worldwide call for continuous observations of what is now officially known as OGLE-2006-BLG-109L. The next 10 days, as Andrew Gould of Ohio State said, were "extremely frenetic." Among those who provided crucial data and appeared as lead authors of the paper in Science were a pair of amateur astronomers from Auckland, New Zealand, Jennie McCormick and Grant Christie, both members of a group called the Microlensing Follow-Up Network, or MicroFUN. Ms. McCormick, who described herself as "an ordinary New Zealand mother," said she had done her observing with a 10-inch Meade telescope from a shed in her back yard. Somewhat to the experimenters' surprise, by clever manipulation they were able to dig out of the data not just the masses of the interloper star and its two planets but also rough approximations of their orbits, confirming the similarity to our own system. David Bennett of Notre Dame, said, `'This event has taught us that we were able to learn more about these planets than we thought possible." As a result, microlensing is poised to become a major new tool in the planet hunter's arsenal, "a new flavor of the month," in the words of Dr. Seager. The new system, she said, is just the tip of the iceberg and the odds are that a lot of the ones that will be discovered could be like ours. Only six planets, including the new ones, have been discovered by microlensing so far and the Scorpius event was the first in which the alignment of the stars was perfect enough for astronomers to detect more than one planet at once. Their success at doing just that on their first try bodes well for the future, astronomers say. Alan Boss, a theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washinton, said: "The fact that these are hard to detect by microlensing means there must be a good number of them - solar system analogues are not rare." -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Feb 15 01:37:37 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:37:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Information out of Context Message-ID: <380-22008251513737334@M2W030.mail2web.com> It has been a long day doing research on groups that have run anti-biotechnology campaigns (such as the "Turning Point Project" and the "Biotech Projects") by taking a substantial amount of information out of context. For anyone else who has had a long day -- no matter the circumstances, this might be a darn good remedy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcQidgGJrg Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From ablainey at aol.com Fri Feb 15 02:57:27 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:57:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <200802141544.m1EFicMs017232@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8CA3D95A1B1DED7-8FC-FF0@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Time to dip my toe in. Apologies for not quoting all the posts and posters, but I just wanted to apply my scatter gun to a few issues. Also I am rusty at this, its been a while. Money is just a tool used for creation, be it a dream, a better life, more happiness etc. The bigger the tool, the more you can do with it. When you are not using a tool, you can lock it away to protect it or you can lend it to someone that doesn't have one. Most people would emphatically say that the rich lock their tools up good and tight. Somewhere in a big bank vault with armed guards, but this is wrong. The material assets acquired with their money 'tool' Are locked up, but the money itself is mostly lent to the nation. This is done by investment in the market. Stocks, bonds, etc. and all this money is then available to those who are not rich. This money is used to pay salaries, improve companies, do research, create jobs, provide money for loans. The list is endless, it is the grease that moves the wheels. In reality, apart from the material assets enjoyed and hogged by the rich. The vast majority of their wealth is used for the gains of everyone. This becomes more pronounced the richer or more correctly 'Wealthier' individuals get. So Mr Gates contributes more to society than someone who is still on the up and buying up Rembrandts. But even these assets can provide some gain to the poor. Security guards, gardeners, maids all earn a living. If all the rich were to cash in their investments and put their money under the mattress, the economy would instantly crash and the country would dissolve overnight. It doesn't need to be said that this 'national lending' is not intentional on the part of the rich as their main reason for investment is to increase or protect the wealth, but the effect of this greed (if you want to call it that) is undeniably positive to the nation and everyone's jobs, wealth and happiness depend on it. Next up is tax. We talk about inequality of wealth yet we very easily forget that the rich pay more tax not just in volume but in percentage. Of course this is not universally true as their are numerous ways around income tax which become more accessible as wealth grows. However the fundamental point is that the band of up and coming rich people (those accumulating Rembrandts) are the most heavy tax payer proportionately. They are contributing least to the economy in terms of investment vs Assets. As such the tax system balances out fairly well. The mega rich pass through this band and keep the country alive as already stated. As for the poor. Tax is just a nasty little thorn in their sides to bitch and moan about and they don't see why they have to pay it. Well simply put, you pay because you use. You have the right to move!. Granted, Maybe not the ability. I won't quote figures as I don't know them, but a reasonable guess is that the poor use up more tax dollars than they ever contribute as a group. Is it equality that the rich have to support them? Regarding Mr gates and his philanthropy. Yes on a global scale giving away wealth is arguably good, but at a national level it can be disastrous. How many poor Americans have lost their jobs to improve the life of others in the world? It is not Mr Gates that has lost out by giving it away, it is the everyday folk that would have gained from that investment. One quick point. I object to the subject line of this thread. 'larvae' seems a bit derogatory to me. Especially on a list such as this. Regarding health systems, I can see merit in both a free national health system and a health insurance system. Really they are not very different except a national system doesn't give you the choice whether to pay or not. In the UK roughly 10% of earnings are deducted for national insurance in addition to tax. Then employers also pay a % on top of that. Alex ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 15 03:20:33 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:20:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <8CA3D95A1B1DED7-8FC-FF0@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200802150320.m1F3KaVH000404@andromeda.ziaspace.com> On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae ... ...I object to the subject line of this thread. 'larvae' seems a bit derogatory to me. Especially on a list such as this... Alex Alex I started that title, but I should point out that I am a big fan of insects. Bugs are really cool. Check out all the interesting things they do. Their diversity is far greater than that found in mammals. If you look at mammals, our body designs, they are all pretty much the same thing really, and we do very similar things. We are shaped and proportioned a little differently, but from the bug's point of view, we mammals are probably difficult to tell apart. But bugs are wildly different from each other, and make their livings in so many completely different ways. It is as if the centimeter scale existence is many worlds all on the same planet. Being a larva is not derogatory, but rather a thing of which to be proud. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 14 20:01:28 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > What the population does with their money is > their problem. Just leave the decisions about mine to me. I was considering jumping into the fray to say that libertarian methods are perfectly appropriate -- within a particular dynamical context -- but that a more encompassing view of the system, promoting the subjective growth desired by any agent within that system, requires a hybrid approach. Problem was, to do so with any reasonable expectation of getting my point across would have exceeded my 5-paragraph rule. Fortunately, Kevin Kelly just wrote it here: - Jef From korpios at korpios.com Fri Feb 15 03:06:24 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:06:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <8CA3D95A1B1DED7-8FC-FF0@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> References: <200802141544.m1EFicMs017232@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8CA3D95A1B1DED7-8FC-FF0@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 2/14/08, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > One quick point. I object to the subject line of this thread. 'larvae' > seems a bit derogatory to me. Especially on a list such as this. Stay *far* away from childfree lists/forums, then ... ;-) I don't think the OP meant to offend; it seemed more like self-depreciating humor than anything. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 17:56:32 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:56:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics In-Reply-To: <02b301c86f68$8e7eb690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <022c01c86e7d$88664430$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213202349.GC6749@ofb.net> <024001c86e83$29315850$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080213214409.GC20701@ofb.net> <027101c86f36$d54a42b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080214211139.GA17157@ofb.net> <02b301c86f68$8e7eb690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802150956l2449aeaama20e3d3e4553f05b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> To some extent, the great Scandanavian nations > >> you admire so much are technically being pulled along > >> by the U.S. and other advanced nations. I believe that > >> technical progress would come to a complete stop if > > > > Do you have evidence for those beliefs? > ### See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/02/were-rich-nordic-welfare-states-arent.html Rafal From ablainey at aol.com Fri Feb 15 18:19:32 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:19:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <200802150320.m1F3KaVH000404@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8CA3E1671E8992C-F34-330@FWM-D17.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike ... ...I object to the subject line of this thread. 'larvae' seems a bit derogatory to me. Especially on a list such as this... Alex Alex I started that title, but I should point out that I am a big fan of insects. Bugs are really cool. Check out all the interesting things they do. Their diversity is far greater than that found in mammals. If you look at mammals, our body designs, they are all pretty much the same thing really, and we do very similar things. We are shaped and proportioned a little differently, but from the bug's point of view, we mammals are probably difficult to tell apart. But bugs are wildly different from each other, and make their livings in so many completely different ways. It is as if the centimeter scale existence is many worlds all on the same planet. Being a larva is not derogatory, but rather a thing of which to be proud. spike Thanks for the insight Spike. LOL. The obvious diversity and specialisation of the glorious Insect world was lost on me on first reading of the title. But then it raises the question of why you didn't refer to the rich as cockroaches?? After all they are masters of survival and exploitation of their environment, are they not?? :o)?? Alex ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 15 18:26:32 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:26:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours Message-ID: What? You didn't like my Valentine's Day present? If you didn't notice.. try here: "Alien Planetary System Looks a Lot Like Home" http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5865/885 Yeah, yeah, I know, you're thinking ... "250 extrasolar planets known ... now another one ... ho hum..." OK, I'll tell you why this discovery: "OGLE-2006-BLG-109" (to be precise: "OGLE-2006-BLG-10Lb" and "OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lc") is so cool: 1) It represents a SCALED version of our solar system with a less-massive host star. It found planets of mass: 2/3 M_jupiter AND 1/2 M_saturn orbiting at distances of about 2.3 and 4.6 AU (in our own solar system we have M_jupiter and M_saturn orbiting at distances of 5 and 10 AU) - Equilibrium temperatures of T ~82K and T ~59 K (30% less than Jupiter and Saturn) - Orbiting around a reddish star of mass 1/2 M_sun 2) It was found by MICROLENSING, not by Doppler methods. This means that [1] - one doesn't need to wait for the planet to complete an orbit - lensing zone is typically between 1.5 - 6 AU (AU = distance: Earth to Sun) - sensitive (i.e. large signal to noise) to _low mass_ planets - can pick up the photometry in relatively small-aperture telescopes (even one's backyard 10 inch 'scopes) _These planets could _not_ have been detected by the Doppler technique_ 3) Amateurs (who are more sophisticated than their name implies) picked up this object from the OGLE Early Warning System in March 28, 2006 (*) on the MicroFUN and RoboNet network and when the lens event deviated from a binary to a single-lens on April 5, 206, astronomers could have a model of the planetary companion to the primary star lying near the Einstein ring. On April 5/6, 2006, an additional peak occurred, indicating a second planet. Check out the long list of authors. :-) (*) my birthday, celebrating in Turkey for the solar eclipse! 4) Higher order effects from this unually long event (week, while the planet-detection events are usually hours) allowed the astronomers to extract more detailed information on the radius of the planets, the orbital motion the outer planet. 5) These are only the 5th and 6th planets to be detected by microlensing. Given its ease of detection, such solar-system-like planetary systems could very well be common! REFERENCES [1] http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19575 Gravitational microlensing Planets close to the lens star act like smaller gravitational lenses that can briefly increase or decrease the magnification of the lens. A cool planet in the "lensing zone" - which is typically between 1.5 and 6 times the Earth-Sun distance - can therefore be detected without having to wait for it to complete its orbit. Furthermore, both the duration and probability of planetary-lensing events scale as the square root of the mass of the planet, which means that the technique is also sensitive to low-mass planets. Large planets like Jupiter, for example, have a 10% probability of being in the right place to act as lenses for a few days, while Earth-mass planets have a 1% probability of alignment and only act as lenses for a few hours. Unlike other methods, the magnification signal in a microlensing event can be large even though the planet is small. However, the finite angular sizes of the source stars mean that gravitational microlensing is not sensitive to planets smaller than Earth. [2] Paper appeared today in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/319/5865/885 Discovery of a Jupiter/Saturn Analog with Gravitational Microlensing B. S. Gaudi, D. P. Bennett, A. Udalski, A. Gould, G. W. Christie, D. Maoz, S. Dong, J. McCormick, M. K. Szymanski, P. J. Tristram, S. Nikolaev, B. Paczynski, M. Kubiak, G. Pietrzynski, I. Soszynski, O. Szewczyk, K. Ulaczyk, L. Wyrzykowski, The OGLE Collaboration, D. L. DePoy, C. Han, S. Kaspi, C.-U. Lee, F. Mallia, T. Natusch, R. W. Pogge, B.-G. Park, The ?FUN Collaboration, F. Abe, I. A. Bond, C. S. Botzler, A. Fukui, J. B. Hearnshaw, Y. Itow, K. Kamiya, A. V. Korpela, P. M. Kilmartin, W. Lin, K. Masuda, Y. Matsubara, M. Motomura, Y. Muraki, S. Nakamura, T. Okumura, K. Ohnishi, N. J. Rattenbury, T. Sako, To. Saito, S. Sato, L. Skuljan, D. J. Sullivan, T. Sumi, W. L. Sweatman, P. C. M. Yock, The MOA Collaboration, M. D. Albrow, A. Allan, J.-P. Beaulieu, M. J. Burgdorf, K. H. Cook, C. Coutures, M. Dominik, S. Dieters, P. Fouqu?, J. Greenhill, K. Horne, I. Steele, Y. Tsapras, From the PLANET and RoboNet Collaborations, B. Chaboyer, A. Crocker, S. Frank, and B. Macintosh (15 February 2008) Science 319 (5865), 927. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1151947] Abstract: Searches for extrasolar planets have uncovered an astonishing diversity of planetary systems, yet the frequency of solar system analogs remains unknown. The gravitational microlensing planet search method is potentially sensitive to multiple-planet systems containing analogs of all the solar system planets except Mercury. We report the detection of a multiple-planet system with microlensing. We identify two planets with masses of ~0.71 and ~0.27 times the mass of Jupiter and orbital separations of ~2.3 and ~4.6 astronomical units orbiting a primary star of mass ~0.50 solar mass at a distance of ~1.5 kiloparsecs. This system resembles a scaled version of our solar system in that the mass ratio, separation ratio, and equilibrium temperatures of the planets are similar to those of Jupiter and Saturn. These planets could not have been detected with other techniques; their discovery from only six confirmed microlensing planet detections suggests that solar system analogs may be common. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From ablainey at aol.com Fri Feb 15 18:28:02 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:28:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: References: <200802141544.m1EFicMs017232@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8CA3D95A1B1DED7-8FC-FF0@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CA3E17A208AF01-F34-3BC@FWM-D17.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Tom Tobin Stay *far* away from childfree lists/forums, then ... ;-) I don't think the OP meant to offend; it seemed more like self-depreciating humor than anything. I have no problem with such lists. To a limited extent I would agree with their views, if not the zealotry and venom some use to spread them. I am fully aware of spike's humour :o) Alex ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 15 22:12:22 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:12:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <638150.99969.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > What? You didn't like my Valentine's Day present? I like it a lot. And Happy Belated Valentine to you, dear Amara. > If you didn't notice.. try here: > > "Alien Planetary System Looks a Lot Like Home" > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5865/885 > > > Yeah, yeah, I know, you're thinking ... > > "250 extrasolar planets known ... now another one ... ho hum..." Actually I am impressed. Most of the exoplanetary systems to date have had "hot jupiters" casting their huge shadows into the life zone. > OK, I'll tell you why this discovery: "OGLE-2006-BLG-109" > (to be precise: "OGLE-2006-BLG-10Lb" and "OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lc") > > is so cool: > > 1) It represents a SCALED version of our solar system with a > less-massive host star. > > It found planets of mass: > 2/3 M_jupiter AND 1/2 M_saturn orbiting at distances of > about 2.3 and 4.6 AU > > (in our own solar system we have M_jupiter and M_saturn > orbiting at distances of 5 and 10 AU) Given my amateur inquiry into the "Titus-Bode" scaling/orbital resonance of our solar system, this is an interesting coincidence, no? > - Equilibrium temperatures of T ~82K and T ~59 K > > (30% less than Jupiter and Saturn) > > - Orbiting around a reddish star of mass 1/2 M_sun > > > 2) It was found by MICROLENSING, not by Doppler methods. This means > that [1] > > - one doesn't need to wait for the planet to complete an orbit > - lensing zone is typically between 1.5 - 6 AU (AU = distance: Earth > to Sun) > - sensitive (i.e. large signal to noise) to _low mass_ planets > - can pick up the photometry in relatively small-aperture telescopes > (even one's backyard 10 inch 'scopes) It does seem to me that this method could be used to search for other garden planets ie. earth-like. One would merely have to restrict the search to those stars of a spectral class that would put their life zone in the 1.5 - 6 AU range. Perhaps SETI should be coordinating with these exo-planet people by following up their discoveries with targeted eavesdropping rather than just doing whole sky sweeps. > _These planets could _not_ have been detected by the Doppler > technique_ I am curious, could microlensing be performed with a galaxy aligned in the background instead of another star? Seems to me that that would greatly increase the technique's usefulness. Any case. *SMOOCH* Thanks for the present. ;-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 01:52:14 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:52:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802151752x49645061v1a28d8e607b22728@mail.gmail.com> Warning: The following post suffers from loquacity and opacity. Waste time at your own risk. On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: I don't get what makes a nation any different than a very > large corporation in a libertarian world, unless they use coercion to > prevent citizens from leaving. > ### I think it's useful to at first try think about social entities in general, look for the differences among them that can be important in your life, and then give names to the classes you find. Such entities may be individuals, which are the simplest nodes in the network of interdependence that is society. There may be groups of individuals bound by common goals and customs, forming higher-level subnetworks. It is possible to draw a topological diagram describing the lines of influence, dependence and control surrounding each individual node. An extremely important property of subnetworks for me is "encirclement" - the fact that a an entity may intentionally, fully surround its victims, for example claiming control over them from before the moment of conception (see the anti-abortion or pro-abortion actions of various states), through formative years (intensive indoctrination in entity-controlled schools), to adulthood. I would definitely say that this is illegitimate since it intentionally deprives individual humans of choice, unless of course we are talking about a Friendly AI. We can discuss the reason why I see deprivation of individual choice as illegitimate on a separate thread if you wish. A node is surrounded by an entity when there there is no direct, or easy connection to outside of the entity. The word "easy" is operative here - if the cost of escaping the encirclement exceeds the maximum cost that can be imposed by the encircling entity, the escape option is not useful in any sense. E.g. if there is only one vendor of operating systems, the option of ditching your computer altogether is not a true exit option with regards to being surrounded by the vendor. The cost of escape forms a part of the measure of the degree of encirclement. If it is almost costless to escape a significant cost, then you are not surrounded. So, I think it makes sense to differentiate two classes of social entities, or subnetworks based on the topology of network connections surrounding individuals - the ones that completely (or largely) surround individuals and ones that don't. Non-surrounding entities are incapable of imposing costs that would outweigh the benefits of interacting with them, while the former can. This is an important point: a non-surrounding entity cannot normally impose a greater cost than a cost previously freely accepted by the individual (caveats apply but not relevant to the discussion here). The owner of a condominium can only charge you as much as you are willing to pay for an apartment, one among many. The owner of 500 apartments still can charge you only the same price, as long as there are many other independent apartment owners and it takes you only a few minutes to find them. But the controller of all apartments in the county can charge you more: the market value of an apartment plus the cost of the disruption in your life that would be entailed by moving to a different county. Thus, the reason why a surrounding entity is illegitimate is that it is capable of severely, asymmetrically limiting choices available to you and imposing costs on you to a much greater degree than any single non-surrounding entity. I would call such an entity "state-like". A free human is not surrounded by any single corporation. You are not born into a corporation, you can join a it from a position of freedom, always able to choose between various corporations without leaving all of your previous life behind. Your house does not necessarily stand on land claimed by a corporation - you have the choice of buying real estate from various owners, and you can let in or deny access to a corporation. However, you cannot deny access to a state, which makes a pre-emptive claim to "sovereignty" over every piece of land in a large area. You are surrounded, encircled by the state, all of your life, not by a free choice but because there are no other viable choice - a state is a large territorial monopoly on the use of violence. The cost of escaping a state is enormous - at least giving up your home, usually your work, possibly family, not infrequently your life. If a "corporation" is capable of imposing the same costs on you as a state does, then of course, it is a state, too. To summarize: - legitimately existing entities do not surround individuals - a state by design surrounds individuals - surrounding entities impose large costs - a corporation that starts surrounding individuals becomes a state If you happened to read my recent post on network segmentation, it's relevant here - a state is a non-segmented network, which is how it surrounds individuals. A capitalist anarchy is a segmented network, none of its parts fully surrounds an individual, and as long as they remain independent (segmented), they cannot impose inordinate costs. ---------------------------------------- > I've never liked this. The proper response from the government in > terms of "libertarian non-aggression-speak", IMHO, would be to inform > the non-tax-paying citizens that they are violating their citizenship, > and will be considered trespassing if the violation continues. ### Trespassing? On what basis? Does the "nation" own the land that the refuseniks stand on? ------------------------------------------------ > > Wow. Relying on the tug of genetic heartstrings for potential medical > care down the road doesn't strike you as both cynical *and* fallible? > ;-) But that doesn't address your claim of necessity, of course. > When there are so many other paths towards such care that are much > less expensive both for oneself and for everyone else (including a > libertarian's private health insurance), I'll stand by my claim. ### Misunderstanding. I didn't mean that I expect my daughter to take care of me personally, I merely pointed out that (absent the Singularity) the current generation will need a subsequent generation to work in the nursing homes. ------------------------------------------- > > Are you honestly telling me you would be happy with losing 80% of your > > current income while having to work just as mucht? That's strange. > > Assuming the 80% went into projects that benefited me, directly or > indirectly? Yeah. Not having to even *think* about whether I can > afford a doctor's visit if sick, or an ambulance run if injured, is > one benefit I'll gladly pay taxes towards. You make it sound like > taxes are a black hole, when that's not even the case in fairly > inefficient America ### So you want to pay 80% of your full income for something you can buy for as little as 2000$? More importantly, you are willing to threaten death to your fellow citizens, unless they provide you with medical care? Remember, the money you actually see on your paycheck is probably less than 60% of your total income that you would be getting in the absence of taxes. ---------------------------------------------------- > > > What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I > > > could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a > > > malicious entity. Said entity won't let me cross its land. How do I > > > get out? A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely > > > within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to > > > attack me if I tried. > > > > ### Yes, if you trespassed. Other ancaps would ask, "So why did you > > buy this land if you know it's surrounded by a malicious entity? Why > > didn't you make sure you have rights of way to the nearest roads you > > are subscriber of?" If the entity was not too large you could perhaps > > call some mercenaries to help you fight your way out and next time you > > buy land you would be more cautious. > > What if I *did* take those precautions, and it happened anyway? And > if I called in mercenaries, assuming I successfully got out, wouldn't > I be attacked by other entities deciding that I had broken a "no > initiation of violence" rule? ### If you had a right-of-way, and it was denied to you, you would call your enforcers, who would talk to the malicious entity's enforcers and to the judges they hired with your money. If they judges decided that the entity broke a contract, it would be forced to pay a fine, as per contract, and if it persisted in denying you way, it would be crushed by its own enforcers. ---------------------------------------------- And what's to prevent said malicious > entity from simply using its mercenaries from seizing land at whim? ### Your enforcers and the judges hired by you. --------------------------------- > (This quickly turns into a "ancap eventually devolves into a standard > nation-state scenario" argument; I still haven't come across a solid > rebuttal to that, but I'd be willing to follow any links/references > and read up.) > I don't grasp how laws are enforced against an entity powerful enough > to smack down all challengers, which leaves me back at the point I > raised above ? what's so different under anarcho-capitalism from > traditional nation-states? The "law" is mutually-agreed convention, > and only works when it can be (and *is*) enforced. (Again, I'm > willing to read up before continuing on this line, because I don't > want to drive anyone nuts.) ### Only if one entity develops into a surrounding entity over a large area. As long as there is a balance of enforcement companies, such that a coalition of smaller ones can always destroy any single large one, the system would be stable. Of course, for that stability you would need citizens who would actively avoid patronizing larger companies, and would be willing to pre-emptively punish those who join the largest companies, as well as those who fail to exact such a punishment. You might want to read about so called secondary public goods - these are important for the existence and stability of primary public goods. In this case, a balanced distribution of enforcer company sizes would be a primary public good, backed by "altruistic punishment", and punishment of non-punishers, which is the secondary public good. In general, networks of altruistic punishment can stabilize almost any social arrangement - whether religious, secular, smart or stupid. A capitalist anarchy would be just one of the possible stable arrangements that could exist in this way, and it would be stable as long as a sufficiently large minority of citizens followed its rules (just like a democracy that works as long as a sufficient minority bothers to vote). Rafal From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 16 02:24:57 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:24:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Stephen Colbert Fallback Position Astrophysicist Message-ID: Colbert learns how to be an astrophysicist http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=156552 This is one of the funniest videos I've ever seen.. ! (and Colbert just gets better and better, doesn't he?) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 16 02:25:36 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:25:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <8CA3E1671E8992C-F34-330@FWM-D17.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200802160252.m1G2qHhN022514@andromeda.ziaspace.com> On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com ... Being a larva is not derogatory, but rather a thing of which to be proud. spike Thanks for the insight Spike. LOL. The obvious diversity and specialisation of the glorious Insect world was lost on me on first reading of the title. But then it raises the question of why you didn't refer to the rich as cockroaches? After all they are masters of survival and exploitation of their environment, are they not? :o) Alex Cool. Alex while you were away I posted a commentary on cockroaches, and how they have gotten a bad rap for being filthy. They really aren't any more or less so than any other bug, and they don't carry disease any more or less than the others. We don't freak out over a mantis, for instance, but if you look really closely, a roach looks a lot like a mantis with broad flat wings. My notion is than cockroaches evolved to look like turds, thus avoiding being eaten by causing revulsion in mammals. Humans tend to think of them as more filthy than they actually are. They get into our food. Well, can you blame them? We get into our food, so why shouldn't they, given the opportunity? I have no problem at all with rich people or roaches. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 04:48:53 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:18:53 +1030 Subject: [ExI] The Drake Equation Message-ID: <710b78fc0802152048l7cf3be11pd0d47f18710fd107@mail.gmail.com> http://www.xkcd.com/384 :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 16 06:16:16 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:16:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours Message-ID: Stuart: >I am curious, could microlensing be performed with a galaxy aligned in >the background instead of another star? Seems to me that that would >greatly increase the technique's usefulness. My guess is that one needs a point source, not an extended source, in order to extract the events cleanly from the photometric light curve. Look at Figures 1 and 2 of the paper; there are five identifiable (clean) features of the light curve; some of which I think could get smeared if the source were extended. But this is just my guess. Thanks for the Valentines Smooch! -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 16 06:56:11 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:56:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802160656.m1G6uRDk019909@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Amara Graps > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:17 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org > Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours > > Woo hoo! Happy Valentines Day, a sweet gift, to us all ... :-) > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/science/space/14cnd-planet.h > tml?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print > > February 14, 2008 > Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours > By DENNIS OVERBYE > > Astronomers say they have found a miniature version of our > own solar system 5,000 light years across the galaxy - the ... Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Amara, I didn't get a chance to look at this until this evening. This is so cool, waaay wicked cool. I remember from my misspent youth, the magazines talking about the theoretical possibility of finding exoplanets using microlensing. The technique never did sound all that convincing, altho I couldn't actually figure any good reason why not. The gift you meant is not the exoplanets, it is the technique they used to find them, ja? Thanks for the link! spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 10:17:49 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:17:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: <638150.99969.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <638150.99969.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2008 10:12 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > It does seem to me that this method could be used to search for other > garden planets ie. earth-like. One would merely have to restrict the > search to those stars of a spectral class that would put their life > zone in the 1.5 - 6 AU range. Perhaps SETI should be coordinating with > these exo-planet people by following up their discoveries with targeted > eavesdropping rather than just doing whole sky sweeps. > > I am curious, could microlensing be performed with a galaxy aligned in > the background instead of another star? Seems to me that that would > greatly increase the technique's usefulness. > Yes. New distance record just announced. February 12, 2008 Astronomers Find One of the Youngest and Brightest Galaxies in the Early Universe NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes, with a boost from a natural "zoom lens," have uncovered what may be one of the youngest and brightest galaxies ever seen in the middle of the cosmic "dark ages," just 700 million years after the beginning of our universe. The detailed images from Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) reveal an infant galaxy, dubbed A1689-zD1, undergoing a firestorm of star birth during the dark ages, a time shortly after the Big Bang but before the first stars reheated the cold, dark universe. Images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope's Infrared Array Camera provided strong additional evidence that it was a young star- forming galaxy in the dark ages. The galaxy is so far away it did not appear in images taken with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys, because its light is stretched to invisible infrared wavelengths by the universe's expansion. It took Hubble's NICMOS, Spitzer, and a trick of nature called gravitational lensing to see the faraway galaxy. The astronomers used a relatively nearby massive cluster of galaxies known as Abell 1689, roughly 2.2 billion light-years away, to magnify the light from the more distant galaxy directly behind it. This natural telescope is called a gravitational lens. Though the diffuse light of the faraway object is nearly impossible to see, gravitational lensing has increased its brightness by nearly 10 times, making it bright enough for Hubble and Spitzer to detect. A telltale sign of the lensing is the smearing of the images of galaxies behind Abell 1689 into arcs by the gravitational warping of space by the intervening galaxy cluster. etc................. BillK From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 16 15:44:30 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:44:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours Message-ID: BillK >Yes. New distance record just announced. ? Have you thought about the geometry? 'Distance records' is not the most relevant to the measurement of extrasolar planets using microlensing. Draw yourself a picture of the measurement of an extrasolar system using such an Einstein ring. Now look at the Figures 1 and 2 of the paper just published with the tiny humps in the photometric light curve indicating the microlensing events, and tell me if an extended source can do the same thing. I don't know the answer for sure, but it's sure not as simple as what your 'Yes' describes. And notice please that your press news describes measurements from Hubble and Spitzer. Please tell me how a 10in backyard Meade telescope would be able to detect the Einstein ring from a cluster of galaxies 2.2 ly away (the MicroFUN network of amateurs for extrasolar planet detection depends on a number of these instruments). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 16 15:50:07 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:50:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours Message-ID: >2.2 ly sorry: typed too fast: 2.2 *billion* ly From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 16 15:59:19 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:59:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours Message-ID: >The gift you meant is not the exoplanets, it is the technique they used >to find them, ja? Not really, although that is very very cool in many ways, including how the network of amateurs contributes. Look at the Science Lead-In article I gave the link to: "Alien Planetary System Looks a Lot Like Home" http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5865/885 and think about the extrasolar systems that have been discovered so far. I'll paste what I wrote before: 1) It represents a SCALED version of our solar system with a less-massive host star. It found planets of mass: 2/3 M_jupiter AND 1/2 M_saturn orbiting at distances of about 2.3 and 4.6 AU (in our own solar system we have M_jupiter and M_saturn orbiting at distances of 5 and 10 AU) - Equilibrium temperatures of T ~82K and T ~59 K (30% less than Jupiter and Saturn) - Orbiting around a reddish star of mass 1/2 M_sun Here is text from the preprint arXiV preprint paper (I have the Science paper too, if anyone wants it) =================== http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1920 Before the detection of extrasolar planets, planet formation theories generally predicted that other systems should resemble our solar system. In the core-accretion paradigm, the most mas- sive giant planet forms at the 'snow line,' the point in the protoplanetary disk exterior to which ices are stable. Immediately beyond the snow line, the surface density of solids is highest and the dynamical time is the shortest, and therefore the timescale for planet formation is the short- est. Beyond the snow line, the formation timescale increases with distance from the host star. Thus in this 'classical' picture of planet formation, one would expect planet mass to decrease with increasing distance beyond the snow line, as is observed in our solar system (30). The discovery of a population of massive planets well interior to the snow line demonstrated that this picture of planet formation is incomplete, and considerable inward migration of planets must occur (31). Nevertheless, this classical picture may still be applicable to our solar system and some fraction of other systems as well. The OGLE-2006-BLG-109L planetary system repre- sents just such a 'scaled version' of our own solar system, with a less-massive host. This system preserves the mass-distance correlation in our solar system, and the scaling with primary mass is consistent with the core-accretion paradigm in which giant planets that form around lower- mass stars are expected to be less massive but form in regions of the protoplanetary disk with similar equilibrium temperatures and are therefore closer to their parent star (32). The majority of the ~ 25 known multi-planet systems are quite dissimilar to the OGLE- 2006-BLG-109L system and to our own solar system. Many of these systems have the very close-in massive planets indicative of large-scale planetary migration, or they have a 'normal hierarchy', in which the masses of the giant planets increase with distance from the parent star. There are two multi-planet systems with properties roughly similar to those of OGLE-2006- BLG-109L. The 47 UMa and 14 Her systems each contain a giant planet at a semimajor axis of ~ 3 AU and a second, less massive giant planet at a separation of ~ 7 AU (33). However, because of their higher-mass primaries, the equilibrium temperatures of these planets are considerably higher than those of OGLE-2006-BLG-109L or Jupiter and Saturn, so these systems cannot be considered close analogs of our solar system. OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lb and OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lc are the fifth and sixth planets to be detected by microlensing. Although, given the detection of planet c, the a priori probability of detecting planet b in this event was high, it was not unity. Furthermore, only two other jovian-mass planets have been detected by microlensing (8, 9), and neither event had substantial sensitivity to multiple planets. These facts may indicate that the stars being probed by microlensing that host jovian-mass companions are also likely to host additional giant planets. If the OGLE-2006-BLG-109L planetary system is typical, these systems may have properties similar to our solar system. Regardless, the detection of the OGLE-2006-BLG-109L planetary system demonstrates that microlensing surveys will be able to constrain the frequency of solar system analogs throughout the Galaxy. ========================= -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 16:29:51 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:29:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae In-Reply-To: <200802160252.m1G2qHhN022514@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <8CA3E1671E8992C-F34-330@FWM-D17.sysops.aol.com> <200802160252.m1G2qHhN022514@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802160829t43c1da9bs7c4787e12b109ef7@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 15, 2008 9:25 PM, spike wrote: > > I have no problem at all with rich people or roaches. > > ### I have no problem with rich people....and now that I think about it, I don't have a roach problem, either. Instead I am battling an invasion of ladybugs - countless thousands swarming in my attic, with hundreds daily crawling into my living areas, and congregating near lamps. I found that spraying a lamp with insecticide and leaving it on 24/7 greatly simplified the body disposal problem. Rafal From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Feb 16 21:16:11 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:16:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] building a big mother In-Reply-To: <200802140508.m1E58NTD015979@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802140508.m1E58NTD015979@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802161316g6fe8b320l1286542e36d443d8@mail.gmail.com> Spike wrote: Wouldn't it be cool to have a (presumably enormous) mother pick us up and hold us when we can't sleep? It would make us feel like an infant again. Would we would react as we did then? Perhaps we could actually build such a thing: a heated robotic device with actuators and sensors, set up with feedback systems, humanistic skin, soft enormous boobs in which to settle in a most non-sexual way, sound system producing a soothing lullaby, heartbeat and breathing sounds. I do not propose anything that would completely replace a bed. It is unclear, for instance, how one could copulate in such a device. Could we build that? > >>> Spike, have you considered supplementing your current employment by being a staff writer for Futurama (one straight to DVD movie is already released, with three more coming...)? On the bonus features section of the Futurama: Bender's Big Score DVD, they introduce you to their writers and there are quite a few scientists/engineers among them. I hope your little guy is still feeling good. : ) John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Feb 16 22:45:36 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:45:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] great technological challenges Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080216164332.02210f80@satx.rr.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Feb 17 09:12:13 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:12:13 +1100 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 17/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > BTW, did you notice this thread went off-list? You can post all to > list if you wish. OK. I am including the full post in the reply. > On Feb 16, 2008 1:56 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 16/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > > > > There isn't anyone who agrees that all of their tax money is used the > > > > way they want it to be used. But the same is true of any organisation > > > > that raises funds from its members for some collective purpose: any > > > > local council, any club, any apartment. > > > > > > ### Yeah, but a dachshund owners' club won't send armed goons to your > > > house to kill your dogs, at worst you won't be getting invited to > > > doggie playgroups. This is the crucial difference: the cost of > > > disagreement with a state is unlimited. > > > > They might sue you to get the money they claim you owe them. You could > > argue that the fees are excessive, that the table in the board room is > > needlessly extravagant, and that the club in general has gone to hell > > compared to the good old days; but that won't help if the court > > decides that you have to pay up, any more than it helps to shout abuse > > at the IRS. > > ### But don't you think there is a substantive difference between a > dachshund club that has to deal with an independent court (paid for by > both your and their money) versus an organization that simply sends > its own enforcers, directly controlled by the power wielders in that > organization? The dachshund club is constrained in their options > against you, they are just one among many players, and your court will > make sure they follow the contract *you* signed (not unilaterally > imposed on you by them). By contrast, the state writes the laws, with > no or almost no input from you, without freely given consent and goes > on to enforce them against you, without an impartial protector on your > side. The state writes its own laws *with* input from you if it is a democracy. Unfortunately, even if you live in Lichtenstein, the large number of club members means that one vote doesn't count for very much. Moreover, in a democracy and in theory (if often not in practice) even in an autocracy there is an impartial body that enforces the laws, namely the courts. It's the principle of "separation of powers". This usually breaks down when one state attacks another state: the US can do things to foreigners on foreign soil that it would have difficulty doing to its own citizens because there is no world government or world court with any teeth. And I assume a body with such universal jurisdiction and power of enforcement would be a libertarian's worst nightmare. > So, in the dispute with the dachshund club you are not the underdog, > and thanks to the independent court you are an equal player. Since you > reviewed you membership contract before signing it, it's surely not > stacked against you and gives you a good bargain, or else you wouldn't > have signed. Don't you think the situation is different in dealing > with the state (for clarity of vision try to compare the doggie club > with the North Korean state, and only as a next step consider the > temporarily tame state you live in). The difference is that most people live in a country because they were born there, and they they therefore don't have a chance to read and agree to the contract. However, they can emigrate when they are adults, or their parents could have chosen to emigrate to a more suitable country before they were born. > And just as the free market of dog clubs allows you the > > opportunity to find a better one, so the free market of nation states > > allows you to move to a place where the political and economic system > > is more in keeping with your ideals. > > ### Talk to a North Korean about a "market" in nation states. North Korea is an exception, but in general it is not difficult to leave a country, although it is considerably more difficult to gain permanent residency status in another country. But that is the case with other "free" markets. I can't easily become a movie star or an astronaut even though in a sense I am perfectly "free" to do so. > Of course you would *prefer* to > > stay and change the rules in the club which is close to your home and > > where you've made friends over the years, but if this isn't possible > > you will just have to put up with it or leave. > > > ### Imagine one of the doggie clubs near where you live decided there > can't be any other clubs around. All other doggie clubs would be > destroyed by ravaging rotweilers, or else they would join the winner. > Then the rotweilers would tell you to pay "dues", and give up your > dachshund, or else leave your home and life and never come back. Would > you see this as legitimate? Yes? No? Why? (this is not a rhetorical or > jocular question - it drives at your notions of legitimacy, because > that's probably the important difference between us) > > I think you are approaching the issue from the wrong direction: You > argue as if you believed that my "ideals" (non-violence, efficiency, > freedom) were something that needs to be justified, and whatever local > laws, passed by the local random association of thugs, are the > correct, and legitimate rules that I am morally bound to obey. And I > say: Let *them* leave. I am right. I own my house. I own my life. I am > innocent. I deserve my place, because I earned it peacefully and > honestly. Nobody has the moral right to take it from me. Sure, they > have the guns, but might doesn't make right. I have to respect the fact that these are your values, but other people might have different values. For example, a political party could easily propose tax cuts to be paid for by dismantling the public health system but in most countries even the conservatives don't do this, because they think they'll lose. The moral position is that every citizen has the obligation to contribute to a universally accessible health care system according to their abilities and the right to use this system according to their needs. This is considered "fair", while you would consider it "unfair". An impasse in debate is therefore reached. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 17 17:10:27 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:10:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Haidt's Five Foundations of Morality References: <47AE586A.4070200@evolute.com><028b01c86f39$a3b3fcc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <031201c87188$18a29be0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Tom wrote Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:08 PM > [Lee wrote] >> Listening to his very nice talk made clear his own political >> sympathies, but nonetheless I do believe that this is progress >> towards understanding what really lies behind so many >> of our discussions, namely a conflict of visions. > > But we then hit a brick wall; since moral stances aren't > rational, what do we *do* about our conflict of visions? > We can't just "talk it out" ? all the facts can be on the > table, and agreed upon, and we can still differ. Yes, but the whole idea doesn't seem so much to be that we find out, as you write, what to *do* about it---as in the sense of resolving it, or something---but rather that we simply understand. Understanding is in itself both good and interesting, of course, but it does have the additional benefit of producing more tolerance. Knowing why and wherefore people have those (to you) odd opinions helps a lot. For one thing, a lot less time is wasted by avoiding the presentation of arguments not directed to the sources of disagreement. Frustration ought to diminish as well. > The only suggestion that might succeed isn't likely to > happen: namely, that we all pick up and physically > (and legally, etc.) segregate ourselves by our ethics. There is already quite a bit of virtual separation, and there are already schemes being advocated for the separate application of laws (e.g. sharia) for part of the population. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 17 17:22:06 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:22:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... References: <787142.63675.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <165101c8718a$338b6ca0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart wrote Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... > [Damien B. quoted] > >> By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM >> To understand why consumption is a better >> guideline of economic prosperity than income, it >> helps to consider how our lives have changed. >> Nearly all American families now have >> refrigerators, stoves, color TVs, telephones and >> radios. Air-conditioners, cars, VCRs or DVD >> players, microwave ovens, washing machines, >> clothes dryers and cellphones have reached more >> than 80 percent of households. and Stuart responded > Cox and Alm seem to ignore the fact that many people tend to finance > their consumption with debt. That a poor person can easily borrow money > to buy "stuff" doesn't change the fact that person is poor. Here is a > troubling set of statistics: > > https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html > > I know too many people who are in debt. I too am in debt although for > what it is worth, my debt consists of educational loans and medical > bills. Doesn't change the fact that my net worth is less than zero. It's not clear in that CIA Factbook page exactly what the list is, but okay, I assume it's a sum of all *personal* debt. China heading the list at 363 billion dollars therefore represents, I suppose, for the most part the sums that foreigners owe successful Chinese business people. But to compare China at the #1 spot with Japan at #2 the way that this page does, does not illustrate the per-capita debt. And the two "most indebted" countries, the U.S. and Spain, likewise would appear quite differently in a per-capita listing, or in a listing that calculated this debt as a percent of GNP. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 17 17:36:44 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:36:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities References: <7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis wrote > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### By contrast, the state writes the laws, with >> no or almost no input from you, without freely given >> consent and goes on to enforce them against you, >> without an impartial protector on your side. > > The state writes its own laws *with* input from you if it is a > democracy. Unfortunately, even if you live in Lichtenstein, > the large number of club members means that one vote > doesn't count for very much. One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual citizen. The U.S. in effect tried to solve this problem by having numerous states with separate laws, but eventually most regulation was taken over by the federal government. More people would vote if the representatives they were electing could effectively represent them in much smaller legislatures, too. > Moreover, in a democracy and in theory (if often not in > practice) even in an autocracy there is an impartial body that > enforces the laws, namely the courts. It's the principle of > "separation of powers". Courts that rule over very large regions containing very many people tend to embrace very abstract ideals at the cost of local knowledge. A good example is the American Supreme Court's boldness in trying to address schoolroom conditions all over the vast nation. Why should whatever is true about some small school in South Carolina be true of a California school in the middle of Los Angeles? > This usually breaks down when one state attacks another > state: the US can do things to foreigners on foreign > soil that it would have difficulty doing to its own citizens > because there is no world government or world court > with any teeth. And I assume a body with such universal > jurisdiction and power of enforcement would be a > libertarian's worst nightmare. Wouldn't it be a bad nightmare for everyone? Imagining what our laws would look like with respect to, say, whether honor killings can be done in public or not, illustrates very well this same problem of trying for "one-size-fits-all" laws. It is best to allow the smallest groups possible to set their own laws, except that for purposes of efficiency nations probably will want to be of some minimal size at least. Lee From korpios at korpios.com Sun Feb 17 18:35:58 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:35:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 2/17/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations > are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual > citizen. The U.S. in effect tried to solve this problem by > having numerous states with separate laws, but eventually > most regulation was taken over by the federal government. > > More people would vote if the representatives they were > electing could effectively represent them in much smaller > legislatures, too. In my case, this is accurate; I don't vote because my vote is statistically insignificant, and I will continue to abstain from voting until that changes. > Courts that rule over very large regions containing very > many people tend to embrace very abstract ideals at the > cost of local knowledge. A good example is the American > Supreme Court's boldness in trying to address schoolroom > conditions all over the vast nation. Why should whatever > is true about some small school in South Carolina be true > of a California school in the middle of Los Angeles? I'm ambivalent regarding a stronger "states' rights" legal framework. On one hand, it's awful to have misguided federal policy trump insightful local policy; on the other, I fear for those unable to abandon a maleficent state (e.g., minors) under a strong states' rights system. From wetherich at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 18:29:41 2008 From: wetherich at gmail.com (The Rich) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:29:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Self-reconfigurable Matrix-style camera array soon to be self-aware Message-ID: <63e101700802141029l28cb7ce5s9415e7d920306273@mail.gmail.com> Singularity at Mellon http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/14/self-reconfigurable-matrix-style-camera-array-soon-to-be-self-aw/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jojozillasagna at yahoo.com Fri Feb 15 15:12:06 2008 From: jojozillasagna at yahoo.com (JoJo Hammerman) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:12:06 +0800 (CST) Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae Message-ID: <726893.5690.qm@web45911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> calling them 'larvae' is derogatory?I don't follow. .... ...I object to the subject line of this thread. 'larvae' seems a bit derogatory to me. Especially on a list such as this... Alex _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dragondeladame676767 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 14 01:31:44 2008 From: dragondeladame676767 at yahoo.com (Dragon Dame) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:31:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] You know what? In-Reply-To: <20080213092600.GB17356@ofb.net> Message-ID: <73782.72700.qm@web45915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> > And there are bigger questions at issue here. First, are people > really so mindless that they can be taken over by a meme without > any awareness? And speaking of fashion in general, why are > people so eager to conform, anyway? Watch how quickly people change with the flow of news stories. Watch how often the SAME news story comes up in yahoo "headlines" after 3-4 weeks and no one seems to notice. Memes ... yes, people take to them like cute little commercial jingles all the time. Gossipe, news, songs, a new original concept ... they jump on it quick and hard Damien Sullivan wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:03:28PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > And there are bigger questions at issue here. First, are people > really so mindless that they can be taken over by a meme without > any awareness? And speaking of fashion in general, why are > people so eager to conform, anyway? Some would posit that being an imitative species is how we managed to learn language, not to mention all sorts of useful things for staying alive. A bunch of researchers say that monkeys and apes don't in fact 'ape', or at least that it's hard to get much general evidence of their doing so (counterpoint: some mothers -> daughter tool use transmission in chimps, and young males imitating alpha male chimps. But of course those too have obvious survival value, and still, young human children seem to have a unmatched generality of who they attend to -- including each other, which helps with the collective re-invention of language every generation.) -xx- Damien X-) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dragondeladame676767 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 17 15:44:12 2008 From: dragondeladame676767 at yahoo.com (Dragon Dame) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:44:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] unsubscribe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <54941.54678.qm@web45902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> How can I unsubscribe? --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ankara at tbaytel.net Thu Feb 14 23:29:50 2008 From: ankara at tbaytel.net (ankara) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:29:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics Message-ID: <876176a3e627011424c8df0b0c36c2f5@tbaytel.net> Let's rephrase the question.... Would you rather earn twice as much per year or 10/25th of what others do? Under these circumstances, who would believe that prices/resources not be affected? I too want twice as much as others. ~ankara From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Feb 17 19:27:40 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:27:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 17, 2008 9:36 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations > are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual > citizen. Correct, within the historical context you apparently take for granted. A broader view might restate your assessment in terms of information technology (in the broad sense that paper documents and even town meetings are technologies), recognizing that while historically "obvious" that a nation could not effectively represent, let alone model, the fine-grained values-complexes of its constituents, we have now at hand technology capable of representing, modeling, aggregating our values in **better** detail than we previously could know even ourselves, c.f. amazon, lastfm, pandora, etc. Your other implicit assumption, again correct within historical context, is that our actions, whether at the level of the individual or the group (nation), normally reflect our **desires**, rather than express our **values** The significance of this distinction is twofold: (1) action at the level of the group (the hive?) is optimally an expression of a maximally coherent comprehension of the group values-complex, functionally beyond the comprehension of its constituents, and (2) to the extent that specific outcomes within a complexly evolving environment are unpredictable, it is better to discover the future by creating it, than to attempt to build to a preconceived specification within an incompletely conceived context. > More people would vote if the representatives they were > electing could effectively represent them in much smaller > legislatures, too. We are beginning to see that prediction markets, betting on expected outcomes, has many advantages over "democratic" voting. Less well-recognized is the meta-benefit -- and within a societal context, the moral imperative -- of rather than betting on specific outcomes, betting on the efficacy of the principles driving successful outcomes Apologies in advance for the density of my comments. I am in fact quite dense. - Jef From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 17 19:31:17 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:31:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] pedestrian bees again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802171957.m1HJvtRG016111@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Recall last year about this time when I was going on and on about seeing so many dead or dying bees. This week in California a lot of stuff is in bloom. Ordinarily by mid February my lavenders and trumpet vines are buzzing with activity. They are still and quiet today. I saw exactly one bee. She was alive, walking around apparently too distressed to fly. Whatever was killing the bees last season is perhaps still with us. Damn. {8-[ spike (update: Never mind, I just found her a few feet from where I first saw her. She is dead.) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 17 22:25:02 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:25:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Status, Envy, and Economics References: <876176a3e627011424c8df0b0c36c2f5@tbaytel.net> Message-ID: <168701c871b4$3d4679e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Ankara writes > Let's rephrase the question.... > > Would you rather earn twice as much per year or 10/25th of what others > do? I don't see what you are trying to get at. If it were just a comparison between *two* times a much than someone else gets and *2/5* as much, then the answer would be clear. You must mean something else. > Under these circumstances, who would believe that prices/resources not > be affected? It's a subtle economic point, but you *can* have wealth increase without a necessary effect on the value of money. Recall that the only real thing that determines the value of money is the same thing that determines the value of everything: supply and demand. So when people ask consider, say, "everyone is now making $200,000 instead of $50,000", please please take it to mean that we have evolved to a more prosperous nation, and that this reflects true wealth. OF COURSE this is difficult to imagine, just as it would have been difficult for someone living in 1900 to imagine that people living in 2000 would all be twice as rich (or so). It really does have *nothing* to do with nominal prices. Lee > I too want twice as much as others. From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Feb 17 23:26:16 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:26:16 +1100 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 18/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Courts that rule over very large regions containing very > many people tend to embrace very abstract ideals at the > cost of local knowledge. A good example is the American > Supreme Court's boldness in trying to address schoolroom > conditions all over the vast nation. Why should whatever > is true about some small school in South Carolina be true > of a California school in the middle of Los Angeles? They're that different? And what if one of the school wants to teach "creation science"? Anyway, the general principle in a federation such as the US or EU is to allow local autonomy where this is reasonable, the federal/local balance being a matter for political discussion. Indeed, some subgroups in Europe such as the Scots and the Welsh welcomed increased EU power in the expectation that they would have greater autonomy than they did previously. > > This usually breaks down when one state attacks another > > state: the US can do things to foreigners on foreign > > soil that it would have difficulty doing to its own citizens > > because there is no world government or world court > > with any teeth. And I assume a body with such universal > > jurisdiction and power of enforcement would be a > > libertarian's worst nightmare. > > Wouldn't it be a bad nightmare for everyone? Imagining > what our laws would look like with respect to, say, whether > honor killings can be done in public or not, illustrates very > well this same problem of trying for "one-size-fits-all" laws. Who is to adjudicate when there are international disputes? -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 17 23:44:32 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:44:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs References: <7641ddc60802121609j798655ffgcb67c249b9adf23f@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802121910h9a45adm986b4941a3d3afb5@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802130927h55241b7cmcd1edc04bca18a45@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151752x49645061v1a28d8e607b22728@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <168d01c871bf$74e31330$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Tom Tobin wrote---in that there insect thread--- > Not having to even *think* about whether I can > afford a doctor's visit if sick, or an ambulance run > if injured, is one benefit I'll gladly pay taxes towards. But it's *important* that you always consider costs. You realize, of course, what will happen to the system as everyone takes this same attitude ("money is no object"). You consider the "costs" of doing everything else, e.g., taking the time time to post here, or driving your larger car to work, or eating out at a fancier place than usual, etc., etc., etc., (about 15 more etc.s). Presumably you would want to eliminate the costs you associate with inconvenience, too! Why not with our better technology have highly trained personel at your beck and call over the web? That is, any time day or night you want medical care, it's free. Not going to happen. The rationing will take place other ways. The nice thing about having individuals face the costs themselves is that we obtain a very clear first cut on necessity. lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Feb 18 00:44:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:44:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com><165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <169c01c871c7$df559e60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes >> One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations >> are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual >> citizen. > ... > A broader view might restate your assessment in terms of information > technology..., recognizing that while historically "obvious" that a nation > could not effectively represent, let alone model, the fine-grained > values-complexes of its constituents, we have now at hand [a new] > technology... Well, yes, but this perhaps does not address the main point that no matter how accurately we aggregate desires or values, the larger the number of inputs, the further will be the expected outcome from the desires or values of any particular person. For example, if my town-house complex, or at least my community, could replace Sacramento and Washington as having the most effect on my life, then not only would I have greater say, but the chances are that the result would be far closer to my own desires, and in accord with my own values, simply because the conditions that the other people live under here would obviously much, much more closely resemble mine than do those of the people of a vast nation. > capable of representing, modeling, aggregating > our values in **better** detail than we previously could know even > ourselves, c.f. amazon, lastfm, pandora, etc. > > Your other implicit assumption, again correct within historical > context, is that our actions, whether at the level of the individual > or the group (nation), normally reflect our **desires**, rather than > express our **values** Even reading on, I don't quite see why that distinction is important. > The significance of this distinction is twofold: (1) action at the > level of the group... is an expression of a maximally coherent > comprehension of the group values-complex, functionally > beyond the comprehension of its constituents, Whew! I always have to read many of your sentences two or three times. Okay, this sounds like the people themselves don't really grok the resultant group-action, to which they individually contributed, and that that group-action is actually consistent only with some higher level values of the group-as-a-whole. It sounds scary, really: on this note a nation might invade another country, or pass a lot of legislation, without any individuals really wanting to... :-) Do you read French fluently, by the way? > and (2) to the extent that specific outcomes within a complexly > evolving environment are unpredictable, it is better to discover > the future by creating it, But surely the results of the *efforts* to create the future are equally unpredictable? "Discovering the future" didn't work so well following Lenin's announcement atop the railroad platform at St. Petersburg: "We shall now proceed to build the socialist order." And later as Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report "We have seen the future, and it works", trying to direct future evolution is pretty chancy. > than to attempt to build to a > preconceived specification within an incompletely conceived context. > Apologies in advance for the density of my comments. I am in fact quite dense. Well :-) no, not really. Only your writing. Egad, but you might pause right after completing some very complex sentence (representing a complex thought), take mercy upon the reader, and then try to restate just the VERY SAME THING in other words, soasto give more clues. Lee From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 18 00:57:30 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:57:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] pedestrian bees again In-Reply-To: <200802171957.m1HJvtRG016111@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802180124.m1I1OAlQ006534@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > spike > > (update: Never mind, I just found her a few feet from where I > first saw her. She is dead.) Ja, but icecream is the least of our worries: http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/17/news/companies/bees_icecream/index.htm?postv ersion=2008021712 spike From brent.allsop at comcast.net Mon Feb 18 03:05:30 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:05:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bumper Sticker idea? Message-ID: <47B8F5FA.3050304@comcast.net> Crucifixion Is Not The Way From ablainey at aol.com Mon Feb 18 03:59:12 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:59:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8CA3FF9C17D8F5E-620-567E@MBLK-M15.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Jef Allbright Your other implicit assumption, again correct within historical context, is that our actions, whether at the level of the individual or the group (nation), normally reflect our **desires**, rather than express our **values** The significance of this distinction is twofold: (1) action at the level of the group (the hive?) is optimally an expression of a maximally coherent comprehension of the group values-complex, functionally beyond the comprehension of its constituents, and (2) to the extent that specific outcomes within a complexly evolving environment are unpredictable, it is better to discover the future by creating it, than to attempt to build to a preconceived specification within an incompletely conceived context. > More people would vote if the representatives they were > electing could effectively represent them in much smaller > legislatures, too. One of the main problems as I see it is that we are still basing our political models on primate hierarchies. It is the Alpha's that inevitably make the decisions based largely upon 'Their' own personal views. Yes as a nation we choose which monkey gets the alpha position based upon similarity to our own views, but that generally doesn't equate to them making a decision the way we would. I would like to see a voluntary referendum based system, where each person gets to vote on a decision (or not if they choose so). Where their vote is weighted according to their personal level of interest, competency, and expertise in the subject. That way, the education board or politician a one end of the country doesn't get as much say in issues that only affect schools at the other end of the country. It would also be helpful to have sunset clauses as standard and the ability for referendum based tear down of decisions that looked good on paper and haven't worked. With existing technology and the inter connectivity already existing, putting together a system like this is not beyond us. We could still have our figureheads if we think they are still needed. Personally I feel that in a system like this, any figureheads should have risen to their position based entirely upon merit, rather than the dubious methods employed today. With regard to ensuring our values trump our desires, perhaps an amendable constitution of national values could be created to act as a framework in order to ensure all decisions meet a basic level. Very tricky and probably impossible to achieve anything more than the most basic of guidelines. In all, would a system like this answer the short comings which you highlighted? Alex It is already the future, so why do we continue to argue about yesterday? ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Mon Feb 18 04:06:38 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:06:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] You know what? In-Reply-To: <73782.72700.qm@web45915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CA3FFACB1CB226-620-56A8@MBLK-M15.sysops.aol.com> ----Original Message----- From: Dragon Dame Watch how quickly people change with the flow of news stories. Watch how often the SAME news story comes up in yahoo "headlines" after 3-4 weeks and no one seems to notice. Memes ... yes, people take to them like cute little commercial jingles all the time. Gossipe, news, songs, a new original concept ... they jump on it quick and hard Dare I say 'Global Warming'? Alex ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 18 04:10:28 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:10:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] US postal joy Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080217220308.02236f18@satx.rr.com> No wonder people here go, um, postal. google "USPS holidays" to find out if they'll be working tomorrow, get http://www.usps.com/communications/news/calendar/events.htm. Please update your bookmarks.> click the url, get Homepage, or use the search box below to find what you are looking for. Use a word or phrase that you think may be found on the page you are looking for. > enter "holidays" in the search box, get < Recommended Links: Postal Holidays > click there, get which has at the top right a Listing... which is an unmarked url that opens a nameless box with the info. Hey, thanks, guys. Have a nice bloody holiday. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Feb 18 04:48:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:48:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <16ae01c871e9$8ab25200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> Why should whatever is true about some small school >> in South Carolina be true of a California school in the >> middle of Los Angeles? > > They're that different? And what if one of the school wants to teach > "creation science"? Horrors! The people are free to believe what they want, but by God they're not going to be allowed to teach their children what they want! Three hundred years ago, Europe was so religiously intolerant that those who had separate beliefs had to migrate to a new continent. By and by a principle arose that stated that different groups might practice their own beliefs so long as such practices interfered with no one else. I still advocate that principle. So I say that if some small group somewhere wants to teach their children that black is white, it's none of our business and we should butt out. Unfortunately, a certain totalitarian instinct has arisen that claims dominion over the minds of children. Too bad. >> Courts that rule over very large regions containing very >> many people tend to embrace very abstract ideals at the >> cost of local knowledge... > > ... Anyway, the general principle in a federation such > as the US or EU is to allow local autonomy where this is reasonable, > the federal/local balance being a matter for political discussion. Yes, and I'm sure that there are tough cases. But is there really any *need* to have centrally dictated beliefs, centrally administered criminal justice, centrally run health care, etc? And if the fear is that any local population will make the "wrong" choices, well, my fear is that the entire nation may equally well make a "wrong" choice---why not allow full local autonomy in *every* case where it's feasible? > Indeed, some subgroups in Europe such as the Scots and the Welsh > welcomed increased EU power in the expectation that they would have > greater autonomy than they did previously. > >> Imagining what our laws would look like with respect to, >> say, whether honor killings can be done in public or not, >> illustrates very well this same problem of trying for >> "one-size-fits-all" laws. > > Who is to adjudicate when there are international disputes? That's another very tough problem! Let's face reality: the sole reason that Canberra gets to say what happens in Perth (or Washington D.C. gets to say what happens in South Carolina) is that in each case the former have the men and guns to make it stick. Now I'm not an extreme enough libertarian to think that states can be done away with entirely; a glance at a globe should be enough to convince anyone that for the nonce, states are natural and inevitable. But we can at least *try* to minimize their awesome power. Therefore, until some "tribe" conquers the whole globe, I'm afraid that no one is going to "adjudicate" when there are international disputes. They'll either civilly come to an agreement, or else who has the most power will prevail. And it won't a rule of law, as I say, until some sovereignty obtains all the soldiers and guns. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 18 09:08:07 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:08:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <168d01c871bf$74e31330$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Tom Tobin wrote---in that there insect thread--- > > > Not having to even *think* about whether I can > > afford a doctor's visit if sick, or an ambulance run > > if injured, is one benefit I'll gladly pay taxes towards. > > But it's *important* that you always consider costs. > You realize, of course, what will happen to the system > as everyone takes this same attitude ("money is no > object"). Well if you saw how much a hospital bills insurance companies for a piece of gauze, you could get the feeling that the medical industry had that attitude. It is a very strange industry to say the least. Most hospitals are classified as not-for-profit corporations for tax purposes although huge revenues are generated and quickly dissipated before tax time. The federal government indirectly sets the costs of medical care by negotiating Medicare contract rates with the hospitals. Hospitals bill private insurance for about twice what it charges the federal government for any particular service. The insurance companies turn around and typically pay the hospitals between 60% and 80% of what they get billed for and the hospital eats the remainder. Of course if you pay out of pocket, you pay the full "retail" rate. So in what other commodity does the government contract rate for that commodity serve as a *minimum* price for that commodity? Certainly not hammers and toilet seats in the pentagon. > You consider the "costs" of doing everything else, e.g., > taking the time time to post here, or driving your larger > car to work, or eating out at a fancier place than usual, > etc., etc., etc., (about 15 more etc.s). > > Presumably you would want to eliminate the costs you > associate with inconvenience, too! Why not with our > better technology have highly trained personel at your > beck and call over the web? That is, any time day or > night you want medical care, it's free. Because medical care can't be administered over the web at least not without some pretty advanced robotics. > Not going to happen. The rationing will take place > other ways. How, like charging exhorbiant tuition for medical school? > The nice thing about having individuals > face the costs themselves is that we obtain a very > clear first cut on necessity. Right, people are the best judges of whether they need medical care or not. Which is why cancer patients end up being diagnosed too late for surgical resection and macho men having heart attacks insist on driving themselves to the hospital. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 09:35:45 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:35:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] US postal joy In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080217220308.02236f18@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080217220308.02236f18@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2008 4:10 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > No wonder people here go, um, postal. > > google "USPS holidays" to find out if they'll be working tomorrow, get Not the fault of the post service this time, I'm afraid. Blame Google's indexing system if you like. If you had clicked on the very first link (instead of the second - which appeared to be what you were looking for) you would have gone straight to Or if you had Googled for "US postal holidays", you would also have been ok. It's another example of human - computer communication problems. Why can't the computer just *know* what we want it to do? (Because then it would go off and do it all itself and we wouldn't be needed). :) BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Feb 18 16:39:50 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:39:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: <169c01c871c7$df559e60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <169c01c871c7$df559e60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 17, 2008 4:44 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: [Lee wrote:] >>> One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations >>> are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual >>> citizen. >> A broader view might restate your assessment in terms of information >> technology..., recognizing that while historically "obvious" that a nation >> could not effectively represent, let alone model, the fine-grained >> values-complexes of its constituents, we have now at hand [a new] >> technology... > > Well, yes, but this perhaps does not address the main point that > no matter how accurately we aggregate desires or values, the > larger the number of inputs, the further will be the expected > outcome from the desires or values of any particular person. Funny, I thought I was addressing just that point, placing your claim within a broader context of increasingly effective technologies modeling values over increasing scale, and further that it is characteristic of this technological trend that our values are modeled in ever **finer** detail, such that salient features are preserved and available to influence decision-making over increasing scope, rather than being lost in the aggregate, as was historically (but not fundamentally) the case. I mentioned amazon, lastfm, pandora {.com} as present examples of increasingly fine-grained knowledge of individual values-complexes, over much greater than individual scale, facilitating prediction of future states likely to be found desirable despite being presently unknown and therefore undesired. In case this still isn't clear, please note that the nature of these information-centric processes is that the knowledge of the system is --and must be -- greater than the knowledge of any of the individuals it serves, and that with increasing scale these systems deliver increasingly effective personalization. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in the extension of this thinking from its (to be expected) roots in entertainment and commerce to virtually all domains of social choice. In this regard I thought my final paragraph, on the power of prediction markets, and their moral meta-benefit, would have been sufficient. > Do you read French fluently, by the way? No, but I'm comfortable with Japanese, and recognize that it affects my written composition. (I also strongly prefer RPN calculators, used to "worship" the programming language Forth, and I'm editing this message using VIM, all of which relate, I think, to your point.) - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Feb 18 21:28:32 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:28:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Bayes Dance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I like the poetry and profundity of this text at Black Belt Bayesian and thought it well worth sharing: > But the Bayes Dance is a very special kind of dance, because if you do > it right, you never have any idea where you're going. In fact, to > those who can't hear the Music of the Evidence, the Bayes Dance looks > exactly like a random walk. Just like "if we knew what we were doing, > it wouldn't be research", one can say that "if we knew where we were > going, it wouldn't be Bayes". Take a Bayesian to a regular dance > lesson, and he will say, "if I already know I'm going to have to step > to the left, then that must be a better place for my foot, so why not > put it there to start with?" ... > > So in Bayes Bayes Revolution, as indeed in life, there is no > predictable routine you can practice. All you can do is align your gut > feelings with the math so they can work with any input. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 21:55:43 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:55:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: References: <638150.99969.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Friends, Several weeks back there was yet another delightful thread about the Fermi Paradox. It set me to thinking, among other things, about the detectibility of distant civilizations. About signal strength. I distilled the issue as follows: (1) Local omni-directional signals not intended for interstellar communication -- local radio, tv, EMP from nuclear explosions etc.; (2) Local directional signals not intended for interstellar communication -- various directional radars for example; and (3) Signals dedicated to interstellar communication (assumed to be directional, as omni-directional makes no sense). The strongest signals -- providing maximum detectability above background noise -- seem available from honkin' big pulse transmitters hooked to either a big dish or multiple big dishes; or a honkin' big pulsed phased array; or the EMP from a nuclear explosion detonated at the focus of a parabolic reflector. Mostly from the standpoint of size -- bigger is better, biggest is best -- of the transmission assembly, it seems to me that the best results would be achieved in the zero-g and atmosphere-free environment of space. I will leave it to others to generate some numbers, but I would be surprised if the range for such signals exceeded a few hundred light years. The distinctive signature of a nuke might be the strongest signal, but I don't see how you could piggyback an information stream on it. It could announce one's presence and technical capability to the maximum distance, but what else? (Setting aside entirely the issue of whether this is a good idea.) Consequently, I found myself in sympathy with Kevin Freel's assertion that we don't know what's out there. Because beyond some limited range (a few hundred light years?) we're more or less blind. Then this thread popped up, with it's microlensing amplification theory-becomes-technique. So I have to ask myself -- and you guys -- "Can microlensing provide a means of extending the communications reach, of hearing/reading communication signals from further out among the stars?" Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 22:25:06 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:25:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 17, 2008 10:36 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations > are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual > citizen. The U.S. in effect tried to solve this problem by > having numerous states with separate laws, but eventually > most regulation was taken over by the federal government. > It is best to allow the smallest groups possible to set their > own laws, except that for purposes of efficiency nations > probably will want to be of some minimal size at least. It seems that modern nation state has come about because militarily, bigger is better, ie the 8000 lb gorilla beats the 800 lb gorilla beats the 80 lb gorilla. So it you possess a social organizational system (with the appropriate "security" apparatus) to hold together one of the larger groups of inherently diverse and consequently fractious humans, and extract from them the tithe of their productivity(taxes), then you have the military resources to survive and prevail. The situation is inherently unstable, but then nothing lasts forever. In contrast, the evolved ideal human social group would be tribal. Large enough for the clan leaders to know everyone personally, and for everyone to have -- for the condition of social harmony to prevail -- identical cultural values/identifiers. Larger than that and the leaders are too removed from the polity to sympathize with them and behave decently, become a tribe in their own right -- the ruling class -- treat the polity as pawns, and pursue the slaughter of innocents in a sociopathic enterprise to aggrandize their own power. The nation state and imperial system we have today. YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 22:59:09 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:59:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: References: <638150.99969.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2008 9:55 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Several weeks back there was yet another delightful thread about the > Fermi Paradox. It set me to thinking, among other things, about the > detectibility of distant civilizations. About signal strength. I > distilled the issue as follows: (1) Local omni-directional signals not > intended for interstellar communication -- local radio, tv, EMP from > nuclear explosions etc.; (2) Local directional signals not intended > for interstellar communication -- various directional radars for > example; and (3) Signals dedicated to interstellar communication > (assumed to be directional, as omni-directional makes no sense). > Then this thread popped up, with it's microlensing amplification > theory-becomes-technique. So I have to ask myself -- and you guys -- > "Can microlensing provide a means of extending the communications > reach, of hearing/reading communication signals from further out among > the stars?" > I doubt it. Microlensing events are pretty rare and the magnification period only lasts from a few hours to a couple of days. The effect depends on a nearer star passing between us and a more distant star. Pretty rare, as you can see. Planet-hunting astronomers therefore don't target specific stars. They look for the event of a star passing in front of another star anywhere in the sky, then analyse the further away star's signals for the few hours available to them. If they are lucky they spot planets. The really long distance event I mentioned, uses whole *galaxies* for the microlensing effect. BillK From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 18 22:37:31 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:37:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802182304.m1IN49QH008131@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Jeff Davis > Subject: Re: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours > > Friends ...Because beyond > some limited range (a few hundred light years?) we're more or > less blind... Sure but of course that depends on the receiver's technology as well as the sender's, and the frequency band. Sagan's outgoing message is the brightest object in the galaxy at that narrow frequency, one for which we have extremely sensitive recievers. > Then this thread popped up, with it's microlensing > amplification theory-becomes-technique. So I have to ask > myself -- and you guys -- "Can microlensing provide a means > of extending the communications reach, of hearing/reading > communication signals from further out among the stars?" > > Best, Jeff Davis Ja, the microlenses would make receiving signals much easier from those solar systems that happen to lie on the other side of an appropriately sized mass. Signals could similarly be sent in that direction. Jeff as I see it the big limitation to interstellar communication is not signal strength but rather the time involved. Amara's recently discovered stellar twin is about 5000 years out there, so all communications are a monologue from the point of view of unfortunate carbon units that live less than 100 years. {8-[ Here's a link to the message sent toward the M13 globular cluster on 16 November 1974 (game: where were you and what were you doing on that day? {8-] It was a Saturday.) http://www.setileague.org/askdr/arecibo.htm And here's a link to the actual message: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov99/Arecibo.message.ws.html#footnote My notion is that extraterrestrial civilizations have looked at that and uniformly realized there isn't much point in sending out infromation, but will listen for incoming signals. We may have a galaxy full of quiet listeners but no singers. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 19 04:45:11 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:45:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes > Well if you saw how much a hospital bills insurance companies for a > piece of gauze, you could get the feeling that the medical industry had > that attitude. It is a very strange industry to say the least. The medical industry is "strange" only because a disconnect has been created between who receives the service and who pays for it. If a *patient* received such a bill for a piece of gauze, of course he'd be outraged by it, and he'd make sure that the doctors and the hospital felt his pain---and most importantly of all, he would take his business to another doctor and another hospital. But it's only an *insurance* company that gets the bill---and try as they might to protest and to try to force doctors and hospitals to economize (or forego procedures)---it finally is easiest to just raise their rates. Later on, for all things it will be only the *government* that gets the bill, and the bureaucrats will find that the easiest path is just to raise taxes. Luckily, less than half of the voting population pays 95 percent of the taxes, and so the electorate won't have any problem with higher taxes. > Most hospitals are classified as not-for-profit corporations for tax > purposes although huge revenues are generated and quickly dissipated > before tax time. What's your explanation for why this dissipation occurs? > The federal government indirectly sets the costs of medical care > by negotiating Medicare contract rates with the hospitals. Only a free market is capable of delivering the economies that we need so bad. > Hospitals bill private insurance for about twice what it charges the > federal government for any particular service. The insurance companies > turn around and typically pay the hospitals between 60% and 80% of what > they get billed for and the hospital eats the remainder. It's a real mess, all right. But from your figures (thanks for the descriptions) it looks like the hospitals still get more from an insurance company that they do from the government. Doesn't this mean that after the U.S. socializes, the government will have to get charged more? > Of course if you pay out of pocket, you pay the full "retail" > rate. So in what other commodity does the government > contract rate for that commodity serve as a *minimum* > price for that commodity? Certainly not hammers and toilet > seats in the pentagon. Right..., I think. >> The nice thing about having individuals face the costs themselves >> is that we obtain a very clear first cut on necessity. > > Right, people are the best judges of whether they need medical care or > not. Heh, heh, I get the sarcasm :-) > Which is why cancer patients end up being diagnosed too late for > surgical resection and macho men having heart attacks insist on driving > themselves to the hospital. You sound as though you want to take this freedom away too. You'll want to be forcing those macho guys to get checkups whether they want to or not? I admit that medical care will be better if people's choices in the matter are taken away. I mean, even after you make cancer diagnosis completely free, people will still face "costs", e.g., the inconvenience or fear (or humiliation) of getting a checkup. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 19 04:53:16 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:53:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities References: <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com><165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><169c01c871c7$df559e60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <16f001c872b4$01f48160$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > [Lee wrote:] >>>> One obvious idea that emerges from this is that most nations >>>> are too large to properly reflect the desires of an individual >>>> citizen. > >>> A broader view might restate your assessment in terms of information >>> technology..., recognizing that while historically "obvious" that a nation >>> could not effectively represent, let alone model, the fine-grained >>> values-complexes of its constituents, we have now at hand [a new] >>> technology... >> >> Well, yes, but this perhaps does not address the main point that >> no matter how accurately we aggregate desires or values, the >> larger the number of inputs, the further will be the expected >> outcome from the desires or values of any particular person. > > Funny, I thought I was addressing just that point, placing your claim > within a broader context of increasingly effective technologies > modeling values over increasing scale, and further that it is > characteristic of this technological trend that our values are modeled > in ever **finer** detail, such that salient features are preserved and > available to influence decision-making over increasing scope, rather > than being lost in the aggregate, as was historically (but not > fundamentally) the case. Bringing this down to the concrete, perhaps an example would help. You see, I'm concerned that any kind of *aggregation* of desires---which is what we see in conventional elections today---results *necessarily* in less custom-tailored effects (solutions) pertaining to an individual. Okay, thanks to the following explanation you provide next, I gather now that you *are* interested in dispensing individually tailored effects: > I mentioned amazon, lastfm, pandora {.com} as present examples of > increasingly fine-grained knowledge of individual values-complexes, > over much greater than individual scale, facilitating prediction of > future states likely to be found desirable despite being presently > unknown and therefore undesired. > > In case this still isn't clear, please note that the nature of these > information-centric processes is that the knowledge of the system is > --and must be -- greater than the knowledge of any of the individuals > it serves, and that with increasing scale these systems deliver > increasingly effective personalization. But recall that the general context of the discussion heretofore was how laws, for example, fail to take into account local information. Perhaps you are suggesting that an incredibly complicated law could apply differently to each individual. Well---it would be much, much simpler to have smaller polities, and let freedom rule. Lee > Perhaps I should have been more explicit in the extension of this > thinking from its (to be expected) roots in entertainment and commerce > to virtually all domains of social choice. In this regard I thought > my final paragraph, on the power of prediction markets, and their > moral meta-benefit, would have been sufficient. From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 19 05:02:30 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:02:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 2/18/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart writes > > > Well if you saw how much a hospital bills insurance companies for a > > piece of gauze, you could get the feeling that the medical industry had > > that attitude. It is a very strange industry to say the least. > > The medical industry is "strange" only because a disconnect has been > created between who receives the service and who pays for it. > > If a *patient* received such a bill for a piece of gauze, of course he'd > be outraged by it, and he'd make sure that the doctors and the > hospital felt his pain---and most importantly of all, he would > take his business to another doctor and another hospital. But > it's only an *insurance* company that gets the bill---and try > as they might to protest and to try to force doctors and hospitals > to economize (or forego procedures)---it finally is easiest to just > raise their rates. Err, yeah, because I'm in my right mind when I'm badly injured and need medical care *now*. ^_^ What *does* seem broken under the current system is the extraordinary care that goes towards newborn infants, vs. mediocre care for many adults. Any adult of at least middling intelligence is worth more than *any* infant, and it strikes me as insane that medical resources are poured towards the latter without any thought to cost. > Later on, for all things it will be only the *government* that gets > the bill, and the bureaucrats will find that the easiest path is just > to raise taxes. Luckily, less than half of the voting population > pays 95 percent of the taxes, and so the electorate won't have > any problem with higher taxes. That isn't necessarily shocking or provoking math; I'm worried more by democracy than by progressive taxes. :p > > Which is why cancer patients end up being diagnosed too late for > > surgical resection and macho men having heart attacks insist on driving > > themselves to the hospital. > > You sound as though you want to take this freedom away too. > You'll want to be forcing those macho guys to get checkups > whether they want to or not? I want them to realize that they don't have to play checks-and-balances weighing their life vs. the cost of an ambulance ride. Forcing them to get a checkup? No. > I admit that medical care will be better if people's choices in > the matter are taken away. I mean, even after you make cancer > diagnosis completely free, people will still face "costs", e.g., > the inconvenience or fear (or humiliation) of getting a checkup. I don't think we can reasonably help that; we can only make it as easy as possible. We'd get far more bang for our buck, though, by concentrating on prevention. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 19 05:01:58 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:01:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] size of polities References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <16f301c872b4$b5c670e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff Davis writes > It seems that modern nation state has come about because militarily, > bigger is better, ie the 8000 lb gorilla beats the 800 lb gorilla > beats the 80 lb gorilla. So it you possess a social organizational > system (with the appropriate "security" apparatus) to hold together > one of the larger groups of inherently diverse and consequently > fractious humans, and extract from them the tithe of their > productivity(taxes), then you have the military resources to survive > and prevail. I totally agree with your explanation. It would be natural to see larger states evolve, but only in terms of their military security. I would think the federal solution to be optimal: for sovereignty and defence, they unite. For laws they remain separate (up to feasibility). > In contrast, the evolved ideal human social group would be tribal. > Large enough for the clan leaders to know everyone personally, and for > everyone to have -- for the condition of social harmony to prevail -- > identical cultural values/identifiers. Right. > Larger than that and the leaders are too removed from the polity to > sympathize with them and behave decently, become a tribe in their own > right -- the ruling class -- treat the polity as pawns, I agree that you are onto something here, and it is easy for Washington bureaucrats to start thinking of themselves exactly as you describe, a sort of ruling class that gets to regulate everything in sight. The libertarian solution is to suggest that the governments be as absolutely small as possible (but no smaller). > and pursue the slaughter of innocents in a sociopathic enterprise > to aggrandize their own power. :-O Wow! You're really getting carried away! :-) The U.S., for example, slaughters innocents in its nearby neighbors (Canada, Mexico, Central America and the West Indies) only for *commercial* reasons, not to aggrandise the power of those senators and representatives behind the mass killings going on right now in those countries. Now it happens that I don't know about all those massacres, but they I haven't read enough Noam Chomsky, right? Lee > The nation state and imperial system we have today. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 19 05:26:50 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:26:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com> At 08:45 PM 2/18/2008 -0800, Lee wrote: >Later on, for all things it will be only the *government* that gets >the bill, and the bureaucrats will find that the easiest path is just >to raise taxes. And yet (I know it's very wicked to say this) the cost of medical/surgical/hospital care in Australia and the UK, much of it mediated by government funding, is significantly less than it is in the USA. As Stathis posted last year: "The US spends a greater proportion of GDP on health care than most developed countries but has worse overall health outcomes than most developed countries." No, no, look away, look away. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 19 06:15:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:15:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <170101c872bf$3727bbd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Tom writes > What *does* seem broken under the current system is the extraordinary > care that goes towards newborn infants, vs. mediocre care for many > adults. Any adult of at least middling intelligence is worth more > than *any* infant, and it strikes me as insane that medical resources > are poured towards the latter without any thought to cost. Let me tell you about a fairly obscure but very interesting practice in some western societies that used to address this. True, on the one hand good arguments can be made that adults are more important; but on the other hand, good arguments can also be made that "children are our future" and that they should be deemed the more important. How to resolve this impasse? Oh, I know---your solution as most people's is "let's vote!", and then the winning sides gets to force the losing side to do it their way. But about this practice/tradition I was talking about. Up until fifty or sixty years ago it was still fashionable in the West to avoid voting on such things altogether. As unworkable as it may seem, everyone was allowed to work to earn money, and then *pay* for whichever solution worked best for them! For example, people in a family could *choose* whether to spend their money on the children's illnesses or prevention, or spend it on the wage-earner's illnesses without whom, perhaps all would go hungry. It actually functioned very well: you see, in any given family it can be very complicated what is the best thing to do. So traditions would evolve that would be suitable (most of the time) for whoever, and if a family tried one thing and was unsatisfied, they could immediately stop it and start trying the other. They could even solicit opinions from friends, neighbors, and distant relatives. I know that it seems odd not to have the government just *force* the optimal solution on everyone. After all, the government can hire extremely smart people to figure out what is best, and then see to it that everyone follows the prescriptions of these regulators (alphabet agencies) or law-makers (federal court justices). But I'm telling you, it actually worked better back then using the old traditions, called, incidently---for future reference---freedom and liberty. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 19 06:44:11 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:44:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080219003448.021ad250@satx.rr.com> At 11:02 PM 2/18/2008 -0600, Tom wrote: >What *does* seem broken under the current system is the extraordinary >care that goes towards newborn infants, vs. mediocre care for many >adults. Any adult of at least middling intelligence is worth more >than *any* infant, and it strikes me as insane that medical resources >are poured towards the latter without any thought to cost. As a first cut at this, I'd suggest a couple of big factors: One is the increasing sentimentality regarding children, especially infants, in a technologically pampered and medically advanced society. The other is the decreasing fecundity of parents in such a society, where (unlike the case 100 years ago) only a couple of kids are likely to be born to any woman able to make that choice, and those children are almost certain to survive to adulthood, rather than many of them perishing in infancy. Each child in a family is now especially, unprecedentedly, precious. http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 19 06:46:27 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:46:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Singing Revolution Message-ID: Hi Folks, I saw _The Singing Revolution_ yesterday at the Boulder International Film Festival. The title refers to the revolution in Estonia, even though the events were generally proceeding in parallel with similar strides in Latvia and Lithuania. It is one of those films that you will likely never in your life, forget. http://thesingingrevolution.com/ The New York Times has a review http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/movies/14revo.html Steve Jurvetson is the executive film producer, you can see his comments (showing his pride too) at his flickr site: http://flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/1419219274/ where his readers (including me) give more comments and links to movie reviews. For me, most of the story was not new, but there were a couple of astounding historical events regarding the winter 90-91 confrontations between the Estonian political groups: Interfront (pro-Soviet) and Popular Front (pro-Independence) of which I was unaware. The scene left me without breath; it breaks all rules for the behavior of 'mobs' and protests that western media usually show as the normal behavior. I heard the comment, repeatedly, that every peace organization in the world should see this film. You can see where the film is playing near you: http://www.singingrevolution.com/cgi-local/screenings.cgi After the film, you might want to understand more of the story. I have more parts of the story at my own web site: http://www.amara.com/Independence/LestWeForget.html Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From moulton at moulton.com Tue Feb 19 06:55:28 2008 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:55:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1203404128.3705.670.camel@localhost.localdomain> I have yet another small request. If we are going to have a long drawn out debate on medical costs then would all of the participants please use some common sense and provide the details and background for the various data sets that will almost inevitably be tossed around. In particular it is useful to document the nature of what you want the health care system to do and the nature of the persons involved. Define the inputs, the outputs, all of the relevant parameters and the criteria used for making a decision. A small example: Two people each have the same model (same year) of Toyota Corolla. Person A in takes Car A to Pat's Garage and pays $100 and leaves with a car that gets 30 MPG. Person B takes Car B to Chris's Garage and pays $200 and leaves with a car that gets 25 MPG. Which garage is getter? Well it depends on the condition of the cars when they came in for one thing. Both Car A and Car B might have been weel maintained or Car A might have been well maintained and Car B neglected or the reverse or both might have been neglected. So if you are going to do a comparison then it makes sense to use inputs as similar as possible and to explicitly list the goals. Is MPG the value we want to track? What about top speed? My point is that the typical back and forth talking past one another is just a waste of bandwidth. Note that my request is not meant to favor one position or another and if any reads it that way then they have misread it. Fred From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 12:02:40 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:02:40 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 19/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Later on, for all things it will be only the *government* that gets > the bill, and the bureaucrats will find that the easiest path is just > to raise taxes. Luckily, less than half of the voting population > pays 95 percent of the taxes, and so the electorate won't have > any problem with higher taxes. That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience of Australian public hospitals. The health bureaucrats fight fiercely to give hospitals as little money as possible and to get maximum value out of every dollar. If a hospital underperforms or overspends, management is liable to be sacked. The idea is to ensure not only that the finite health budget is spent equitably, but also efficiently. In health, at least, it seems that the free market is *less* efficient than government. The US has the highest ratio of private to public health spending in the developed world, but total per capita health spending is about 50% more than in the other countries, while health outcomes are by most measures slightly worse. -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 12:24:46 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:24:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: References: <169c01c871c7$df559e60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200802190624.46383.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 18 February 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > I mentioned amazon, lastfm, pandora {.com} as present examples of > increasingly fine-grained knowledge of individual values-complexes, > over much greater than individual scale, facilitating prediction of > future states likely to be found desirable despite being presently > unknown and therefore undesired. Taken out of context, I'd like to point out we also see personal software (running on our own systems) offering even more choice and configuration, such as the possibilities that HTML allows for (or doesn't, for some of the less inclined) -- while being a standard not agreed upon by the user, it is something running locally, just like Jabber or apache. Whereas broader services, such as the ancient website builders (Yahoo/pre-Geocities era) were very static, bulky, and you had a preset number of three or four pages with a limited number of buttons, all very hardly coded. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 19 16:08:13 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:08:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <170101c872bf$3727bbd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <170101c872bf$3727bbd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 2/19/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > Tom writes > > > What *does* seem broken under the current system is the extraordinary > > care that goes towards newborn infants, vs. mediocre care for many > > adults. Any adult of at least middling intelligence is worth more > > than *any* infant, and it strikes me as insane that medical resources > > are poured towards the latter without any thought to cost. > > Let me tell you about a fairly obscure but very interesting practice > in some western societies that used to address this. True, on the one > hand good arguments can be made that adults are more important; > but on the other hand, good arguments can also be made that > "children are our future" and that they should be deemed the > more important. > > How to resolve this impasse? Oh, I know---your solution as most > people's is "let's vote!", and then the winning sides gets to force the > losing side to do it their way. Except *no*, no, it isn't. I abhor democracy. I thought that might've been clear from further on in the same message: "I'm worried more by democracy than by progressive taxes. :p" Enlightened dictatorship for me, thankyouverymuch; barring that, I'd prefer as much "constutional" and "republic" as I could throw around. > I know that it seems odd not to have the government just *force* > the optimal solution on everyone. After all, the government can > hire extremely smart people to figure out what is best, and then > see to it that everyone follows the prescriptions of these regulators > (alphabet agencies) or law-makers (federal court justices). But > I'm telling you, it actually worked better back then using the old > traditions, called, incidently---for future reference---freedom > and liberty. Until we hit serious cognitive enhancement, we're not dealing with rational, or particularly bright, agents when we're talking about people. (Not meant to insult anyone in particular; I don't consider myself particularly bright or rational in comparison to what I *could* be with a few choice upgrades.) I *am* ambivalent about libertarianism vs. the liberal-welfare-state when it comes to transhumanism, I'll admit; the welfare state is better for *unaugmented* humans, but becomes stifling for transhumans/posthumans. I don't know how to resolve this; I'd be better off here-and-now under a solid welfare state, but I'd curse myself the moment the serious cog upgrades came along ... but one might not *get there* without the welfare state. ::sigh:: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 02:47:22 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:47:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bumper Sticker idea? In-Reply-To: <47B8F5FA.3050304@comcast.net> References: <47B8F5FA.3050304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2d6187670802191847h4f7ac6bag5fb491d3ae080b61@mail.gmail.com> What about this (now I know who George Bush and most other politicians pray to at night)... http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245.html John ; ) On 2/17/08, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Crucifixion Is Not The Way > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 20 04:22:50 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:22:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com> <1203404128.3705.670.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <173001c87378$d4635ad0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Fred writes > I have yet another small request. Quite the demanding fellow, eh? :-) > If we are going to have a long drawn out debate on medical costs then > would all of the participants please use some common sense and provide > the details and background for the various data sets that will almost > inevitably be tossed around. > > In particular it is useful to document the nature of what you want the > health care system to do and the nature of the persons involved. Yes, not only do people probably want, as you point out, systems to do different things (each participant with his own agenda), but even what people want out of a discussion can vary. For example, I'm most interested in understanding economics, mechanisms, and incentives, while others may be more interested in a factual comparison of existing systems. Stathis and Damien are perhaps most interested in the latter---and had good discussions earlier with Rafal and J. Andrew, without, so far as I know, any consensus being reached. > Define the inputs, the outputs, all of the relevant parameters > and the criteria used for making a decision. What an optimist! > A small example: Two people each have the same model (same year) of > Toyota Corolla. Person A in takes Car A to Pat's Garage and pays $100 > and leaves with a car that gets 30 MPG. Person B takes Car B to Chris's > Garage and pays $200 and leaves with a car that gets 25 MPG. Which > garage is getter? Well it depends on the condition of the cars when > they came in for one thing. Both Car A and Car B might have been well > maintained or Car A might have been well maintained and Car B neglected > or the reverse or both might have been neglected. Yes, in many ways it really is hard to compare different countries. For one thing, there are profound demographic differences. For another, the differing tax structures of the nations probably plays a big role: if a small enough percentage of the people pay almost all the taxes, then I have yet to hear of any mechanism---I repeat, my interest is in ideas, processes, incentives, etc.---that prevents a runaway self-immolation of the economy. Unless, of course, the rich simply corrupt the process and hire the politicians directly, running roughshod over the electorate (but doing so covertly). > So if you are going to do a comparison then it makes sense > to use inputs as similar as possible and to explicitly list the > goals. Is MPG the value we want to track? What about > top speed? My point is that the typical back and forth > talking past one another is just a waste of bandwidth. > > Note that my request is not meant to favor one position or > another and if any reads it that way then they have misread it. Oh darn. Several of us here were all ready to let fly with both barrels, just as soon as it looked like you were on the other side. Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 05:41:56 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:41:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <170101c872bf$3727bbd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > I *am* ambivalent about libertarianism vs. the liberal-welfare-state > when it comes to transhumanism, I'll admit; the welfare state is > better for *unaugmented* humans, but becomes stifling for > transhumans/posthumans. ?I don't know how to resolve this; I'd be > better off here-and-now under a solid welfare state, but I'd curse > myself the moment the serious cog upgrades came along ... but one > might not *get there* without the welfare state. ?::sigh:: Seems welfare becomes obsolete when we have self-replicating drugs, This at least gets people back up to some sort of 'baseline standard' and they can work from there, if they want. Something like that. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Wed Feb 20 07:15:52 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:15:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation Message-ID: Hey Extropian Wordsmiths! Put your wordsmithing skills into high gear to name this operation that the US government is implementing to shoot down a satellite. Yes, that's right... after criticizing China that their shooting exercise last year triggered an inevitable cascade of debris, http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-October/038207.html the US government is going to join the Fun ! Yippee! Ahem. Sorry. The Wired contest to name this rogue satellite operation, therefore, beckoned, and I couldn't resist. However, my wordsmithing skills are not as finely-honed as some here. I tried think of a clever way to use "Stay the Course" or some other Bush-ism, but couldn't get the words to drip, ooze and slither across the page, so I used a jingle instead. It's still not slithering though, and I'm sure you can do better! http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/name-the-rogue.html (mine is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the list.. there are a huge number of entries!) Have fun! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 08:47:42 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:47:42 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <173001c87378$d4635ad0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com> <1203404128.3705.670.camel@localhost.localdomain> <173001c87378$d4635ad0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 20/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yes, in many ways it really is hard to compare different countries. > For one thing, there are profound demographic differences. For > another, the differing tax structures of the nations probably plays a > big role: if a small enough percentage of the people pay almost all > the taxes, then I have yet to hear of any mechanism---I repeat, > my interest is in ideas, processes, incentives, etc.---that prevents > a runaway self-immolation of the economy. Unless, of course, > the rich simply corrupt the process and hire the politicians directly, > running roughshod over the electorate (but doing so covertly). Don't forget that many poor people aspire to be rich and would support government policies that they think would make this more likely even if it could be shown that their expected gain from such policies is negative. It's why gambling is popular. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 20 08:52:41 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:52:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Make Your Own Pruno Message-ID: <174701c8739e$a42515e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Pruno seems to be all the rage in the prisons. http://www.blacktable.com/gillin030901.htm It would be interesting to hear from any Extropians on the inside just how positively or negatively pruno is regarded by folks there. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 09:12:27 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:12:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <173001c87378$d4635ad0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com> <1203404128.3705.670.camel@localhost.localdomain> <173001c87378$d4635ad0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Feb 20, 2008 4:22 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yes, in many ways it really is hard to compare different countries. > For one thing, there are profound demographic differences. For > another, the differing tax structures of the nations probably plays a > big role: if a small enough percentage of the people pay almost all > the taxes, then I have yet to hear of any mechanism---I repeat, > my interest is in ideas, processes, incentives, etc.---that prevents > a runaway self-immolation of the economy. Unless, of course, > the rich simply corrupt the process and hire the politicians directly, > running roughshod over the electorate (but doing so covertly). > The problem with your interest in these mechanisms is that people are just as irrational about money and economics as they are about everything else. A popular mechanism that moves a nation to do something is very likely to be irrational. The best solution for 'X' will be totally shunned if it is the wrong colour or someone heard a rumour that it causes cancer. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 20 13:37:47 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:37:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs and the end of humanity In-Reply-To: <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <170101c872bf$3727bbd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> At 10:41 PM 2/19/2008, Bryan wrote: >On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > > I *am* ambivalent about libertarianism vs. the liberal-welfare-state > > when it comes to transhumanism, I'll admit; the welfare state is > > better for *unaugmented* humans, but becomes stifling for > > transhumans/posthumans. I don't know how to resolve this; I'd be > > better off here-and-now under a solid welfare state, but I'd curse > > myself the moment the serious cog upgrades came along ... but one > > might not *get there* without the welfare state. ::sigh:: > >Seems welfare becomes obsolete when we have self-replicating drugs, This >at least gets people back up to some sort of 'baseline standard' and >they can work from there, if they want. Something like that. I think you should be aware that advancing technology following a strict libertarian model could wipe out the entire human race and they would fail to even notice. Here is my fictional take on the end of humanity. http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html It's amusing that almost nobody sees this story as a tragedy or at least of having a most ambiguous ending. Keith PS. In order to have a story line and characters to identify with, the "powers that be" 100 years from now encourage a remnant population. It's a literary cheat. The most likely scenario is a total population wipe out. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 20 13:44:42 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:44:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> At 12:15 AM 2/20/2008, you wrote: >Hey Extropian Wordsmiths! > >Put your wordsmithing skills into high gear to name this operation >that the US government is implementing to shoot down a satellite. Yes, >that's right... after criticizing China that their shooting exercise >last year triggered an inevitable cascade of debris, >http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-October/038207.html >the US government is going to join the Fun ! Yippee! > >Ahem. Sorry. Heh, heh. The cover story about a hydrazine health hazard is obvious BS. The point is to show the world that we can do it too. At least the US is being relatively responsible because debris that low will decay out of orbit in a short time. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 20 14:46:08 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:46:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20080220144608.GT10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:44:42AM -0700, hkhenson wrote: > At least the US is being relatively responsible because debris that > low will decay out of orbit in a short time. If you hit an orbiting object with a kinetic kill vehicle, the resulting fragments will go everywhere, higher orbits included. All it takes to ruin it for everybody is a joker shooting up tons of ball bearings (make them tungsten, if you can) in an orbit good for kYrs. Have fun catching those, suckas. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 14:48:29 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:48:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520802200648s128ae9jcc26457007e9a670@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 20, 2008 8:15 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > Hey Extropian Wordsmiths! > > Put your wordsmithing skills into high gear to name this operation > that the US government is implementing to shoot down a satellite. SAT-busters (ta-da) against the Empire of Evil From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Feb 20 17:33:40 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:33:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NEWS: Article - "Religion Colors Americans' Views Of Nanotechnology" Message-ID: <20080220173139.THLB7115.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Wed Feb 20 17:46:27 2008 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:46:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Nanotech survey Message-ID: <3665403C-853B-428E-BAB5-7A66659C3E04@mac.com> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm -- Sergio M.L. Tarrero Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 20 17:44:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:44:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080218231842.024005b0@satx.rr.com><1203404128.3705.670.camel@localhost.localdomain><173001c87378$d4635ad0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <175c01c873e8$dbd7a990$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > The problem with your interest in these mechanisms e.g. economic mechanisms (as in supply/demand) or psychological ones (e.g. incentives, resentment, etc.) > is that people are just as irrational about money and economics > as they are about everything else. I wasn't talking about people being irrational. Of course, if people were *sufficiently* irrational, then naturally all the mechanisms I'm going on about would be wrecked. But they're not. The mechanisms I've described above are pretty useful for understanding, don't you think? To be sure, economisists have over-estimated people's rationality. But we shouldn't over-react to that! > A popular mechanism that moves a nation to do something is > very likely to be irrational. Yes---for example, national "anger" can cause one nation to invade another even when it's not in the best interest of the first nation. Lee > The best solution for 'X' will be totally shunned if it is the wrong > colour or someone heard a rumour that it causes cancer. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 19:04:42 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:04:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours In-Reply-To: <200802182304.m1IN49QH008131@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802182304.m1IN49QH008131@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM, spike wrote: > ... the message sent toward the M13 globular cluster on 16 > November 1974 (game: where were you and what were you doing on that day? Was that message sent toward the present day apparent position (which is the position of M13 some 25,100 years ago --distance to M13: 25,100 light years; angular diameter: 20'), the present day actual position of M13 (as projected 25,100 years future-ward from its current apparent position, and from what is known of its motion, gravitationally driven, but hardly "orbital"), or perhaps in the direction of its projected position 25,100 years into the future, which is to say 50,200 years future-ward from its 1974 apparent position? (Which doesn't even consider the putative accelerative nature of cosmic expansion, or the influence of dark matter.) Sounds like a game of cosmic whack-a-mole. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven [or an M13] for?" Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Feb 20 20:14:55 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:14:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] thick and thicker Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080220141300.02521428@satx.rr.com> Milky Way is much bigger than we thought Wednesday, 20 February 2008 by John Pickrell Comos Online http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1857 SYDNEY: By doing simple calculations on data freely available online, Australian astrophysicists have discovered that our Milky Way galaxy may be twice as thick as previously estimated. Bryan Gaensler of the University of Sydney led the team who now estimate the disc of our galaxy to be 12,000 rather than 6,000 light years thick. Proving not all science requires big, expensive apparatus, the researchers downloaded data from the Internet and analysed it in a spreadsheet. "We were tossing around ideas about the size of the Galaxy, and thought we had better check the standard numbers that everyone uses," said Gaensler. "It took us just a few hours to calculate this for ourselves. We thought we had to be wrong, so we checked and rechecked and couldn't find any mistakes." Pulsating stars Their results were presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas, last month, and are now slated for publication in an academic journal. The new estimate differs from previous calculations because Gaensler's team was more selective about the pulsars they used as a data source. Short for 'pulsating stars', pulsars are rotating neutron stars - the remnants of massive suns that have collapsed into extremely dense objects. Rather like the beam of a lighthouse, they emit electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves as they rotate. "As light from these pulsars travels to us, it interacts with electrons scattered between the stars (the Warm Ionised Medium, or WIM), which slows the light down," said Gaensler. In particular, the longer (redder) wavelengths of these pulses slow down more than the shorter (bluer) wavelengths, so by seeing how far the red lags behind the blue we can calculate how much WIM the pulse has travelled through, he said. The concept is similar to counting the time between a crash of thunder and a flash of lightning to measure how far away it is. By using the light from pulsars to measure where the WIM ends, we can estimate the edge of the galaxy, said Gaensler. "If you know the distance to the pulsar accurately, then you can work out how dense the WIM is and where it stops ? in other words where the galaxy's edge is." Less, but more Of the thousands of pulsars known in and around our galaxy, only about 60 have well known distances. But to measure the thickness of the Milky Way, Gaensler's team focussed only on those sitting directly above or below us. Previous estimates measured the distance to pulsars diagonally above and below us in the direction of the upper and lower edge of the galaxy. But this yields a less accurate estimate of the thickness of the galactic disc, said the researchers. The gradual accumulation of new data has yielded a larger number of pulsars directly above or below us, so Gaensler's team was able to focus on 20 to 30 of these. "We used less data, but it's much more reliable." Coincidentally, a recent study from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, suggested that there is around five times as much magnetism in the Milky Way as would be predicted for a galaxy of our size. Without any prior knowledge of his work, Gaensler said that the study proposed that a Milky Way twice as thick as we thought might be one possible way to explain the discrepancy. He added that it's not just magnetism, but also heat, pressure and many other factors about our understanding of the Milky Way that could be knocked out of kilter if the new theory proves to be correct. And by extension, this could effect our understanding of all galaxies, which itself is built on knowledge of the Milky Way. Rate of star formation "The study is intriguing and it could be an important result," commented Quentin Parker of the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Sydney. He said the findings could mean that either the galaxy itself is wider than we thought, or the ionised gas of the WIM simply goes much further beyond the stars that make up the edge of the galaxy than we thought. "It's all a matter of semantics. And depends whether you're talking about the size of the galaxy in terms of dust, gas or stars." However, said Parker, even if the results indicate that the ionised gas goes out further than we thought, this would mean that the star-forming region of the galaxy is much bigger than we thought. "If we've underestimated star formation in our own galaxy, we've underestimated it in other galaxies too and this could affect our understanding of the rate of star formation in the history of the universe." "Some colleagues have come up to me and have said 'That wrecks everything!'" concluded Gaensler. "And others have said 'Ah! Now everything fits together!'" From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 20 19:36:30 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:36:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation (orbits) In-Reply-To: <20080220144608.GT10128@leitl.org> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> <20080220144608.GT10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1203537516_10291@S1.cableone.net> At 07:46 AM 2/20/2008, you wrote: >On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:44:42AM -0700, hkhenson wrote: > > > At least the US is being relatively responsible because debris that > > low will decay out of orbit in a short time. > >If you hit an orbiting object with a kinetic kill vehicle, the >resulting fragments will go everywhere, higher orbits included. The results partly depend on the direction of the hit. Head on is mostly going to slow down the pieces But even blowing one up in a low orbit should result in the worst case pieces having a perigee at the same altitude unless they get enough impulse for escape. >All it takes to ruin it for everybody is a joker shooting up tons >of ball bearings (make them tungsten, if you can) in an orbit good >for kYrs. Have fun catching those, suckas. DU would be slightly better and less expensive. Part of the space elevator/solar power satellite approach to the carbon and energy problem is cleaning up the space junk. I recently talked to a professor who has been working on a genetic algorithm approach to multiple rendezvous orbits. He says my estimates for the number of tugs and time look reasonable, maybe even pessimistic. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 21:16:15 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:16:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Die for Gaia, save the planet? Message-ID: <580930c20802201316t613cd713y5be251d6aa249d11@mail.gmail.com> Die for Gaia, save the planet?The Soylent wing of the Green movement examinedBy Tim Worstall ? More by this author The enviroloonies seem to have found their way out of the asylum again: this time to tell us that 70 per cent of Britons should die for the sake of Gaia. That's not quite the way they put it, of course. Rather, the Optimum Population Trust (there's a pedantic part of me that wants to tell them it's Optimal) tells us that the maximum sustainable population of the UK is 17 million: given that there are north of 60 million currently, we can only avert the coming End Times if the extra pop their clogs soonest. It's not bad for a paper on demography, economics, the environment and their interactions written by a physicist, that is, a paper written by someone with no knowledge of any of the three basic disciplines. The argument rests on two fundamental pieces of illogic. The first is the use of the Commoner-Ehrlich equation which is that ecological Impact is equal to Population times Affluence times Technology or: I = P x A x T Paul Ehrlich, you might recall, is the man who in the 60s predicted hundreds of millions starving in India in the 70s and the US in the 80s. Then in the 70s predicted the same in the 80s and 90s and, in his latest book, Real Soon Now. The flaw in this equation is that technology is held to multiply the impact instead of, as is obvious to even the casual observer, divide it. If you haven't spotted why yet, consider this. Are we using higher technology than hunter gatherers? Yes? Good, now, if there were 6 billion hunter gatherers around, would Gaia simply be, as at present, a bit grumpy, or even worse off? Correct, there wouldn't be any biosphere at all as that many humans with flints and spears alone would have eaten every thing on the planet and then each other. As, indeed, hunter gatherers did with the megafauna of every place they got to outside Africa, the Aborigines, the Clovis culture in North America, the Maori in New Zealand and so on. The equation should thus read: I = (P x A)/T For higher technology reduces the environmental impact. The effect of this upon the logic used in the paper is this. As the paper says, higher technology and increased affluence increase the pressure on the environment, and as none of us is prepared to give up the levels of both which we already have, the only thing we can do to save the planet is to have fewer people. But getting the equation the right way around removes this constraint: we can reduce the impact by having better technology and there's no need to go round slaughtering the chavs (well, OK, not this reason then). And most importantly, as we'll see, we can do this by creating technology which has lower carbon emissions. The Footprint industry The second conceptual error is that in their calculation of the permissible population level they use the concept of ecological footprints as calculated by Mathis Wackernagel.Now in one way I've got a lot of time for him: it's not everyone who manages to turn their Ph.D thesis into a thriving international business, so hats off, well done sir. On the other hand, that thesis is what is technically known in serious circles as horse manure. For example, when looking at the carbon emissions of nuclear power, the calculation is: Nuclear power, about 4 per cent of global energy use, does not generate CO2. Its footprint is calculated as the area required to absorb the CO2 emitted by using the equivalent amount of energy from fossil fuels. Mat bubba: over the cycle nuclear does have CO2 emissions, roughly the same as hydro or wind, less than half solar and a tiny fraction of coal. But our ecological footprint idea gets much worse than that. The essential idea is that we work out how much land a particular activity requires. Then we work out how many activites and how much of such there are and then look at how many hectares of land we need to be able to do all of them. This is what gives us our regular yearly (when Mathis and his boys release their annual update) cycle of we need "three more earths" if we're all going to carry on living like this. Again there's a conceptual error about technology: thinking that the amount of land we need to do something is static, which it plainly isn't. We get more food off a hectare now than we did last year, as we have every year for at least a century (yields have been going up one per cent a year for at least that long) and so on. But wait, there's yet more. Each piece of land is only allowed to count once. The land needed to recycle CO2 emissions is somehow different land from that needed to grow the food: that plants eat CO2 to turn it into my food gets missed. Even given all of this exaggeration the actual end finding of the ecological footprints calculations is that we've got plenty of land to do everything except recycle our CO2 emissions, something which really isn't all that much of a surprise. We've had thousands of scientists labouring away for more than a decade to tell us that, they even wrote a great big reportabout it. And guess what the result of that report is? If we can invent a few more bright shiny new technologies that don't emit carbon then everything is just hunky dory. Death cult In the end this report is just another sad set of scribblings from people who would appear to have some deeper personal problems. Perhaps it's the thought of people having sex without a full body condom that does it, or perhaps they've come over all Fran Liebowitz ("Children don't smoke enough and I find that they're sticky, perhaps as a result of not smoking enough") but something is clearly wrong, when we read: "It follows that if it is not possible to constrain affluence and technology, then the only parameter left to constrain and reduce is population." Their sad misunderstanding about the effects of technology blinds them to the truth, that by not constraining technology we don't have to constrain * either* affluence *or* population. The late great Julian Simon once calculated that we had the resources for a permanently growing economy and population for the next 7 billion years. That might be a little Panglossian, to be honest, but it's more accurate than the insistence that there should be fewer, poorer people. (R) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/20/optimum_population_report/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 20 21:06:59 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:06:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- hkhenson wrote: > The cover story about a hydrazine health hazard is obvious BS. The > point is to show the world that we can do it too. > > At least the US is being relatively responsible because debris that > low will decay out of orbit in a short time. Yeah but the explosion will likely kick some debris up to a higher orbit. At mach 16 it only takes a nut or a bolt to mess up somebody's day. How does Operation Killer Confetti sound? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 20 22:05:34 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:05:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080220220534.GP10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:06:59PM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yeah but the explosion will likely kick some debris up to a higher > orbit. At mach 16 it only takes a nut or a bolt to mess up somebody's Make that Mach >25. At that speed even paint flakes will damage PV panels. I used to speculate about fragmentation catastrophe, apparently, this stuff is for real. > day. How does Operation Killer Confetti sound? Operation Space Cowboy Yee-Haw! Let's give people ideas on how to shutdown humanity's entire space activities by just a few launches. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 22:16:13 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:16:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <20080220220534.GP10128@leitl.org> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20080220220534.GP10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Make that Mach >25. At that speed even paint flakes will damage > PV panels. I used to speculate about fragmentation catastrophe, > apparently, this stuff is for real. > > Operation Space Cowboy Yee-Haw! Let's give people ideas on how to > shutdown humanity's entire space activities by just a few launches. > Hey! That's a neat idea! The US can't afford space activities anymore, because of the Iraq expense, the collapsing dollar and the recession. Sooooo, let's make sure nobody else goes there either until after the mess is cleared up. Even more reason just to send robots into space. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Feb 20 22:47:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:47:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080220164642.02358ec8@satx.rr.com> At 01:06 PM 2/20/2008 -0800, Stuart LaForge wrote: >How does Operation Killer Confetti sound? How about Stupid Pebbles? From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 22:59:19 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:59:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NEWS: Article - "Religion Colors Americans' Views Of Nanotechnology" In-Reply-To: <20080220173139.THLB7115.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20080220173139.THLB7115.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200802201659.20009.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm How could a frontier be moral? Perhaps the people that inhabit the frontier, yes, but to say that nanotech is evil/immoral is undermining our entire existence as living beings ... who rely on nanotech already. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From amara at kurzweilai.net Wed Feb 20 22:51:10 2008 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:51:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <20080220220534.GP10128@leitl.org> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net><983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20080220220534.GP10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <02d801c87413$16a1c400$6401a8c0@HP> The Space Generation Advisory Council is running a survey on this: http://www.spacegeneration.org/survey/survey.php?id=LK0LGKTB From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:14:20 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:14:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Religion Colors Americans' Views Of Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802201714.20824.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 20 February 2008, James Clement wrote: > "They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on > religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They > are informed." It is important to focus on what rejection means in this context. Does it mean that they are not allowing nanotech to exist? No. Does it mean that they are physically rejecting any nanotechnological thing entering their schools, their homes, their bodies? No. Does it mean that they despise the people working in cellular (read: nano) biology, in atomic resolution imaging? Are they marching against the researchers? Are they preventing these people from living the lives that they want to? Perhaps. But no matter how much they supposedly 'reject' it, how much they hate it, how much they despise the very prospects of nanotechnology, that simply does not make sense. They are basically just answering a single question on a quiz saying they 'reject' it -- while practicing the exact opposite. Nanotechnology is all around them: our cells, bacteria, viruses, fungi, nucleotides, dust, it is simply the very small, and being ignorant of these systems, tools and things in general will not make them go away. Are we to just wish the 'small' away? Just as we are to wish the cosmos away, right? Hey, maybe if we don't look, it'll go away! Isn't this the mentality of a toddler? What was it that Douglas Adams wrote? " ... a creature so stupid that it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you." Anyway, if they socially cacoon themselves from what they perceive to be a threat (nanotech), they may not be prepared for any of the advancements that come their way via self-repping man-made nanotech (bacteria or MNT). What can we do to help these islands of people to survive in the coming tech era? Granted, we aren't obligated at all, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything interesting there. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:17:20 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:17:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs and the end of humanity In-Reply-To: <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802201717.20472.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 20 February 2008, hkhenson wrote: > I think you should be aware that advancing technology following a > strict libertarian model could wipe out the entire human race and > they would fail to even notice. ?Here is my fictional take on the end > of humanity. I don't understand what "advancing technology following a strict libertarian model" means. And how can you predict the end of humanity? How do you know we don't have plans to launch a few rockets etc.? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 20 22:48:06 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:48:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> <983087.36144.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1203547741_14762@S4.cableone.net> At 02:06 PM 2/20/2008, Stuart wrote: >--- hkhenson wrote: > > The cover story about a hydrazine health hazard is obvious BS. The > > point is to show the world that we can do it too. > > > > At least the US is being relatively responsible because debris that > > low will decay out of orbit in a short time. > >Yeah but the explosion will likely kick some debris up to a higher >orbit. At mach 16 it only takes a nut or a bolt to mess up somebody's >day. How does Operation Killer Confetti sound? My orbital mechanics is 40 years in the past so correct me if I get this wrong. A single impulse applied in a low orbit can raise the apogee (i.e., make the orbit more egg shaped) but it cannot raise the perigee. That takes a second impulse as in a Hohmann transfer orbit. Now I am assuming that a satellite scraping the atmosphere is in a nearly circular low orbit. So any way you bang it with an interceptor, the cloud of junk is going to be in orbits where the low point is getting serious drag. That should keep the decay time short. Keith From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:21:24 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:21:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: References: <1203515137_3741@S3.cableone.net> <20080220220534.GP10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802201721.24072.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 20 February 2008, BillK wrote: > The US can't afford space activities anymore, because of the Iraq > expense, the collapsing dollar and the recession. ?Sooooo, let's make > sure nobody else goes there either until after the mess is cleared > up. I do not understand. Show to me how spacetech is dependent on money. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 23:28:21 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:28:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] thick and thicker In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080220141300.02521428@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080220141300.02521428@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200802201728.21269.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > "We were tossing around ideas about the size of > the Galaxy, and thought we had better check the > standard numbers that everyone uses," said > Gaensler. "It took us just a few hours to > calculate this for ourselves. We thought we had > to be wrong, so we checked and rechecked and couldn't find any > mistakes." Yeah, and to how many hundreds of thousands of schools around the world were posters describing the size of the galaxy previously sent? In how many books has this previous figured been included and mentioned? This is a fairly "gee whiz" number that is popular among gee-whiz numbers. Look at how much impact the number has had. Now take a double check on how long it took a group of two or three guys to calculate another number. Anybody else getting the picture? These small teams of thoughtful, dedicated individuals are how things get done. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 20 23:53:22 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:53:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs and the end of humanity In-Reply-To: <200802201717.20472.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> <200802201717.20472.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1203551657_16082@S4.cableone.net> At 04:17 PM 2/20/2008, you wrote: >On Wednesday 20 February 2008, hkhenson wrote: > > I think you should be aware that advancing technology following a > > strict libertarian model could wipe out the entire human race and > > they would fail to even notice. Here is my fictional take on the end > > of humanity. > >I don't understand what "advancing technology following a strict >libertarian model" means. And how can you predict the end of humanity? >How do you know we don't have plans to launch a few rockets etc.? If you want to discuss it, read the story first. Keith From korpios at korpios.com Wed Feb 20 21:30:02 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:30:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Die for Gaia, save the planet? In-Reply-To: <580930c20802201316t613cd713y5be251d6aa249d11@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20802201316t613cd713y5be251d6aa249d11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/20/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Die for Gaia, save the planet? > The Soylent wing of the Green movement examined > By Tim Worstall ? More by this author Uhh, you know, a link would have been fine. :p From jojozillasagna at yahoo.com Thu Feb 21 01:35:52 2008 From: jojozillasagna at yahoo.com (JoJo Hammerman) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:35:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] NEWS: Article - "Religion Colors Americans' Views Of Nanotechnology" Message-ID: <758397.92412.qm@web45905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> How do I unsubscribe to this list? ----- Original Message ---- From: Natasha Vita-More To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:33:40 PM Subject: [ExI] NEWS: Article - "Religion Colors Americans' Views Of Nanotechnology" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 21 02:04:48 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:04:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "How do I unsubscribe to this list?" In-Reply-To: <758397.92412.qm@web45905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <758397.92412.qm@web45905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080220200303.022c12b8@satx.rr.com> At 05:35 PM 2/20/2008 -0800, JoJo Hammerman wrote: >Reply-To: ExI chat list >List-Id: ExI chat list >List-Unsubscribe: >, > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > >How do I unsubscribe to this list? It's just so extraordinarily difficult, I don't think the human mind is capable of working out the answer to that question. From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 21 01:41:09 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:41:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <20080220144608.GT10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802210207.m1L27tnQ022289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:44:42AM -0700, hkhenson wrote: > > > At least the US is being relatively responsible because debris that > > low will decay out of orbit in a short time. > > If you hit an orbiting object with a kinetic kill vehicle, > the resulting fragments will go everywhere, higher orbits included. ... > Eugen* Leitl leitl > http://leitl.org Gene, hitting a satellite with an explosive when the satellite is in the upper atmosphere might raise the apogee of some of the fragments, but the perigee would still be right where it was when it was hit. The fragments have a lower ballistic coefficient than the whole, so their resulting orbit decays rapidly. This event will not do harm to LEO for more than a couple weeks, whereas the Chinese have effectively ruled out a space elevator for decades at least. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Feb 21 02:13:00 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:13:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs and the end of humanity In-Reply-To: <1203551657_16082@S4.cableone.net> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> <200802201717.20472.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203551657_16082@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <37936.12.77.169.0.1203559980.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Thanks Keith, I enjoyed the story when you first posted the link. I thought it was very cool that such a thing would even enter your head! :) It was quite vivid enough to give me good mental pictures and to make me laugh with delight at the growing of the clinic. My only difficulty with the actuality of living in such a world is that I rather enjoy cooking and gardening and other very hands-on pursuits (such as playing with my cats or my snakes). It's not clear that virtual gardening or cooking will be as satisfying. Perhaps it will be, I've just not experienced it yet. Maybe I'm just way too old-fashioned! Regards, MB, another geezer... From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 21 01:48:54 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:48:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <1203547741_14762@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802210215.m1L2FesS004428@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson ... > My orbital mechanics is 40 years in the past so correct me if > I get this wrong. > > A single impulse applied in a low orbit can raise the apogee > (i.e., make the orbit more egg shaped) but it cannot raise > the perigee. That takes a second impulse as in a Hohmann > transfer orbit. Now I am assuming that a satellite scraping > the atmosphere is in a nearly circular low orbit. So any way > you bang it with an interceptor, the cloud of junk is going > to be in orbits where the low point is getting serious drag. > That should keep the decay time short. > > Keith All perfectly right Keith, even after 40 years. My orbit mechanics training is 20 years old, but these things never change. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 03:07:19 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:07:19 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs and the end of humanity In-Reply-To: <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <170101c872bf$3727bbd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 21/02/2008, hkhenson wrote: > I think you should be aware that advancing technology following a > strict libertarian model could wipe out the entire human race and > they would fail to even notice. Here is my fictional take on the end > of humanity. > > http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html > > It's amusing that almost nobody sees this story as a tragedy or at > least of having a most ambiguous ending. It's no more tragic than evolution. -- Stathis Papaioannou From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 04:32:14 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:02:14 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Make Your Own Pruno In-Reply-To: <174701c8739e$a42515e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <174701c8739e$a42515e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802202032h5e207b99na3859f40d725c0af@mail.gmail.com> IIRC, we made something not unlike this in Organic Chemistry at high school (not unlike a prison really), although in smaller quantities. We distilled it though, producing an orange scented firewater, the aftertaste of which remains with me 20 years later. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com On 20/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > Pruno seems to be all the rage in the prisons. > > http://www.blacktable.com/gillin030901.htm > > It would be interesting to hear from any Extropians on > the inside just how positively or negatively pruno is > regarded by folks there. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 21 04:49:42 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:49:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <1203547741_14762@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <648101.52048.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- hkhenson wrote: > My orbital mechanics is 40 years in the past so correct me if I get > this wrong. > > A single impulse applied in a low orbit can raise the apogee (i.e., > make the orbit more egg shaped) but it cannot raise the > perigee. That takes a second impulse as in a Hohmann transfer > orbit. Now I am assuming that a satellite scraping the atmosphere is > > in a nearly circular low orbit. So any way you bang it with an > interceptor, the cloud of junk is going to be in orbits where the low > > point is getting serious drag. That should keep the decay time > short. I guess you have a point but it's moot any way, they have already struck it down. I still don't think it's a great idea to expend tens of millions of dollars to destroy a piece of hardware that cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to build. It was launched in 2006, so it's only a couple of years old. Hardly obsolete at least in my opinion. Why couldn't they have sent up a shuttle mission to repair it? Or was the satelite obviously crap to begin with? It's a fortunate thing we didn't implement this solution to the Hubble telescope when it was malfunctioning. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Life is the sum of all your choices." Albert Camus ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 21 10:30:26 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:30:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <200802210207.m1L27tnQ022289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20080220144608.GT10128@leitl.org> <200802210207.m1L27tnQ022289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080221103026.GF10128@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:41:09PM -0800, spike wrote: > Gene, hitting a satellite with an explosive when the satellite is in the > upper atmosphere might raise the apogee of some of the fragments, but the Okay, the thing is at reentry already. I didn't knew that. > perigee would still be right where it was when it was hit. The fragments > have a lower ballistic coefficient than the whole, so their resulting orbit > decays rapidly. This event will not do harm to LEO for more than a couple > weeks, whereas the Chinese have effectively ruled out a space elevator for > decades at least. Another fun thing: put lots of fast crap into orbit intersecting with geostationary. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 10:37:41 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:37:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Die for Gaia, save the planet? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20802201316t613cd713y5be251d6aa249d11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802210237u4bb38116l3d3340bc1c7a4eb8@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/20/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > Die for Gaia, save the planet? > > The Soylent wing of the Green movement examined > > By Tim Worstall ? More by this author > > Uhh, you know, a link would have been fine. :p > What is wrong with the link provided? :-/ Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 21 11:58:13 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:58:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs and the end of humanity In-Reply-To: <37936.12.77.169.0.1203559980.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net> <200802201717.20472.kanzure@gmail.com> <1203551657_16082@S4.cableone.net> <37936.12.77.169.0.1203559980.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <1203595149_23299@S4.cableone.net> At 07:13 PM 2/20/2008, you wrote: >Thanks Keith, I enjoyed the story when you first posted the link. I >thought it was >very cool that such a thing would even enter your head! :) It was quite vivid >enough to give me good mental pictures and to make me laugh with >delight at the >growing of the clinic. Glad you liked it. It's what comes out of being aware of nanotech and related since the late 70s. >My only difficulty with the actuality of living in such a world is >that I rather >enjoy cooking and gardening and other very hands-on pursuits (such >as playing with >my cats or my snakes). It's not clear that virtual gardening or >cooking will be as >satisfying. Perhaps it will be, I've just not experienced it yet. > >Maybe I'm just way too old-fashioned! The clinic seed is a flashback chapter to explain the main story which is about a world where most of the population has gone like the African villagers, but a small number, about 1 % of current population are living in the physical world raising children. The virtual world is so seductive that it's hard to maintain a population at all, but the "power that be" whoever and whatever they may be want to keep some human population in the world for reasons that are never clear. Perhaps some real world presence is desired for esthetic reasons. This section is not in nearly as good a shape as the clinic seed story, but if you want to read it, ask. Keith From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 21 12:54:10 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:54:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <20080221103026.GF10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802211320.m1LDKukh009093@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 05:41:09PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > Gene, hitting a satellite with an explosive when the > satellite is in > > the upper atmosphere might raise the apogee of some of the > fragments, > > but the > > Okay, the thing is at reentry already. I didn't knew that... I notice the US government went to no great lengths to explain it. We can look forward to plenty of accusations like this one: >The US can't afford space activities anymore, because of the Iraq expense, the collapsing dollar and the recession. Sooooo, let's make sure nobody else goes there either until after the mess is cleared up... The US didn't do that of course, but China did. The US Satellite was only about 200 km up, so it was already in the upper atmosphere. There will be nothing left in a month or so. But the Chinese satellite was up at 800 km, and it was in a nearly polar orbit. That means the resulting debris ring precesses over a period of time, due to the fact that the earth isn't perfectly spherical. That means if you had a space elevator, eventually that ring would sweep across it, most likely destroying the cable. That being said, I thought there was probably already too much debris in LEO for a space elevator to be practical, but the Chinese put plenty of nails in the coffin of that idea. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Feb 21 15:58:37 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:58:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Surviving and Having a Choice References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><200802192341.56739.kanzure@gmail.com><1203514764_3707@S3.cableone.net><200802201717.20472.kanzure@gmail.com><1203551657_16082@S4.cableone.net> <37936.12.77.169.0.1203559980.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <17ba01c874a2$ecf12610$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> MB writes > Thanks Keith, I enjoyed the story when you first posted the link. I thought it was > very cool... > > My only difficulty with the actuality of living in such a world is that I rather > enjoy cooking and gardening and other very hands-on pursuits (such as playing with > my cats or my snakes). It's not clear that virtual gardening or cooking will be as > satisfying. Perhaps it will be, I've just not experienced it yet. Who knows whether the chances are that experiencing these things virtually will be as good as the real thing?It could be less satisfying, the same, or more satisfying. What is really important is that one has survived, and in the cases where it's no better than what we have at present, or is even worse, one will be able to wait for gradual improvements to come on-line. The alternative to living virtually may be very, very disappointing. One may be dead. I hope that you're able to get some kind of cryonic arrangements, which at least provide a chance for things to be very, very well indeed. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Feb 21 16:02:36 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:02:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" Message-ID: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stephano---instead of just providing a link---in addition took the time to cut and paste the whole article. Tom wonders > On 2/20/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > Die for Gaia, save the planet? > > The Soylent wing of the Green movement examined > > By Tim Worstall ? More by this author... > > Uhh, you know, a link would have been fine. :p But not so convenient, at least for me and I think others. My browser is already full of some other story I'm reading, as well as rather too many tabs I use to remind me of one thing or another, and so it is nice that the information for this post is self-contained. A great courtesy; and I can tell at a glance---when the text, like here, is included---whether I want to continue reading. > What is wrong with the link provided? :-/ Well, nothing really----but it's very thoughtful when people like Stephano take the effort. BESIDES: Besides, it definitely will happen that people will just start reading, it if it's right there in front of them, but will think twice if they have to click on a link. So one does increase his readership this way. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 21 16:22:50 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:22:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080221162250.GL10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:02:36AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote: > Besides, it definitely will happen that people will just start > reading, it if it's right there in front of them, but will think > twice if they have to click on a link. So one does increase > his readership this way. I very much encourage people to post full text, and not just a link. Content is too ephemeral, see http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/ for an example. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 21 16:23:06 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:23:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation In-Reply-To: <200802211320.m1LDKukh009093@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20080221103026.GF10128@leitl.org> <200802211320.m1LDKukh009093@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1203611042_26529@S4.cableone.net> At 05:54 AM 2/21/2008, spike wrote: snip >But the Chinese satellite was up at 800 km, >and it was in a nearly polar orbit. That means the resulting debris ring >precesses over a period of time, due to the fact that the earth isn't >perfectly spherical. That means if you had a space elevator, eventually >that ring would sweep across it, most likely destroying the cable. That's the same problem for all space junk below the counterweight. Every orbit cross the equatorial plane (or is in it). If the elevator cable is there when it does, the cable get's hit. >That being said, I thought there was probably already too much debris in LEO >for a space elevator to be practical, but the Chinese put plenty of nails in >the coffin of that idea. It added on incrementally to the previously existing 10-15,000 pieces of space junk. A substantial part of any space elevator project is cleaning up this junk. It's not wasted though. You need to push the collected junk out to GEO for the counterweight. I have recently been talking to someone who understands the problem and he thinks my estimate of 200 ion engine space tugs working at it for 5 years may be over kill. I will ask him about posting here. Keith From korpios at korpios.com Thu Feb 21 17:40:50 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:40:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Die for Gaia, save the planet? In-Reply-To: <580930c20802210237u4bb38116l3d3340bc1c7a4eb8@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20802201316t613cd713y5be251d6aa249d11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802210237u4bb38116l3d3340bc1c7a4eb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/21/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > > On 2/20/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > Die for Gaia, save the planet? > > > The Soylent wing of the Green movement examined > > > By Tim Worstall ? More by this author > > > > Uhh, you know, a link would have been fine. :p > > What is wrong with the link provided? :-/ Nothing; I was drawing attention to the full-text inclusion, not the link ? but as pointed out in another thread, it looks like I'm on the wrong side of this list's etiquette in this case. My apologies! ^_^ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 17:45:08 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:45:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20802210945w20c9ffbck98c1cc86c1b1a1b2@mail.gmail.com> 2008/2/21 Lee Corbin : > Stephano---instead of just providing a link---in addition > took the time to cut and paste the whole article. > This is always a matter of doubt for me. As a list moderator, I used to tell people "Why do you encumber the list and the net with stuff that can well be simply linked?". At a point in time somebody argued that trivial as the effort of one click may be, many are less likely to switch their attention to the browser while rapidly skimming through their incoming messages even though they might be potentially interested, and I realised that i) this is also true for me, on the passive side, and ii) the number of replies I get from cut-and-pasted texts is much higher than those originated by mere links. So, nowadays, I reached a compromise: I try avoiding to spam lists with very long texts, however interesting they may be, but at the same time I make the effort of copying in at least what is necessary to show the subject and the possible relevance of the text I want to submit to my fellow list members. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 21 17:55:09 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:55:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: <580930c20802210945w20c9ffbck98c1cc86c1b1a1b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20802210945w20c9ffbck98c1cc86c1b1a1b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080221175509.GO10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 06:45:08PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > This is always a matter of doubt for me. As a list moderator, I used > to tell people "Why do you encumber the list and the net with stuff The resource load is negligible. Those so inclined can visit the link, which is why I'm always pasting the original link at the top. > that can well be simply linked?". At a point in time somebody argued Try visiting such links after a week, a month, a year. Most of them will be gone. I prefer to have the full text of items to be present locally, or at least have searchable list archives. > that trivial as the effort of one click may be, many are less likely > to switch their attention to the browser while rapidly skimming > through their incoming messages even though they might be potentially > interested, and I realised that > i) this is also true for me, on the passive side, and > ii) the number of replies I get from cut-and-pasted texts is much > higher than those originated by mere links. > So, nowadays, I reached a compromise: I try avoiding to spam lists > with very long texts, however interesting they may be, but at the same That's what tt at postbiota.org is there for. I even bothered to add an RSS feed: http://postbiota.org/pipermail/list.rss It can be searched by http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Apostbiota.org&btnG=Google+Search > time I make the effort of copying in at least what is necessary to > show the subject and the possible relevance of the text I want to > submit to my fellow list members. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 20:28:45 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:28:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] My interview on The Future and You podcast Message-ID: <470a3c520802211228j86cbc67i2e4a70796e6fe02f@mail.gmail.com> I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Stephen Euin Cobb for his award-winning podcast The Future And You... http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/my_interview_on_the_future_and_you_podcast/ G. From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 21 20:52:32 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:52:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Name the Rogue Satellite Operation Message-ID: Spike: >The US Satellite was only >about 200 km up, so it was already in the upper atmosphere. There will be >nothing left in a month or so. Are you sure there will be nothing left in a month? In Kalle Bunte's technical note [1], the dispersion of GTO fragmentation clouds needs more than one year. I think that the surprise for all of us on that ESA contract was the the debris clouds remain in orbit for much longer than people thought they would. I wrote a bunch of notes on the topic on Bee's and Stefan's backreaction blog here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/sputnik-fifty-years-later.html Amara References [1] Bunte. K. "Debris Cloud Evolution" Technical Note of Work Package B410 of ESA Contract 6272/02/NL/EC : "Processing, Analysis and Interpretation of Data from Impact Detectors" (2004). -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From mfj.eav at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 21:34:33 2008 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:34:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] medical costs Message-ID: <61c8738e0802211334g3f097370r2133f6dbc5a45c09@mail.gmail.com> "Message: 22 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:44:32 ?0800 From: "Lee Corbin" < lcorbin at rawbw.com> Presumably you would want to eliminate the costs you associate with inconvenience, too! Why not with our better technology have highly trained personel at your beck and call over the web? That is, any time day or night you want medical care, it's free." <> "Not going to happen. The rationing will take place other ways. " <> "The nice thing about having individuals face the costs themselves is that we obtain a very clear first cut on necessity." <> Message: 4 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:08:07 -0800 (PST) From: The Avantguardian < avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "Well if you saw how much a hospital bills insurance companies for a piece of gauze, you could get the feeling that the medical industry had that attitude. It is a very strange industry to say the least. Most hospitals are classified as not-for-profit corporations for tax purposes although huge revenues are generated and quickly dissipated before tax time. The federal government indirectly sets the costs of medical care by negotiating Medicare contract rates with the hospitals. Hospitals bill private insurance for about twice what it charges the federal government for any particular service. The insurance companies turn around and typically pay the hospitals between 60% and 80% of what they get billed for and the hospital eats the remainder. Of course if you pay out of pocket, you pay the full "retail" rate. So in what other commodity does the government contract rate for that commodity serve as a *minimum* price for that commodity? Certainly not hammers and toilet seats in the pentagon. The rationing will take place other ways. How, like charging exhorbiant tuition for medical school?" <> "Right, people are the best judges of whether they need medical care or not. Which is why cancer patients end up being diagnosed too late for surgical resection and macho men having heart attacks insist on driving themselves to the hospital. Message: 12 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:45:11 -0800 From: "Lee Corbin" Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "The medical industry is "strange" only because a disconnect has been created between who receives the service and who pays for it. If a *patient* received such a bill for a piece of gauze, of course he'd be outraged by it, and he'd make sure that the doctors and the hospital felt his pain---and most importantly of all, he would take his business to another doctor and another hospital. But it's only an *insurance* company that gets the bill---and try as they might to protest and to try to force doctors and hospitals to economize (or forego procedures)---it finally is easiest to just raise their rates. Later on, for all things it will be only the *government* that gets the bill, and the bureaucrats will find that the easiest path is just to raise taxes. Luckily, less than half of the voting population pays 95 percent of the taxes, and so the electorate won't have any problem with higher taxes. <> " The federal government indirectly sets the costs of medical care by negotiating Medicare contract rates with the hospitals. Only a free market is capable of delivering the economies that we need so bad." << So what is a state/HMO to do? use the 50,000 USD maximum value of a QALY allowed before severly rationing access through criteria (clinical elegibility to quote the 13 Feb 13, 2008 pg B-7 piece on an article from the Estevan Mercury entitled Coverage approved for Cancer Drug (avastin)? in which it is stated that : "until now patients with advanced colorectal cancer had to pay for Avastin themselves, at a cost of #2,000 CAD per dose. An estimated 80 patients per year will (now) be clinically elegible to receive Avastin."?MFJ>> "Hospitals bill private insurance for about twice what it charges the federal government for any particular service. The insurance companies turn around and typically pay the hospitals between 60% and 80% of what they get billed for and the hospital eats the remainder. It's a real mess, all right. But from your figures (thanks for the descriptions) it looks like the hospitals still get more from an insurance company that they do from the government. Doesn't this mean that after the U.S. socializes, the government will have to get charged more?" <> "Which is why cancer patients end up being diagnosed too late for surgical resection and macho men having heart attacks insist on driving themselves to the hospital???..You sound as though you want to take this freedom away too. You'll want to be forcing those macho guys to get checkups whether they want to or not? I admit that medical care will be better if people's choices in the matter are taken away. I mean,even after you make cancer diagnosis completely free, people will still face "costs", e.g., the inconvenience or fear (or humiliation) of getting a checkup." << so perhaps ugrade the system so that patients have access to the same medical literature as medical students at university. In Saskatchewan perhaps make a yearly physical mandatory to qualify for medicare, but provide everyone who has medicare coverage access to PAWS , the University of Saskatchewan comprehensive journal database so that they can be more informed consumers who pose a lesser economic risk to the public funded service??MFJ>> Message: 14 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:02:30 ?0600 From: "Tom Tobin" < korpios at korpios.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "What *does* seem broken under the current system is the extraordinary care that goes towards newborn infants, vs. mediocre care for many adults. Any adult of at least middling intelligence is worth more than *any* infant, and it strikes me as insane that medical resources are poured towards the latter without any thought to cost." <> "I don't think we can reasonably help that; we can only make it as easy as possible. We'd get far more bang for our buck, though, by concentrating on prevention." <> Message: 16 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:26:50 ?0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "And yet (I know it's very wicked to say this) the cost of medical/surgical/hospital care in Australia and the UK, much of it mediated by government funding, is significantly less than it is in the USA. As Stathis posted last year: "The US spends a greater proportion of GDP on health care than most developed countries but has worse overall health outcomes than most developed countries." No, no, look away, look away." <> Message: 17 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:15:09 ?0800 From: "Lee Corbin" < lcorbin at rawbw.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "How to resolve this impasse? Oh, I know---your solution as most people's is "let's vote!", and then the winning sides gets to force the losing side to do it their way. I know that it seems odd not to have the government just *force* the optimal solution on everyone. After all, the government can hire extremely smart people to figure out what is best, and then see to it that everyone follows the prescriptions of these regulators (alphabet agencies) or law-makers (federal court justices). But I'm telling you, it actually worked better back then using the old traditions, called, incidently---for future reference---freedom and liberty." <> Message: 18 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:44:11 ?0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs Each child in a family is now especially, unprecedentedly, precious. http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm " <> Message: 20 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:55:28 ?0800 From: "Fred C. Moulton" Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "In particular it is useful to document the nature of what you want the health care system to do and the nature of the persons involved. Define the inputs, the outputs, all of the relevant parameters and the criteria used for making a decision." <> Message: 21 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:02:40 +1100 From: "Stathis Papaioannou" "That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience of Australian public hospitals. The health bureaucrats fight fiercely to give hospitals as little money as possible and to get maximum value out of every dollar. If a hospital under-performs or over-spends, management is liable to be sacked. The idea is to ensure not only that the finite health budget is spent equitably, but also efficiently." <> Message: 23 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:08:13 ?0600 From: "Tom Tobin" < korpios at korpios.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "Until we hit serious cognitive enhancement, we're not dealing with rational, or particularly bright, agents when we're talking about people. (Not meant to insult anyone in particular; I don't consider myself particularly bright or rational in comparison to what I *could* be with a few choice upgrades.) I *am* ambivalent about libertarianism vs. the liberal-welfare-state when it comes to transhumanism, I'll admit; the welfare state is better for *unaugmented* humans, but becomes stifling for transhumans/posthumans. I don't know how to resolve this; I'd be better off here-and-now under a solid welfare state, but I'd curse myself the moment the serious cog upgrades came along ... but one might not *get there* without the welfare state. " <> Message: 1 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:47:42 +1100 From: "Stathis Papaioannou" Subject: Re: [ExI] Medical Costs "It's why gambling is popular." <> extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 53, Issues 17-19 -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-447-4944 701-240-9411 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Transhumanism ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Francis Fukuyama, June 2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Feb 21 23:23:07 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:23:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200802211723.07075.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 21 February 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > But not so convenient, at least for me and I think others. > My browser is already full of some other story I'm reading, > as well as rather too many tabs I use to remind me of one > thing or another, and so it is nice that the information for > this post is self-contained. ?A great courtesy; ?and I can > tell at a glance---when the text, like here, is included---whether > I want to continue reading. You can never have too many tabs. My current Opera session has 400. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From korpios at korpios.com Thu Feb 21 23:45:52 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:45:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: <200802211723.07075.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200802211723.07075.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/21/08, Bryan Bishop wrote: > You can never have too many tabs. My current Opera session has 400. As in four-zero-zero?! Damn. One hell of a multicore, multithreaded mind you've got working there. ^_^ Anything past a dozen and I know some of the tabs are irrelevant to what I'm currently doing; I generally stash interesting stuff in del.icio.us or whatnot. From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 02:57:34 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:57:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200802211723.07075.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802212057.34893.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 21 February 2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > Anything past a dozen and I know some of the tabs are irrelevant to > what I'm currently doing; I generally stash interesting stuff in > del.icio.us or whatnot. Del.icio.us is not a local cache -- I keep all of my 11k (as in eleven-zero-zero-zero) bookmarks closeby. Centralization is stale. Having said that, what's your delicious account? :) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From ABlainey at aol.com Fri Feb 22 05:26:37 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:26:37 EST Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents Message-ID: I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting credit where credit is due. , likewise no problem with monetary gain from one's endeavours however I get a biting feeling that patents are purely selfish and uncivilised. My reasoning is that many super rich people and companies got that way from patent license fees. In many cases the 'invention' was done by some hard working minion of the company who probably didn't get much more than their basic salary for the accomplishment. I know that as an inventor, I have sat on quite a few inventions, simply because I didn't have the cash for patents. In several cases this has led to someone else beating me to the market. Believe it or not, my first invention was radar for cars that stopped you bumping into things when you were parking. Sound familiar? So is my hard work worth less than theirs? How many thousands of useful products are currently gathering dust or being kept secret? It has made me wonder what would happen if the patent system were scrapped. As I see it, the immediate effect would be a whole bunch of very cheap pharmaceuticals hitting the market. I also think this is the only way to create a truly competitive market place, where only the best quality products (or versions of) for a reasonable price would survive. I can imagine it somewhat levelling the income levels of many people as there would be many more companies in the world, with much flatter structures. Not only that, but you would also be more likely to get paid according to how much/how well you work, rather than how well you can exploit others. I think this is probably a very timely subject with the possibility of desktop production machines getting closer and closer. Imagine a world where you can create anything you want in a desktop nano machine, but have to swipe your credit card to pay some corporation patent licence fees, just because they had the resources to beat everyone to the patent office. New inventions are just progressions of existing technology, so given the wheel it was inevitable that someone would build a cart. So why are we paying the cart builders? It would be nice to live in a world where invention was done for its own worth rather than the dreams of piles of cash. Wouldn't that kind of world be better at inventing more useful and effective things rather than the same old crap in a different package? Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 05:55:24 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:55:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802212355.25077.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 21 February 2008, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people What would it mean if they were fundamentally wrong? Would you boycot them? Would you stop inventing? Would you stop using them? > It has made me wonder what would happen if the patent system were > scrapped. As I see it, the immediate effect would be a whole bunch of > very cheap pharmaceuticals hitting the market. I also think this is > the only way to create a truly competitive market place, where only > the best quality products (or versions of) for a reasonable price > would survive. Even the poor-quality products would survive in this information age. Look at how many low quality websites are able to survive. A few bits on a server somewhere, it doesn't take much. Scrapping the patent system will not happen. Instead, perhaps we can work on some collective way of bringing inventions into reality. I have been working on a project off and on this week which might be a suitable introduction platform (if there are any programmers which would like to collaborate, contact me) -- I need to do some quick code cleanup and test a few external APIs. > I can imagine it somewhat levelling the income levels of many people > as there would be many more companies in the world, with much flatter > structures. Not only that, but you would also be more likely to get > paid according to how much/how well you work, rather than how well > you can exploit others. I think this is probably a very timely > subject with the possibility of desktop production machines getting > closer and closer. Imagine a world where you can create anything you > want in a desktop nano machine, but have to swipe your credit card to > pay some corporation patent licence fees, just because they had the > resources to beat everyone to the patent office. Design is something that anybody can do. Art, etc. And why are you talking about income levels? When it comes to nanotech and fabricators, you're generally talking post "money" economics since you're suddenly able to basically make everything you need, if you can survive long enough to figure it out. > New inventions are just progressions of existing technology, so given > the wheel it was inevitable that someone would build a cart. So why > are we paying the cart builders? Money. Old stuff embedded in billions of minds. > It would be nice to live in a world where invention was done for its > own worth rather than the dreams of piles of cash. Wouldn't that kind > of world be better at inventing more useful and effective things > rather than the same old crap in a different package? There *are* people doing stuff just for the hell of it. Art. Open source. Writing emails late at night instead of programming. ;) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 05:58:57 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:58:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rapid prototyping Message-ID: <200802212358.57887.kanzure@gmail.com> So it seems I have lost my edge when it comes to programming. Not entirely. A few years ago I was able to effortlessly hack out hundreds of lines of code in a few minutes, double check the specs, compile, and continue on to the next task, but recently I was talking over some specs with a friend and, without my knowledge, he went off to implement a mockup, as did I, and he did in 20 minutes what took me three times as long. It seems I have been away from the compiler for too long. Any suggestions for improving my game? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From ABlainey at aol.com Fri Feb 22 06:48:12 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:48:12 EST Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents Message-ID: In a message dated 22/02/2008 05:52:53 GMT Standard Time, kanzure at gmail.com writes: > > What would it mean if they were fundamentally wrong? Would you boycot > them? Would you stop inventing? Would you stop using them? The equation: (first to think of it)+(has money for patent)+(jumps through right hoops) = must be paid by all (except the chinese). is just fundamentally wrong. I much prefer: (First to think of it)=(warm fuzzy feeling)+(better world)+(recognition I no longer use patents, but would never stop inventing. Apologies for the chinese snipe. However it is a valid point. How can we be competitive against a nation which generally ignores our patent laws when we are restricting our own productivity and trying to squeeze every dime out of each other? My money is on Mr 'Super happy funtime widget maker' and his 1 billion+ friends. > > > It has made me wonder what would happen if the patent system were > > scrapped. As I see it, the immediate effect would be a whole bunch of > > very cheap pharmaceuticals hitting the market. I also think this is > > the only way to create a truly competitive market place, where only > > the best quality products (or versions of) for a reasonable price > > would survive. > > Even the poor-quality products would survive in this information age. > Look at how many low quality websites are able to survive. A few bits > on a server somewhere, it doesn't take much. Scrapping the patent > system will not happen. Instead, perhaps we can work on some collective > way of bringing inventions into reality. I have been working on a > project off and on this week which might be a suitable introduction > platform (if there are any programmers which would like to collaborate, > contact me) -- I need to do some quick code cleanup and test a few > external APIs. > Why would the poor quality products survive? Data is very different from Hardware. If the consumer has the choice of products he will go for the best quality he can afford. Unless you are talking disposable rubbish items. I Would be happy to help testing if It helps you, but my coding isn't worth a bean (far rustier than yours). So help would need to be in another form. > > I can imagine it somewhat levelling the income levels of many people > > as there would be many more companies in the world, with much flatter > > structures. Not only that, but you would also be more likely to get > > paid according to how much/how well you work, rather than how well > > you can exploit others. I think this is probably a very timely > > subject with the possibility of desktop production machines getting > > closer and closer. Imagine a world where you can create anything you > > want in a desktop nano machine, but have to swipe your credit card to > > pay some corporation patent licence fees, just because they had the > > resources to beat everyone to the patent office. > > Design is something that anybody can do. Art, etc. And why are you > talking about income levels? When it comes to nanotech and fabricators, > you're generally talking post "money" economics since you're suddenly > able to basically make everything you need, if you can survive long > enough to figure it out. > Income is relevant as we still live in a money society, Hopefully this is short term. Even in a post money economy, If you have to pay the piper for his licence, then that will be in blood,sweat and tears. Cash replaced by slavery? No thanks! even with the purely semantic difference between the two . > > New inventions are just progressions of existing technology, so given > > the wheel it was inevitable that someone would build a cart. So why > > are we paying the cart builders? > > Money. Old stuff embedded in billions of minds. Agreed Unfortunately. It would be nice to see a workable non money economy. For what its worth i'm willing to give barter a try. I have about 30 metric tons of english boulder clay. Anyone swap for something? postage might be a bit pricey, but you can pick it up if you have a truck. I'll swap small quantities if you have something small to exchange. > > > It would be nice to live in a world where invention was done for its > > own worth rather than the dreams of piles of cash. Wouldn't that kind > > of world be better at inventing more useful and effective things > > rather than the same old crap in a different package? > > There *are* people doing stuff just for the hell of it. Art. Open > source. Writing emails late at night instead of programming. ;) > > - Bryan > LOL. stop procrastinating and go invent something. Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 22 07:55:22 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:55:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Rapid prototyping In-Reply-To: <200802212358.57887.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200802212358.57887.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080222075522.GW10128@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:58:57PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > So it seems I have lost my edge when it comes to programming. Not > entirely. A few years ago I was able to effortlessly hack out hundreds > of lines of code in a few minutes, double check the specs, compile, and Which language is it in? Whad did it do? Can we see a sample of that code? > continue on to the next task, but recently I was talking over some > specs with a friend and, without my knowledge, he went off to implement > a mockup, as did I, and he did in 20 minutes what took me three times Can we see that code, too? > as long. It seems I have been away from the compiler for too long. Any > suggestions for improving my game? Are you contemplating a career as code monkey? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From xuenay at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 13:11:07 2008 From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:11:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> On 2/22/08, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting I don't know about "fundamentally wrong", but they do slow down innovation. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf has a nice historical example about how the patent system put off the industrial revolution for a couple of decades. -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 13:23:21 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:23:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802220723.22009.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > Why would the poor quality products survive? Data is very different > from Hardware. If the consumer has the choice of products he will go > for the best quality he can afford. > Unless you are talking disposable rubbish items. The data defines the product. This is how we have our mechanical factories, which take RTL files and 3D specs and other stuff and use the CNC mills to chip away to make your plastics, metals, casts, etc. Just because you're a consumer doesn't mean you're not interested in storing an extra 50 KB on your computer to represent some old/worse designs. > I Would be happy to help testing if It helps you, but my coding isn't > worth a bean (far rustier than yours). So help would need to be in > another form. I'll be sending out an email later this weekend to the list. > Income is relevant as we still live in a money society, Hopefully > this is short term. Even in a post money economy, If you have to pay > the piper for his licence, then that will be in blood,sweat and > tears. Cash replaced by slavery? No thanks! even with the purely > semantic difference between the two . Right, but how did that guy get what he has that you want? Intelligence, and this is something else that futurists commonly say will be in abundance in the future given recursive ai. > > > New inventions are just progressions of existing technology, so > > > given the wheel it was inevitable that someone would build a > > > cart. So why are we paying the cart builders? > > > > Money. Old stuff embedded in billions of minds. > > It would be nice to see a workable non money economy. For what its I do not think it would be an 'economy'. > worth i'm willing to give barter a try. I have about 30 metric tons > of english boulder clay. Anyone swap for something? postage might be > a bit pricey, but you can pick it up if you have a truck. I'll swap > small quantities if you have something small to exchange. Or they will just program some bacteria to make some clay from the ground on which they live/stand. And if they don't have any material resources of their own (such as land), I am sure there would be some communities willing to put up with them and give them resources to work with, as long as they meet certain requirements (i.e., you don't want to let just anybody join you up there on the moon or what have you). If you want to barter, that's completely up to you, though I imagine a computerized agent search system to find people wanting to trade for particular items etc. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 13:28:24 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:28:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Rapid prototyping In-Reply-To: <20080222075522.GW10128@leitl.org> References: <200802212358.57887.kanzure@gmail.com> <20080222075522.GW10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802220728.24295.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:58:57PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > So it seems I have lost my edge when it comes to programming. Not > > entirely. A few years ago I was able to effortlessly hack out > > hundreds of lines of code in a few minutes, double check the specs, > > compile, and > > Which language is it in? Whad did it do? Can we see a sample of > that code? In particular, I have been working on a little widgetting system in AJAX, and I only rarely touch XMLHttpRequest, so this is Javascript with CSS/HTML and fancy divs. I have some programmer's art for a diagram: http://heybryan.org/diagrams/micropay-mockup.png And then this is what he did in 20 minutes: http://cgamesplay.com/cryptos/widget.html And this is a few days later on my end (I just have to finish debugging the paypal call, but I have to run off to school in a few minutes here): http://heybryan.org/projects/openpay/widget.php > > continue on to the next task, but recently I was talking over some > > specs with a friend and, without my knowledge, he went off to > > implement a mockup, as did I, and he did in 20 minutes what took me > > three times > > Can we see that code, too? Done. > > as long. It seems I have been away from the compiler for too long. > > Any suggestions for improving my game? > > Are you contemplating a career as code monkey? Nah, the ability to ruthlessly execute many thoughts at once in a precise, defined manner is important to me, not only for being able to encode functionality into my computers, but also for thinking in general. This is how I think, typically - big bursts of thought followed by implementation with wods or code etc. ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 22 13:52:49 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:52:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor Message-ID: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> I've put an advertisement for the transhumantech list on the science subreddit, and it would be nice to move it a bit up to increase exposure, and maybe net a few new contributors. Can a few of you vote below link up? http://reddit.com/info/69lyg/comments/ In case you don't have a reddit account yet, signing up takes literally a couple seconds. Thanks. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 14:08:32 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:08:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802220608t3999e269w3ad33e40b653eef3@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kaj Sotala wrote: > On 2/22/08, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting > > I don't know about "fundamentally wrong", but they do slow down > innovation. Or they do accelerate it, depending on the circumstances. Three centuries of economic and legal studies on the rationale and optimality of IP systems cannot seriously be liquidated in a few, albeit ideologically inspired, lines. The dramatic effects of even slightly different patent systems is a very empirical issue, with no quick-and-easy answers, at least unless one decides to take shortcuts such as the choice of implementing a centrally-controlled economic system. Stefano Vaj From ablainey at aol.com Fri Feb 22 14:39:04 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:39:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CA4377CE68BEB2-19C-35BF@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Kaj Sotala >On 2/22/08, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: >> I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are >> fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting > >I don't know about "fundamentally wrong", but they do slow down >innovation. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf has a >nice historical example about how the patent system put off the >industrial revolution for a couple of decades. Perhaps 'fundamentally wrong' is not appropriate? my simple logic goes: The patent system is to give credit(recognition), protection and renumeration to the 'Inventor' but 1)The inventer must have sufficient funds to pay for the patent 2)The inventer may be working as an employee of a company, so he usually does not get credit and rarely profits except continued employment. 3)For any protection action to be made, the inventor needs further funds for a legal fight. So as I see it, the inventor has to be in a pretty specific situation in order for the system to work. Mainly based upon finances. Thanks for the link, I haven't read it yet, but i'm wondering if any delay caused by the patent system is giving 'compound interest'? Should the singularity have occured decades ago? Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Fri Feb 22 15:07:12 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:07:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <200802220723.22009.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200802220723.22009.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CA437BBCA46BAA-19C-37A3@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > Why would the poor quality products survive? Data is very different > from Hardware. If the consumer has the choice of products he will go > for the best quality he can afford. > Unless you are talking disposable rubbish items. The data defines the product. This is how we have our mechanical factories, which take RTL files and 3D specs and other stuff and use the CNC mills to chip away to make your plastics, metals, casts, etc. Just because you're a consumer doesn't mean you're not interested in storing an extra 50 KB on your computer to represent some old/worse designs. I see what you mean, survival in the design form stored as data. I was referring more to the actual goods themselves as they are on the shelves of your local shop in a pre Nano assembler world. I agree with your point though, I have no doubt that the design storage device on my own assembler will be full to bursting with every iteration of every product design. Just in case!. This is no different to now. My point was that in a truly free market (and patent free) if anyone can make a product, only the best will survive. The exceptions being where supply is low and demand is high. > Income is relevant as we still live in a money society, Hopefully > this is short term. Even in a post money economy, If you have to pay > the piper for his licence, then that will be in blood,sweat and > tears. Cash replaced by slavery? No thanks! even with the purely > semantic difference between the two . Right, but how did that guy get what he has that you want? Intelligence, and this is something else that futurists commonly say will be in abundance in the future given recursive ai. That's as maybe, I'll be among the first in the queue for an upgrade. However like money, intelligence doesn't make for good people, no sireee. It does certainly help though. Also even if a blanket level of intelligence could be achieved, this would not remove the 'Arms race' of technology. It easy to imagine a lovely cosy star trek post money world. However I think systems such a patents (as the currently stand) are barriers to us achieving such an existence. > worth i'm willing to give barter a try. I have about 30 metric tons > of english boulder clay. Anyone swap for something? postage might be > a bit pricey, but you can pick it up if you have a truck. I'll swap > small quantities if you have something small to exchange. Or they will just program some bacteria to make some clay from the ground on which they live/stand. And if they don't have any material resources of their own (such as land), I am sure there would be some communities willing to put up with them and give them resources to work with, as long as they meet certain requirements (i.e., you don't want to let just anybody join you up there on the moon or what have you). If you want to barter, that's completely up to you, though I imagine a computerized agent search system to find people wanting to trade for particular items etc. - Bryan I wasn't talking in the future tense. Do you want some clay? LOL. There are only so many pots a man can make in a garden shed and my better half won't let me build a round house! Seriously, what you seem to elude to is that in a post nano assembler world. It would appear the only thing of any value would be raw materials. I would like to think that Life would also be valued, but fear it will be reduced to simply the knowledge gained being valued. Which in a world where it could be instantly gained from another or stored should they cease to exist (dead or upload vessel destroyed) perhaps even the knowledge/data would have little value? Troubling. Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Fri Feb 22 15:26:21 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:26:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <580930c20802220608t3999e269w3ad33e40b653eef3@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802220608t3999e269w3ad33e40b653eef3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CA437E69D1D04A-AC0-90@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kaj Sotala wrote: > On 2/22/08, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting > > I don't know about "fundamentally wrong", but they do slow down > innovation. Or they do accelerate it, depending on the circumstances. Three centuries of economic and legal studies on the rationale and optimality of IP systems cannot seriously be liquidated in a few, albeit ideologically inspired, lines. The dramatic effects of even slightly different patent systems is a very empirical issue, with no quick-and-easy answers, at least unless one decides to take shortcuts such as the choice of implementing a centrally-controlled economic system. Stefano Vaj I can't see how introducing a barrier or set of hoops can accelerate it. If you mean that two inventors working on the same problem rush in order to beat each other to the clerks office, then this would be no different from them rushing to market. Only they would have extra work in order to secure a patent before going to market. This can take a long time, time which could increase as more inventions are registered and need to be checked against any new inventions. I would be interested if you have any links to support patents speeding innovation. And I agree that IP systems cannot be reduced with just a quick bit of banter. If they could, I wouldn't have posted. Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Feb 22 13:58:54 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:58:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rapid prototyping In-Reply-To: <200802212358.57887.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200802212358.57887.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802220858.54760.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 22 February 2008 00:58, Bryan Bishop wrote: > So it seems I have lost my edge when it comes to programming. Not > entirely. A few years ago I was able to effortlessly hack out hundreds > of lines of code in a few minutes, double check the specs, compile, and > continue on to the next task, but recently I was talking over some > specs with a friend and, without my knowledge, he went off to implement > a mockup, as did I, and he did in 20 minutes what took me three times > as long. It seems I have been away from the compiler for too long. Any > suggestions for improving my game? Practice, practice, practice! Most software is made up of snippets of code that are very familiar. A parsing routine, saving data and recalling it, calculating formulae, getting input to and from the user, sanity checks, interpretting data, translating data, etc. Doing these things over and over makes you much quicker in doing it the next time. You develop a set of tricks to use. You remember what you did last time, and what the gotchas were. You remember debugging a similar problem before and what the answer turned out to be. You will always be slower when you've been away from any task for too long. If you get back into it, you will get back into the swing of things and be back up to speed in no time. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From korpios at korpios.com Fri Feb 22 16:19:20 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:19:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/21/08, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting > credit where credit is due. , likewise no problem with monetary gain from > one's endeavours however I get a biting feeling that patents are purely > selfish and uncivilised. My problem with patents (likewise copyrights) is that they represent a bargain with society, and society is now getting a raw deal. The bargain went something like this: To encourage you to invent (or author works), society will give you a monopoly on the use of your idea *for a limited time*; in exchange, once that time is up, society's public domain is enriched. Give an inch and they'll take a mile, of course. Today, the duration of these monopoly periods has been extended to ludicrous terms: copyright by simply tacking on decades, and patents by not scaling down the term to account for accelerating rates of technological change. Authors and inventors have come to view their IP not as a bargain, but as a *right* ? and damn anyone who wants to take away their *rights* ... right? There are some rumblings of change in the US Trademark and Patent Office, particularly where the idea of "obviousness" is concerned: this idea, that has been frequently ignored by patent inspectors, is that patents aren't supposed to be issued for an idea that someone skilled in the field would come up with as the natural solution to a given problem. Enforcing the "obviousness" rule again is a good step, but I worry at how much damage there is yet to undo. :-/ From korpios at korpios.com Fri Feb 22 16:22:31 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:22:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] META: Regarding "Die for Gaia, save the planet?" In-Reply-To: <200802212057.34893.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <17c701c874a3$a0eb8520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200802211723.07075.kanzure@gmail.com> <200802212057.34893.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/21/08, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Thursday 21 February 2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > > Anything past a dozen and I know some of the tabs are irrelevant to > > what I'm currently doing; I generally stash interesting stuff in > > del.icio.us or whatnot. > > Del.icio.us is not a local cache -- I keep all of my 11k (as in > eleven-zero-zero-zero) bookmarks closeby. Centralization is stale. Centralization is nice when I'm working off of multiple systems. ^_^ > Having said that, what's your delicious account? :) "korpios" From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 18:49:44 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:49:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <8CA437E69D1D04A-AC0-90@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> References: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802220608t3999e269w3ad33e40b653eef3@mail.gmail.com> <8CA437E69D1D04A-AC0-90@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802221049x16478bfes1abeeb374321216f@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM, wrote: > I can't see how introducing a barrier or set of hoops can accelerate it. If > you mean that two inventors working on the same problem rush in order to > beat each other to the clerks office, then this would be no different from > them rushing to market. Only they would have extra work in order to secure a > patent before going to market. This can take a long time, time which could > increase as more inventions are registered and need to be checked against > any new inventions. > I would be interested if you have any links to support patents speeding > innovation. And I agree that IP systems cannot be reduced with just a quick > bit of banter. If they could, I wouldn't have posted. Any manual of IP law would serve the purpose. The theory behind the patent system is that, very roughly: - it provides an incentive not to opt for the alternative and more traditional protection offered by industrial secrets, when the latter is an option, that may in turn end up in monopolies of undetermined duration or loss of technologies, and prevent them from becoming part of the state of the art after a predetermined period; - it compensates for the higher marginal costs of the developer, which in a perfectly efficient market would never be otherwise recoverable, thus effectively preventing the economic sustainability of any R&D investment. Of course, all that comes at a cost for the society. It remains to be seen whether the cost is higher than the utility. I suspect the latter to be the case for pure software patents, for instance. But we are discussing issues that can be *measured*, at least to an extent, so personal hunches are not so relevant. Stefano Vaj From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Feb 22 18:40:55 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:40:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47BF1737.5050101@kevinfreels.com> First of all, you have to remember that applying for a patent is optional. You are free to develop and market your ideas without getting one. I have done so on several occasions. Of course there is a risk that someone else with more money and a better way to market your idea will see it, replicate it, refine it, and you won't make the money you thought you would, but that is the purpose of the patent which you aren't too fond of, so whatever you do, don't let the patent process discourage you from putting your ideas out there. Just do it! I think patents still have a place but the process needs some serious revision. The idea that someone can patent an idea and then sit on it to prevent the competition from doing it is very bad indeed. There should be very short limitations on such things that state that a patent is only good for maybe 1 year unless the product is fully developed and implemented in that time. The place for patents is very understandable when you consider the cost of bringing some products to market. Pharmaceuticals are an excellent example. Why pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development and the FDA approval process if someone can come behind you and sell the same exact thing without having to include those costs in their equation? If I had that kind of money to invest, I would find something else to put my money into besides new products. Maybe I would just wait for someone else to come up with new stuff. Once you go down this road, you realize that the patent process actually encourages new development and not the reverse. Having everyone be like China is not the answer. As you have already noted, nothing "new" comes out of China. Rather than throw patents out the door, what should be done is to re-write patent laws to where they make more sense. Get rid of the ability to sit on a patent without producing a product, and then flat out refuse to purchase products from countries that choose to ignore patents. A note of caution. The US has become very reliant upon cheap goods from China. Doing such a thing would introduce massive levels of inflation. The only reason inflation has been in check for the last 20 years is the increasing outsourcing of manufacturing to China. Once that stops, the results may be very bad. Thus is the reason for the current situation and the likelihood that it will remain despite the obvious long-term result. ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people > getting credit where credit is due. , likewise no problem with > monetary gain from one's endeavours however I get a biting feeling > that patents are purely selfish and uncivilised. > My reasoning is that many super rich people and companies got that way > from patent license fees. In many cases the 'invention' was done by > some hard working minion of the company who probably didn't get much > more than their basic salary for the accomplishment. > I know that as an inventor, I have sat on quite a few inventions, > simply because I didn't have the cash for patents. In several cases > this has led to someone else beating me to the market. Believe it or > not, my first invention was radar for cars that stopped you bumping > into things when you were parking. Sound familiar? So is my hard work > worth less than theirs? How many thousands of useful products are > currently gathering dust or being kept secret? > > It has made me wonder what would happen if the patent system were > scrapped. > As I see it, the immediate effect would be a whole bunch of very cheap > pharmaceuticals hitting the market. I also think this is the only way > to create a truly competitive market place, where only the best > quality products (or versions of) for a reasonable price would survive. > I can imagine it somewhat levelling the income levels of many people > as there would be many more companies in the world, with much flatter > structures. Not only that, but you would also be more likely to get > paid according to how much/how well you work, rather than how well you > can exploit others. > I think this is probably a very timely subject with the possibility of > desktop production machines getting closer and closer. Imagine a world > where you can create anything you want in a desktop nano machine, but > have to swipe your credit card to pay some corporation patent licence > fees, just because they had the resources to beat everyone to the > patent office. > New inventions are just progressions of existing technology, so given > the wheel it was inevitable that someone would build a cart. So why > are we paying the cart builders? > It would be nice to live in a world where invention was done for its > own worth rather than the dreams of piles of cash. Wouldn't that kind > of world be better at inventing more useful and effective things > rather than the same old crap in a different package? > > > Alex > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Feb 22 20:31:08 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:31:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <580930c20802221049x16478bfes1abeeb374321216f@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a13bb8f0802220511v5a5ed23bj5526a5f711ea7bf6@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802220608t3999e269w3ad33e40b653eef3@mail.gmail.com> <8CA437E69D1D04A-AC0-90@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> <580930c20802221049x16478bfes1abeeb374321216f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47BF310C.1040400@kevinfreels.com> I don't recall exactly who said it earlier, but there was mention of the "obvious" nature of certain inventions. I agree it would make a lot of sense to exclude things that are both obvious, and that require very little real ingenuity. Also, I think a patent should not be issued until the research and development has been done to actually manufacture the product. The "patent pending" process is sufficient for that and should only be valid to protect the company while they are investing in the manufacture of the product. Once products are brought to market, patent terms relative to the R&D investment would make a lot of sense. Of course how you quantify this and keep these guidelines from being entirely arbitrary would have to be worked out. On IP it becomes a bit different since the investment is minimal, the risk of no return is high and the cost to recreate it from scratch is about the same as the cost to the original creator. Some different categories come to mind but they all have similarities. 1.) Photography: I owned a photography business for several years so understand this one the most. The idea is that I take a camera out and through my experience and training I create a unique piece of work that I "own" the rights to. So no one can reproduce it without my permission. I can decide to give permission if someone pays me what I think it is worth. Of course there is nothing stopping someone from going to the exact same spot with the same equipment and recreating the same scene since I don't own the scene itself, just the image on the media used to store it. So the cost for someone else to recreate the scene is about the same as the cost to me. So the value to a buyer is only a matter of convenience. It is EASIER to pay me for my work than to recreate it or obtain an otherwise sufficient similar image from someone else. Since it is becoming easier to do such a thing, the overall value is dropping in photographic images. The market has not yet figured this out. Take school photos for example. My kids come home with an 8x10 and I am told that if I want a copy of it, I must pay $15.00. This is outrageous. I can take better photos and print them on my computer for 50 cents. So I pack them up and send them back. No doubt many people scan them and print them. I don't simply out of respect for the photographer, but I am sure it happens a lot. The company of course knows this which is why they charge so much for those who do choose to buy them. What they don't realize is that if they simply sold them for $5.00 I would have gladly bought them because it was EASIER. 2.) The same is true with paintings. In the past, the only way to have a good quality rendition of something was to hire a painter. Photography devalued the price of paintings. But at the same time, the best of the painters still commanded high payments for their work despite the cheaper and more accurate reproductions made by cameras. And the ability to photograph a painting and make prints has devalued it even further. Only a select few with lots of money are willing to pay top dollar for a painting. Notice that copyright laws don't really apply to this. Laws are only useful if they can be enforced and in this case, the laws are useless. 3.) Music. Again it has lost value because it has become easier to reproduce. The music and movie industries are still in denial. DRM for example doesn't really help. It's difficult to deal with so I only by DRM free music. I am willing to pay money for convenience and good music but I won't buy music when the price is inconvenience+ money. The key to keeping me paying has nothing to do with IP rights. It's about it being easier to go to amazon.com and download a song to my library than it is to copy it from a friend. The price of 89 cents with no DRM is worth it to me for most songs. No song is worth the trouble of DRM. I have to ask again, do IP rights even weigh into my purchasing decisions? There are often tribute bands that can recreate the songs in a similar fashion and are even occasionally better. Here one must ask if the writer "owns" the "instructions" for the performance or the recorded performance itself.....Here again, convenience and the ability to reproduce are key to buying decisions. 4.) Movies: Just about the same as music but much more expensive to produce initially. I can see much more justification here, but as VR gets better I expect the cost of movie productions to come down dramatically at which point we're about the same place as music. Still, no matter the technology, it would cost another studio roughly the same to create a similar rendition of another film. Again, does the writer own the "story" or just the "script"? 5.) Literature: A lot of time and effort go into producing a good piece of work, but what is to keep someone from coming behind that person and writing something nearly identical - but not quite? Here again, the investment is minimal and the ability to recreate a similar story would require similar investment. In all of these, I think IP rights are pretty much useless. Their only purpose is to increase the cost of obtaining specific material. If it increases the cost of an original work, it decreases the demand. Computer software is a mixture of both. Some things require a significant investment while others are simple pieces of art easily replicated. Still others are "obvious" improvements. The only way to properly categorize such things would be to set an arbitrary investment threshold that says that if X dollars are spent in R&D on a product then it is protected for N years. How such a thing would fit into existing laws and the details are beyond me. Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM, wrote: > >> I can't see how introducing a barrier or set of hoops can accelerate it. If >> you mean that two inventors working on the same problem rush in order to >> beat each other to the clerks office, then this would be no different from >> them rushing to market. Only they would have extra work in order to secure a >> patent before going to market. This can take a long time, time which could >> increase as more inventions are registered and need to be checked against >> any new inventions. >> I would be interested if you have any links to support patents speeding >> innovation. And I agree that IP systems cannot be reduced with just a quick >> bit of banter. If they could, I wouldn't have posted. >> > > Any manual of IP law would serve the purpose. The theory behind the > patent system is that, very roughly: > - it provides an incentive not to opt for the alternative and more > traditional protection offered by industrial secrets, when the latter > is an option, that may in turn end up in monopolies of undetermined > duration or loss of technologies, and prevent them from becoming part > of the state of the art after a predetermined period; > - it compensates for the higher marginal costs of the developer, which > in a perfectly efficient market would never be otherwise recoverable, > thus effectively preventing the economic sustainability of any R&D > investment. > > Of course, all that comes at a cost for the society. It remains to be > seen whether the cost is higher than the utility. I suspect the latter > to be the case for pure software patents, for instance. But we are > discussing issues that can be *measured*, at least to an extent, so > personal hunches are not so relevant. > > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 22:16:56 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802131606o4ea7a841x7675346f79bd7981@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221416s7b0bb14eo96a8ca6fbe3aecbb@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > The state writes its own laws *with* input from you if it is a > democracy. Unfortunately, even if you live in Lichtenstein, the large > number of club members means that one vote doesn't count for very > much. ### Yeah, it's good that we can agree on this. Your vote doesn't count for very much. ------------------------------ Moreover, in a democracy and in theory (if often not in > practice) even in an autocracy there is an impartial body that > enforces the laws, namely the courts. It's the principle of > "separation of powers". This usually breaks down when one state > attacks another state: the US can do things to foreigners on foreign > soil that it would have difficulty doing to its own citizens because > there is no world government or world court with any teeth. And I > assume a body with such universal jurisdiction and power of > enforcement would be a libertarian's worst nightmare. > ### Absolutely yes! -------------------------- > > > So, in the dispute with the dachshund club you are not the underdog, > > and thanks to the independent court you are an equal player. Since you > > reviewed you membership contract before signing it, it's surely not > > stacked against you and gives you a good bargain, or else you wouldn't > > have signed. Don't you think the situation is different in dealing > > with the state (for clarity of vision try to compare the doggie club > > with the North Korean state, and only as a next step consider the > > temporarily tame state you live in). > > The difference is that most people live in a country because they were > born there, and they they therefore don't have a chance to read and > agree to the contract. However, they can emigrate when they are > adults, or their parents could have chosen to emigrate to a more > suitable country before they were born. ### Does this exit option legitimize monopolistic political rule? "If you run away, we won't even try to kill you, ergo, we are the good fellas". ---------------------------------- > North Korea is an exception, but in general it is not difficult to > leave a country, although it is considerably more difficult to gain > permanent residency status in another country. But that is the case > with other "free" markets. I can't easily become a movie star or an > astronaut even though in a sense I am perfectly "free" to do so. ### But nobody is stopping you *by force* from trying to become one. Big, big difference, as in legitimate versus immoral. --------------------------------- > I have to respect the fact that these are your values, but other > people might have different values. For example, a political party > could easily propose tax cuts to be paid for by dismantling the public > health system but in most countries even the conservatives don't do > this, because they think they'll lose. The moral position is that > every citizen has the obligation to contribute to a universally > accessible health care system according to their abilities and the > right to use this system according to their needs. This is considered > "fair", while you would consider it "unfair". An impasse in debate is > therefore reached. > ### But note - due to my beliefs I will not use force or authorize its use beyond direct defense of my life and property, while you appear to be willing to condone the use any means at your disposal to enforce my compliance with your wishes. As long as you embrace the initiation of force as well as networked encirclement against me, you can't say that you "respect" my values, can you? There is a moral difference between us - your ends ("universally accessible health system") justify your means ("obligation to contribute". i.e. pay or die), while my beliefs about means ("Don't kill innocent people") constrain my choice of ends ("a peaceful world where violence is not tolerated"). Rafal From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 22 22:40:50 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:40:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Pope-Politicians-Physicists-Maiani Affair Message-ID: When we last left the viewers to the Italian soap-opera, they heard about the physicists' private-letter-made-public objecting to the Rome La Sapienza rector's invitation to the Pope to speak at the university's inaugural event, the students' sit-in against the Pope's speaking, the Pope's withdrawal of his visit, the Italian politicians' reprisal against one of the letter's signatures: Professor Maiani, to block his CNR presidential candidacy, and words from Prof. Maiani, himself on the whole situation. Links are included below. For some time it looked like CNR's appointment of Maiani was stalled: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/maianis-confirmation-at-cnr-stuck-in-the-mud/ Especially when the Italian Parliament kicked into high gear, showing their own stellar qualities. Gabriella Carlucci, a showgirl-Parliamentarian in the Forza Italia party, expressed her public opposition to the appointment of Luciano Maiani as President of CNR, with stratospheric-level criticisms on his scientific qualifications. Her criticisms prompted Sheldon Glashow, colleague of Maiani and Nobel Laureate in Physics, to write to the Italian prime minister, Romani Prodi, in order to correct her errors. Sra Carlucci, further responded, thrusting her foot into her mouth and out the other side: "If Maiani and his friends are, as you say, stellar luminaries highly esteemed throughout the world, why did they never win a Nobel prize ? Yet, italian Particle Physics (and in particular that in Rome) is in percentage and absolute value among the best financed in the world." The dialog is below on Tommaso Dorigo's blog: Glashow humiliates Carlucci on Maiani's appointment http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/glashow-humiliates-carlucci-on-maianis-appointment/ At this time, Professor Maiani, is indeed nominated to head Italy's largest research network. Stay tuned for the next installment of As the As the Mondo-di-Pope-Politicians-Physicists-Maiani Turns. Amara Previous Links: ---------------- Storm over Rome: Physicists against Pope Ratzinger http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/storm-over-rome-physicists-against-pope-ratzinger/ Summarized for you: the aborted speech of Pope Ratzinger http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/summarized-for-you-the-aborted-speech-of-pope-ratzinger/ Ratzinger divides, Maiani unites http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/ratzinger-divides-maiani-unites/ Maiani speaks on the Ratzinger Affair http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/maiani-speaks-on-the-ratzinger-affair/ -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 22:44:24 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:44:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] size of polities In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802140904p4db19bf3pe728c6e05bf63cd6@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802151837j6c3ee8c8n7b47674c9359dc50@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802161325i3974a565vf562c0236e55a6f6@mail.gmail.com> <165201c8718c$4df60cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221444p40fc91beye8fceaf1163ea47c@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > A broader view might restate your assessment in terms of information > technology (in the broad sense that paper documents and even town > meetings are technologies), recognizing that while historically > "obvious" that a nation could not effectively represent, let alone > model, the fine-grained values-complexes of its constituents, we have > now at hand technology capable of representing, modeling, aggregating > our values in **better** detail than we previously could know even > ourselves, c.f. amazon, lastfm, pandora, etc. ### But note that all these services are something you can use, alone or in combination, and easily drop any or all services whenever you want to. This is the main difference between an arrangement likely to represent desires of individuals and others that don't - not size, since even the smallest state can successfully trample over you, but the easy exit option (or lack of networked encirclement). ------------------------------------------------- > We are beginning to see that prediction markets, betting on expected > outcomes, has many advantages over "democratic" voting. Less > well-recognized is the meta-benefit -- and within a societal context, > the moral imperative -- of rather than betting on specific outcomes, > betting on the efficacy of the principles driving successful outcomes > > Apologies in advance for the density of my comments. I am in fact quite dense. ### Ah, a restatement of "The ends do not justify the means". Good, very good. Rafal From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 23:01:12 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:01:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <8CA437BBCA46BAA-19C-37A3@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> References: <200802220723.22009.kanzure@gmail.com> <8CA437BBCA46BAA-19C-37A3@webmail-me08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200802221701.12656.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > That's as maybe, I'll be among the first in the queue for an upgrade. > However like money, intelligence doesn't make for good people, no > sireee. It does certainly help though. Also even if a blanket level > of intelligence could be achieved, this would not remove the 'Arms > race' of technology. It easy to imagine a lovely cosy star trek post > money world. However I think systems such a patents (as the currently > stand) are barriers to us achieving such an existence. Star Trek was Marxist in the sense of "post money" where everybody was entitled to a rationing. That's not what I am talking about at all. I am much more Star Wars. ;) > Seriously, what you seem to elude to is that in a post nano assembler > world. It would appear the only thing of any value would be raw > materials. I would like to think that Life would also be valued, but > fear it will be reduced to simply the knowledge gained being valued. We are already in a nano assembler world (cells). They make us. They make life. We are now starting to learn to program. And you say that this will cause us to devalue life? If anything, we will begin to experience reality more and on a deeper level than before. > Which in a world where it could be instantly gained from another or > stored should they cease to exist (dead or upload vessel destroyed) > perhaps even the knowledge/data would have little value? Troubling. The value of life is not dying? Doubly troubling. Many of us will die. Are we to say that we therefore contribute no 'value' whatever this may be to the rest of the world? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 23:04:12 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:04:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I've put an advertisement for the transhumantech list on the science > subreddit, and it would be nice to move it a bit up to increase > exposure, and maybe net a few new contributors. Can a few of you vote > below link up? Eugen, why has there only been 10 up votes on the reddit site? Surely there's more reddit users hanging around these mailing lists than this, right? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 23:06:49 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:06:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <47BF310C.1040400@kevinfreels.com> References: <580930c20802221049x16478bfes1abeeb374321216f@mail.gmail.com> <47BF310C.1040400@kevinfreels.com> Message-ID: <200802221706.49933.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > On IP it becomes a bit different since the investment is minimal, the > risk of no return is high and the cost to recreate it from scratch is > about the same as the cost to the original creator. Some different > categories come to mind but they all have similarities. Oh. Patents exist to help manage investor risk. It's like trying to cut up ideaspace for monetary investment, selling the unsellable. It's a security industry for investors. Interesting ... but are there any other ways to garner significant support for a project without monetary commitments of the sort that need such lofty risk management and shady IP practices? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 23:30:55 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:30:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221530s14e9776euaaa15600c4f4f4aa@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 19/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > > That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience of Australian public > hospitals. The health bureaucrats fight fiercely to give hospitals as > little money as possible and to get maximum value out of every dollar. > If a hospital underperforms or overspends, management is liable to be > sacked. The idea is to ensure not only that the finite health budget > is spent equitably, but also efficiently. ### This is not plausible. The bureaucrat does not get sacked for poor outcomes but mainly for not following his bureaucratic rules. There is no short feedback loop from the patient to the bureaucrat (you as a patient can't fire him, but rather you have to lobby a politician to do so, or in the next elections get a new politician and pray to your god of choice he will put pressure on the bureaucrat to perform), only feedback loops are between the bureaucrat and his superior bureaucrat, who approves his salary. In other words, the bureaucrat is not an agent of the patient, he is an agent of other bureaucrats. This is dramatically different from the feedback loops between a patient and a doctor who can be fired on the spot, or an insurance plan that can be changed with a few phone calls. ------------------------------------ > > In health, at least, it seems that the free market is *less* efficient > than government. The US has the highest ratio of private to public > health spending in the developed world, but total per capita health > spending is about 50% more than in the other countries, while health > outcomes are by most measures slightly worse. ### No, health outcomes are better in the US, if you look at specific conditions occurring in comparable patient groups. The overhead and deadweight losses due to government monopoly in health care are not counted as cost of public care, which artificially reduces the price estimates. Of course, the US public is going to spend more on health care in absolute terms, since the US public is wealthier than in other countries. And of course, since a part of private health spending serves a signaling purpose (as Robin Hanson teaches), allowing more direct patient input in treatment choices will result in increased spending on marginally effective (or even ineffective) but impressive medical interventions (PET scans for AD, proton accelerators for cancer, etc.). Rafal From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 23:43:48 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:43:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Eugen, why has there only been 10 up votes on the reddit site? Surely > there's more reddit users hanging around these mailing lists than this, > right? > Sites like reddit and digg create their front page by their readership voting up articles that they like. So on the front page their readers see what their readership is interested in. If a particular individual is not in the same general interest group as the readership, then there will be little of interest there for them. It is a self-selection system. Personally I am not a member of sites like these. I very occasionally look at their front page just to check if I'm missing out on something. But my reading time is mostly booked up already with mailing lists, RSS feeds and news aggregators that I have specifically selected as being of interest to me. YMMV BillK From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:00:32 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:00:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221600p78c633abh61f8b330669d706e@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:26 AM, wrote: > I have been thinking recently about patents and whether they are > fundamentally wrong. As an inventor I have no problem with people getting > credit where credit is due. , likewise no problem with monetary gain from > one's endeavours however I get a biting feeling that patents are purely > selfish and uncivilised. > My reasoning is that many super rich people and companies got that way from > patent license fees. ### Jeez, somebody is getting rich! This must be stopped forthwith! ---------------------------- In many cases the 'invention' was done by some hard > working minion of the company who probably didn't get much more than their > basic salary for the accomplishment. ### So why did he sign away his rights (because by law the inventor owns the patent unless he relinquishes his rights in the application)? Maybe because the company provided $ 50,000,000 worth of infrastructure and supplies to make his invention real? ----------------------------------------------------------------- > I know that as an inventor, I have sat on quite a few inventions, simply > because I didn't have the cash for patents. In several cases this has led to > someone else beating me to the market. ### Wait, if patenting was cheaper, would you avail yourself of this avenue? Is the 60,000$ the only reason stopping you from being "uncivilised" and purely selfish? -------------------------------- > It has made me wonder what would happen if the patent system were scrapped. > As I see it, the immediate effect would be a whole bunch of very cheap > pharmaceuticals hitting the market. ### The first effect would be me quitting my job (trying to invent a drug for mitochondrial disease). The intermediate effect would be lots of cheap stuff being made. The long term effect would be absolutely nothing more than cheap old stuff forever. For expensive, new and better stuff you would have to move to another country. ---------------------------------------------- I also think this is the only way to > create a truly competitive market place, where only the best quality > products (or versions of) for a reasonable price would survive. ### Yes, make it impossible to earn a return on creative work! This would really make for the best quality products! ------------------------------------------------ > I can imagine it somewhat levelling the income levels of many people as > there would be many more companies in the world, with much flatter > structures. Not only that, but you would also be more likely to get paid > according to how much/how well you work, rather than how well you can > exploit others. ### Lovely! --------------------------------------------- > New inventions are just progressions of existing technology, so given the > wheel it was inevitable that someone would build a cart. So why are we > paying the cart builders? ### Yeah, sure, nobody needs to sweat and labor on an invention, it all comes easily, inevitably even, no need to pay extra. --------------------------------------- > It would be nice to live in a world where invention was done for its own > worth rather than the dreams of piles of cash. ### Let me think, what would I invent if I didn't want to make money on mitochondrial disease treatment: A giant titanium whirligig? Really tiny mechanical gizmo for milking mealybugs, so I could find out if their sweet secretions taste well? I am sure I would have a lot of fun but, unfortunately, there are bills to be paid, so it's back to my test tubes. ----------------------------------------------- Wouldn't that kind of world > be better at inventing more useful and effective things rather than the same > old crap in a different package? ### By making sure the inventor doesn't get paid, you would no doubt make his inventions much more useful, inventive, and fun. Sorry, I just couldn't stop myself from being sarcastic.....but at least I am not getting paid for it. Rafal From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:08:34 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:08:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802221808.34891.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, BillK wrote: > It is a self-selection system. Yeah, but in these systems it usually only requires 100 people to vote it up and get it on a front page somewhere or in a main feed. So, my point is that apparently we're not getting that many people to click. > Personally I am not a member of sites like these. I very occasionally > look at their front page just to check if I'm missing out on > something. But my reading time is mostly booked up already with > mailing lists, RSS feeds and news aggregators that I have > specifically selected as being of interest to me. Wanna swap OPML files? Here's mine: http://heybryan.org/bookmarks/2007-12-20.opml - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 23 00:05:34 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:05:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider Message-ID: To add to the post from some weeks back, there is an excellent article with gorgeous photos and clearly written explanations at the National Geographic about the LHC: At the Heart of All Matter The hunt for the God particle By Joel Achenbach http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text/1 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:11:04 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:11:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221611q128b44e1oa8f4dd0ef3c0b403@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:48 AM, wrote: How can we be competitive > against a nation which generally ignores our patent laws when we are > restricting our own productivity and trying to squeeze every dime out of > each other? ### How do you win? Wait. Just wait until the Chinese are too rich to be interested in making the cheap crap and will try to make real money on more advanced stuff that you can't mooch off other people. They will have to rely on their own companies to actually innovate, and presto, strong IP protection will be the top slogan in the rewritten Little Red Book. You can't outcompete people who innovate unless you innovate, too, and you can't innovate without paying inventors. It's as simple as that. Rafal From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 23 00:26:26 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:26:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] reprehensible prejudice by turkmenistan president In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802230026.m1N0QUwj002441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/22/television Would Berdy have gone to such absurd extremes had it been a butterfly that made an impromptu news debut? How about a beetle? Why should these particular beasts be so uniquely and unfairly singled out and reviled? spike From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:42:27 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:42:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802221611q128b44e1oa8f4dd0ef3c0b403@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221611q128b44e1oa8f4dd0ef3c0b403@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802221842.27669.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Little Red Book. You can't outcompete people who innovate unless you > innovate, too, and you can't innovate without paying inventors. It's > as simple as that. I think you can if you steal. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:44:45 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:44:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > Today, the duration of these monopoly periods has been extended to > ludicrous terms: copyright by simply tacking on decades, and patents > by not scaling down the term to account for accelerating rates of > technological change. ### So you think that if progress accelerates, you need to make sure to pay less for it? We all know that technological change accelerated in many fields, shortening the mean useful lifetime of an invention, frequently below the duration of the patent itself, thus reducing the time in which the inventor may recoup his investment. And you say that the inventor should be further punished by making patent duration shorter? I see it quite differently - IP, including copyright and patents, should be forever. No limits whatsoever. If you invented the wheel, your 55th generation descendant should still get the royalties.... unless somebody else invented the wheel independently in the meantime. Every time somebody invents something independently, he should be entitled to the same protection, again, and again. Today this sort of a system would be still impossible, since we cannot yet analyze the contents of a new inventor's mind to determine if he indeed invented on his own, or just cribbed from the PTO site. But in the not-too-distant future it will be possible to prove the satisfaction of any court that a given mind was never exposed to information about a device made public previously. It will be possible to excise any idea of a the wheel from your mind, and try to find out if you can re-invent it on your own. Please note that this system would introduce an automatic, self-correcting pricing mechanism in the sale of inventions - if an invention is easy to replicate by re-doing it from scratch ("obvious"), you won't be able to charge much - in fact, you will be able to charge only the equilibrium market price, or the marginal price (see "marginal analysis" in an economics textbook). If an invention is extremely difficult to reproduce , i.e you need to build thousands of such independent inventor minds working for years to have a chance of reinventing it, again the marginal price would prevail but at a higher level, no less than the marginal cost of all these inventor-years. In other words, inventions would be competitively made and sold just like bread and all other commodities. There would be no need for an artificial time-limit, one-size-fits-all rules, etc. and everything would run as smoothly as a Toyota. Rafal BTW, those of you with long memories may recall that many years ago I used to argue in almost the opposite direction on the same subject on this list. I changed my mind :) From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:53:15 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:53:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802221853.15494.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > on his own, or just cribbed from the PTO site. But in the > not-too-distant future it will be possible to prove the satisfaction > of any court that a given mind was never exposed to information about > a device made public previously. Interesting idea, but limited. Suppose that I have never seen the invention of patent xyz, but instead I see parts of the same signal in other ways, such as different people saying parts of the patent, but in no specified way that would be necessarily identifiable as the patent itself, merely as something that would lead me to think the same thoughts given my known neurochemistry. This makes for a blurry situation, and even if you had access to all inputs since the beginning that a particular person has had, when do you stop being schizophrenic and drawing useless connections between all parts of the datastream? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Feb 23 00:50:12 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:50:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] reprehensible prejudice by turkmenistan president In-Reply-To: <200802230026.m1N0QUwj002441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802230026.m1N0QUwj002441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080222184728.095f6530@satx.rr.com> At 04:26 PM 2/22/2008 -0800, Spike fwd'd: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/22/television <"Our flourishing nation should not stand separate from the world," Berdymukhamedov told state-run television. He added: "It absolutely should have a worthy operatic theatre and a worthy state theatre." The first opera would be performed in six or seven months, he suggested. > Let's hope it's not an opera of Kafka's "Metamorphosis"... perhaps by Steve Berkoff: http://www.amrep.org/articles/3_3c/adapted.html From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 00:50:16 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:50:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <200802221842.27669.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221611q128b44e1oa8f4dd0ef3c0b403@mail.gmail.com> <200802221842.27669.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802221650n38362fb8uf1cf94bb48e5eefe@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Little Red Book. You can't outcompete people who innovate unless you > > innovate, too, and you can't innovate without paying inventors. It's > > as simple as that. > > I think you can if you steal. ### If you steal (and you are a true master of idea stealing, plucking them from inventor's minds even before they manage to transform them into products and services), you can catch up, but not overtake them. In practice, stealing cutting-edge ideas is very difficult, so relying on theft alone will assure you will stay behind forever. Rafal From pjmanney at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 05:48:05 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:48:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of American Unreason" Message-ID: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com> We, who frequent lists like these, are often astounded when we see statistics about the number of people who believe in the literalness of biblical texts, or who don't think evolution is valid or who think the sun revolves around the earth. What most of us fail to examine is why. And it isn't as simple as religion vs. secularism. Susan Jacoby, author of "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism", has published a new book, "The Age of American Unreason" which examines the reasons for the dumbing down of American culture. Neither the political left, nor the right gets a passing grade in her estimation. They are both to blame for the hot water of ignorance we're stewing in. She's my kinda gal. And she's interviewed by Bill Moyers -- one of my favorite television journalists. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/watch2.html [Sorry for the America-centric post, but I think that non-Americans might learn a good deal about why the US is the way it is from this and realize that the dumbing down of culture is not an American-only problem. It comes from a world where there is too much information and not enough sense to prioritize it, so we ignore it instead -- to our peril.] PJ From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 06:05:17 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:05:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of American Unreason" In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 February 2008, PJ Manney wrote: > We, who frequent lists like these, are often astounded when we see > statistics about the number of people who believe in the literalness > of biblical texts, or who don't think evolution is valid or who think > the sun revolves around the earth. ?What most of us fail to examine > is why. ?And it isn't as simple as religion vs. secularism. My bet is that these people are using cached thoughts when answering the statistic questionaires. After all, how hard is it to just recognize which opinion you most side with? And how much more difficult is it to coherently write down what you think and how you are approaching the future? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From jedwebb at hotmail.com Sat Feb 23 07:46:10 2008 From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:46:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] You're in the barrel today, gordon: Was RE: Large Hadron Collider In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, I enjoyed that, even I could understand it! Jeremy> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:05:34 -0700> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org> From: amara at amara.com> Subject: [ExI] Large Hadron Collider _________________________________________________________________ Telly addicts unite! http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 09:45:47 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:45:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: <200802221808.34891.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> <200802221808.34891.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Wanna swap OPML files? Here's mine: > http://heybryan.org/bookmarks/2007-12-20.opml > A big collection. :) I had a look through it. Most of it seems to be too specialized for me. I'm not a scientist or academic. ;) I have a lot of technical computer science & industry stuff instead, which probably wouldn't be of interest to you. I don't join forums much, as they tend to be quite wide-ranging and I usually find myself scanning over a lot I'm not particularly interested in. There are millions of blogs out there and I have to be very selective about which I read. I'm bound to be missing some good ones, but there just isn't enough time to read everybody's musings. I check Technorati, Bloglines, etc. to see which blogs are leading the pack and might interest me. Here are some bits of my reader selections that might interest you: BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 13:44:51 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:44:51 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802221530s14e9776euaaa15600c4f4f4aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802221530s14e9776euaaa15600c4f4f4aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 23/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience of Australian public > > hospitals. The health bureaucrats fight fiercely to give hospitals as > > little money as possible and to get maximum value out of every dollar. > > If a hospital underperforms or overspends, management is liable to be > > sacked. The idea is to ensure not only that the finite health budget > > is spent equitably, but also efficiently. > > > ### This is not plausible. The bureaucrat does not get sacked for poor > outcomes but mainly for not following his bureaucratic rules. There is > no short feedback loop from the patient to the bureaucrat (you as a > patient can't fire him, but rather you have to lobby a politician to > do so, or in the next elections get a new politician and pray to your > god of choice he will put pressure on the bureaucrat to perform), only > feedback loops are between the bureaucrat and his superior bureaucrat, > who approves his salary. In other words, the bureaucrat is not an > agent of the patient, he is an agent of other bureaucrats. The bureaucratic rules are "make the hospital function as effectively and efficiently as possible". This is measured in terms of multiple outcomes, such as length of waiting lists, surgical complication rates, patient feedback, expenditure, income, and so on. Patients are free to go to another hospital, public or private, if they wish. Private hospitals in Australia are generally smaller, and if they get a complicated case they often put them in an ambulance and send them to the nearest public hospital. The only real advantage to having private health insurance in Australia (apart from tax advantages for higher income earners) is that there is a shorter waiting list for some elective surgical procedures; but as soon as a deficit in the public system like this is identified there is pressure from the ministry to improve the situation using available funds, and pressure from the community to increase available funds if this doesn't work. Thus, the pool of money is constantly shifted around to where it will do the most good, and the size of the pool is adjusted to what the community is willing to pay. > This is dramatically different from the feedback loops between a > patient and a doctor who can be fired on the spot, or an insurance > plan that can be changed with a few phone calls. If you don't like your doctor or your nurse in a public hospital you can complain about them in the same way as you can complain about the employees in any private corporation, and with the same consequences to them. You can also go elsewhere, including to a private hospital. The private choice is not available to poor people, but a large number of relatively wealthy people still choose the public system, sometimes even when they have private health insurance but they believe they have a serious illness. > > In health, at least, it seems that the free market is *less* efficient > > than government. The US has the highest ratio of private to public > > health spending in the developed world, but total per capita health > > spending is about 50% more than in the other countries, while health > > outcomes are by most measures slightly worse. > > > ### No, health outcomes are better in the US, if you look at specific > conditions occurring in comparable patient groups. The overhead and > deadweight losses due to government monopoly in health care are not > counted as cost of public care, which artificially reduces the price > estimates. Of course, the US public is going to spend more on health > care in absolute terms, since the US public is wealthier than in other > countries. And of course, since a part of private health spending > serves a signaling purpose (as Robin Hanson teaches), allowing more > direct patient input in treatment choices will result in increased > spending on marginally effective (or even ineffective) but impressive > medical interventions (PET scans for AD, proton accelerators for > cancer, etc.). The US spends more as a proportion of GDP, not just in absolute terms. I would have said that the overhead and dead weight losses of multiple health insurance funds seeking to avoid paying patients wherever possible (with all the duplicated corporate bureaucracy that involves), the better prices drug companies can get for their products in a fragmented market, and the cost of medical litigation explains where some of that money goes. As for outcomes, we have talked about this before, but it's really hard to explain why you have to finesse the statistics to explain why the US is near the bottom of the OECD list on almost every parameter the WHO measures while spending 50-100% more than most other countries. Could it really be that Americans as a group get sick *so much* more often and/or severely than Canadians and Australians (who are basically the same demographic) that despite the superior and expensive health care they still die younger? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 13:55:05 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:55:05 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of American Unreason" In-Reply-To: <200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com> <200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 23/02/2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2008, PJ Manney wrote: > > We, who frequent lists like these, are often astounded when we see > > statistics about the number of people who believe in the literalness > > of biblical texts, or who don't think evolution is valid or who think > > the sun revolves around the earth. What most of us fail to examine > > is why. And it isn't as simple as religion vs. secularism. > > > My bet is that these people are using cached thoughts when answering the > statistic questionaires. After all, how hard is it to just recognize > which opinion you most side with? And how much more difficult is it to > coherently write down what you think and how you are approaching the > future? It's a terrible thing even if they don't really believe it, but just feel that it's the "right" answer to give. -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 16:00:17 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:00:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> <200802221808.34891.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802231000.17338.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 23 February 2008, BillK wrote: > I have a lot of technical computer science & industry stuff instead, > which probably wouldn't be of interest to you. I feel like C3PO: "Why Sir! My _first_ language was compsci!" > Here are some bits of my reader selections that might interest you: Thanks. :) - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 23 16:04:48 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:04:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of AmericanUnreason" In-Reply-To: <200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802231605.m1NG56xm018499@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Bryan Bishop > Subject: Re: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of > AmericanUnreason" > > On Friday 22 February 2008, PJ Manney wrote: > > We, who frequent lists like these, are often astounded when we see > > statistics about the number of people who believe in the > literalness > > of biblical texts... > > My bet is that these people are using cached thoughts when > answering the statistic questionaires. After all, how hard is > it to just recognize which opinion you most side with?... - Bryan Ron Numbers in his book The Creationists goes into detail on this. He shows how large is the percentage of people taking these kinds of questionaires who give answers that are clearly self contradictory. He goes on to suggest that if you throw out all questionaires that contain contradictory answers, then the consistent evolution believers outnumber the consistent creation believers by a healthy factor. Of course you end up throwing out a very large majority of the questionaires. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Feb 23 17:20:16 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:20:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Ranger, the most powerful supercomputing system in the world Message-ID: <2d6187670802230920v1f972994l61dc4cdd6743db63@mail.gmail.com> Exciting times... http://asunews.asu.edu/20080222_ranger Ranger, the most powerful supercomputing system in the world and one in which Arizona State University researchers played a key role in its development and operation, was dedicated Feb. 22 in a ceremony at the University of Texas-Austin. The $59 million computer project is led by UT-Austin and funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF). Ranger ushers in the "Petascale Era" in high-performance computing. It is the largest high performance computing resource on NSF's "TeraGrid," a nationwide network of academic high performance computing centers that provides scientists and researchers access to large-scale computing power and resources. Ranger will provide more than 500 million processor hours of computing time to the science community, performing the equivalent of more than 200,000 years of computational work over its four-year lifetime. ASU researchers have been working on innovative application development strategies, data management technologies and training opportunities in the project. Ranger is designed to help scientists tackle many of the "grand challenges" of science, from mapping the universe to comprehending the myriad cosmic forces and environmental processes that affect the Earth, and to more fully understanding the intricacies of human and plant biology, said Dan Stanzione, director of the High Performance Computing Institute at Arizona State University. "Much of our role is as trainer and consultant for users of Ranger, helping them to get the best science possible out of the system," added Stanzione, an assistant professor in the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering. "We also will be evaluating new software technologies that we can incorporate into Ranger to make it an even better supercomputing system." The Texas Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas-Austin is home to Ranger. Others involved in the project include UT's Institute for Computational and Engineering Sciences, Cornell University, Sun Microsystems and Advanced Micro Devices. The project's goal is to deploy and support world-class high-performance systems with tremendous computing capacity to enhance leading U.S. research programs. At 504 teraflops of peak performance, Ranger is up to 50,000 times more powerful than today's PCs, and five times more capable than any open-science computer available to the national science community. One teraflop is equal to 1 trillion floating-point operations per second, a measure of a high-performance computer's power. At the computational level, Ranger offers more than six times the performance of the previous largest system for open science research. Ranger and other petascale systems to follow will be used to address many of science's "grand challenges" including modeling and simulations of global climate change, water resource management, new energy sources, new materials and manufacturing processes, tissue and organ engineering, and drug design. "Ranger is the first of the new 'Path to Petascale' systems that NSF provides to open science," said Daniel Atkins, director of NSF's Office of Cyberinfrastructure. "No longer used by a handful of elite researchers in a few research communities on select problems, advanced computing has become essential to the way science and engineering research and education are accomplished." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 23 18:40:08 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:40:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] susan jacoby & unreason In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <192689.97776.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> A fine book on unreason, with a fairly British perspective but having a decent global view, is Francis Wheen's "How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world." It shows how we've been regressing since the enlightenment in so many ways, and how our financial experts are still as deluded as investors in the South Sea Bubble of 1720. Mildly depressing, but does allow for some wonderful chuckles at human folly. Tom __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Feb 23 20:39:19 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:39:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of AmericanUnreason" References: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com><200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <18a901c8765c$d45c0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan wrote >> My bet is that these people are using cached thoughts when answering the >> statistic questionaires. After all, how hard is it to just recognize >> which opinion you most side with? Yes, but of course all of us do that (as I think you mean) on such questionaires. That's all the information that such quick encounters can ferret out. >> And how much more difficult is it to coherently write down >> what you think and how you are approaching the >> future? Stathis replies > It's a terrible thing even if they don't really believe it, but just > feel that it's the "right" answer to give. I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you talking about people who knowingly misinform, because, perhaps they think that it's best for society that they do? That is quite different from those who pay no attention to discussions about, say, evolution, but either do or don't vaguely subscribe. If you meant the latter, then why is that terrible? You mean that they should just admit that they haven't thought about it? Lee From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 23 21:52:29 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:52:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080223215229.GN10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:04:12PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Eugen, why has there only been 10 up votes on the reddit site? Surely > there's more reddit users hanging around these mailing lists than this, > right? No, that's about right (it's been down to 3 last time I looked at it). There's very little overlap between the different media. Well, it was worth a shot. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 23 21:55:46 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:55:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] please do me a favor In-Reply-To: <200802221808.34891.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <20080222135249.GG10128@leitl.org> <200802221704.12228.kanzure@gmail.com> <200802221808.34891.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080223215546.GO10128@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:08:34PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Yeah, but in these systems it usually only requires 100 people to vote > it up and get it on a front page somewhere or in a main feed. So, my > point is that apparently we're not getting that many people to click. Right. This tells us something about how many people read list traffic, and/or how many people act on that list traffic. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 23 22:01:50 2008 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:01:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] susan jacoby & unreason In-Reply-To: <192689.97776.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <192689.97776.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20080223220150.GR10128@leitl.org> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 06:40:08PM +0000, Tom Nowell wrote: > It shows how we've been regressing since the > enlightenment in so many ways, and how our financial > experts are still as deluded as investors in the South > Sea Bubble of 1720. Mildly depressing, but does allow > for some wonderful chuckles at human folly. Another good one is "Irrational Exhuberance" 2nd. ed. by Shiller, and "Fooled by Randomness" and "Black Swan" by Taleb. Also reading "My Life as a Quant" by Derman, which is boring and pretentious. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 23 23:06:41 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:06:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI Message-ID: <20080223230642.HQYG24748.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> This is going to be a fascinating conference! http://www.agi-08.org The First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-08) ---------- FedEx Institute of Technology, University of Memphis In cooperation with AAAI, March 1-3, 2008 Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) research focuses on the original and ultimate goal of AI -- to create intelligence as a whole, by exploring all available paths, including theoretical and experimental computer science, cognitive science, neuroscience, and innovative interdisciplinary methodologies. I hope to see you there! http://www.transhumanism.eu/conferences.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 00:19:36 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:19:36 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Bill Moyers: Susan Jacoby and "The Age of AmericanUnreason" In-Reply-To: <18a901c8765c$d45c0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com> <200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> <18a901c8765c$d45c0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 24/02/2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It's a terrible thing even if they don't really believe it, but just > > feel that it's the "right" answer to give. > > > I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you talking about > people who knowingly misinform, because, perhaps they think > that it's best for society that they do? That is quite different from > those who pay no attention to discussions about, say, evolution, > but either do or don't vaguely subscribe. If you meant the latter, > then why is that terrible? You mean that they should just admit > that they haven't thought about it? I mean the former. There is good evidence that people who profess religious belief know it's all bunk since otherwise "faith" would not be considered so important. "Faith" is what you need in order to believe something when your senses and your reason tell you it isn't true. But if you can't lie to yourself, maybe you can lie to other people who ask about your beliefs. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 24 00:31:40 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:31:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <29666bf30802222148y16dd3091vd10688953c009e31@mail.gmail.com> <200802230005.17565.kanzure@gmail.com> <18a901c8765c$d45c0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <18be01c8767d$0bbbb660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> Are you talking about people who knowingly misinform, >> because, perhaps they think that it's best for society that they do? > > There is good evidence that people who profess religious belief > know it's all bunk since otherwise "faith" would not be considered > so important. I am forced to agree---except that "bunk" is way too strong. Those who emphasize faith, it seems to me, thereby are conceding that their beliefs are somewhat improbable, based upon, as you say, evidence and reasonableness. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 24 00:21:18 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:21:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift Message-ID: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> One of the mysteries of the past is why both German and English underwent a serious shift between 1200 and 1600 in the way vowels are spoken. It's part of the reason English spelling (partly set before the shift) is such a non phonetic mess. Having read Gregory Clark's works on this period, I wonder if the shift was partly due to shifts in gene frequencies? As the gene mappers get deeply into whatever changes the long period Clark writes about caused in the population average, I wonder if they will find genes that tend affecting vowels (or more like mouth shape) becoming more common over the period of the Great Vowel Shift? If they do, chances are they will be associated with genes that enhance the traits Clark notes in his work. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 24 03:08:44 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:08:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI In-Reply-To: <20080223230642.HQYG24748.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha -39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20080223230642.HQYG24748.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <1203822583_23527@S4.cableone.net> At 04:06 PM 2/23/2008, you wrote: >This is going to be a fascinating conference! > > http://www.agi-08.org It is no less amazing being at Memphis, TN. My memory of the place is from covering the AABBS trial there in the early 90s. It was without a doubt the most benighted city I know about--which is why a post office prosecution reached from there all the way to the SF Bay area. Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 24 05:48:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:48:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <18d701c876a9$26104450$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > One of the mysteries of the past is why both German > and English underwent a serious shift between 1200 > and 1600 in the way vowels are spoken. It's a good one. We could surmise that following 1600 greater communication and the printing press could have retarded such changes. Does anyone know how the interval 800-1600 compared? > Having read Gregory Clark's works on this period, I wonder > if the shift was partly due to shifts in gene frequencies? Outrageous. But is it outrageous enough? :-) If it was parallel to Clark's theory, then the richer classes would be infiltrating the poorer classes with their genes, and we would expect tendencies towards differential pronunciation among classes. While in England there was such a differential between Anglo and French, surely the same thing was not occuring in lockstep on the continent. So what on Earth could be the mechanism? After all, we must have differential selection at work, I cannot think of any effect (outside of science fiction) that would cause those skilled at a certain kind of pronunciation to have more children. Except, of course, fashion. Sexual selection could indeed do it. But then, as is so often the case, why not lay the whole phenomenon at the feet of fashion. That is, fashion might as well be invoked in explaining the vowel shift in the first place. Lee > As the gene > mappers get deeply into whatever changes the long period Clark writes > about caused in the population average, I wonder if they will find > genes that tend affecting vowels (or more like mouth shape) becoming > more common over the period of the Great Vowel Shift? If they do, > chances are they will be associated with genes that enhance the > traits Clark notes in his work. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Feb 24 05:53:15 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:53:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI In-Reply-To: <1203822583_23527@S4.cableone.net> References: <20080223230642.HQYG24748.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <1203822583_23527@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20080224055316.FKXC1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Keith Henson wrote: >It was without a doubt the most benighted city I know >about This comment is inappropriate and ulgy. Natasha From santostasigio at yahoo.com Sun Feb 24 06:15:40 2008 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:15:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <18be01c8767d$0bbbb660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I completely disagree, the person of faith has strong believes that reason, evidence, scientific thinking is not to be trusted, (in particular on matters as the origin of the universe, the origin of human species, what happens after death), they lack the ability to make a connection between what science claims and everyday reality, and the fact that the technology that they used everyday is a product of the same thinking that they mistrust. What is implausable for the majority of people of faith (I know by experience because many of my students are such type of believers) is that the universe came from a Big Bang (if they even understand the theory at all), that our ancestors were some kind of monkeys and that there is something like a soul, or heaven and so on. Lee Corbin wrote: Stathis writes >> Are you talking about people who knowingly misinform, >> because, perhaps they think that it's best for society that they do? > > There is good evidence that people who profess religious belief > know it's all bunk since otherwise "faith" would not be considered > so important. I am forced to agree---except that "bunk" is way too strong. Those who emphasize faith, it seems to me, thereby are conceding that their beliefs are somewhat improbable, based upon, as you say, evidence and reasonableness. Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 24 06:42:40 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:42:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI In-Reply-To: <20080224055316.FKXC1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha- 39y28ni.natasha.cc> References: <20080223230642.HQYG24748.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <1203822583_23527@S4.cableone.net> <20080224055316.FKXC1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <1203835419_26961@S4.cableone.net> At 10:53 PM 2/23/2008, you wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: > > >It was without a doubt the most benighted city I know > >about > >This comment is inappropriate and ulgy. Unfortunately it was the case, at least back in the early 90s. Imagine a place where you could try an interstate porn case with a jury full of Sunday school teachers. Here is a sample from my reporting from Memphis. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex/msg/e8ef9d9fc9fae30f Nashville, on the other hand (as well as the other side of the state) was pretty cool even back then. I hope Memphis has improved in the last 14 years. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 06:57:08 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:57:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI In-Reply-To: <20080224055316.FKXC1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200802240723.m1O7NpI6028701@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Natasha Vita-More > Subject: Re: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First > Conference on AGI > > Keith Henson wrote: > > >It was without a doubt the most benighted city I know about > > This comment is inappropriate and ulgy. > > Natasha I googled on the case and found Keith was referring to one I read about at the time. City of Memphis employees found they could download pornography off of the internet. Pornography that was illegal in that particular district! Therefore the owner of that bulletin boardwas legally liable. (Bulletin boards, remember those? They were the text predecessors of websites.) By that decision the internet content provider was responsible for figuring out how to prevent the downloading of one's content in any district in which it is illegal. Most of us here have posted stuff on ExI which would be illegal somewhere on this planet. Terrible legal decision, terrible. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 09:47:17 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:47:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:21 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > One of the mysteries of the past is why both German and English > underwent a serious shift between 1200 and 1600 in the way vowels are > spoken. It's part of the reason English spelling (partly set before > the shift) is such a non phonetic mess. > Invasions, migrations and the printing press. Oh - you want more detail?? 1066 Norman Invasion started the end of Old English. The nobility (and courts, etc.) spoke Old French, the commoners - Old English. The Black Death, 1350, killed about one third of the population, and the working classes (and their language) grew in importance. By about 1400 or so, the mixture was complete and England spoke Middle English. The next wave of innovation in English, and the Great Vowel Shift, came with the Renaissance, 1450 -1700. The printing press, Shakespeare, standardised spelling, all created Modern English. The dialect of London, where most publishing houses were located, became the standard. Spelling and grammar became fixed, and the first English dictionary was published in 1604. I don't see any need to create a mystery about it. English is still changing as words from other languages and fashionable accents enter the mix. BillK From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 10:26:39 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:26:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Universal Immortalism: transhumanism plus hope Message-ID: <470a3c520802240226j506ab84bi766e0e5c3b89d815@mail.gmail.com> Some thoughts FYC: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/universal_immortalism_transhumanism_plus_hope/ G. From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Feb 24 16:25:15 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:25:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200802241125.15396.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 24 February 2008 01:15, giovanni santost wrote: > I completely disagree, > the person of faith has strong believes that reason, evidence, scientific > thinking is not to be trusted, Right. There is a misleading tendency in our brain to assume that everybody else must see the same things we see. When we look at evidence and reach a conclusion, we falsely assume that other people looking at the same evidence will reach the same conclusion. This simply isn't true. Different people really do have difference values and beliefs. People really do believe in their religions, or their politics, or their social theories. Corporations really believe they are doing the right thing. Criminals really believe they are innocent. People really believe the latest fad, urban legend, or pop theory making the rounds. It is a mistake to interpret other people in terms of our own worldview. This leads to the classic strawman fallacy where you see your own projection of the other position and really have no understanding of the actual other position at all. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Feb 24 16:31:29 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:31:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Memphis In-Reply-To: <200802240723.m1O7NpI6028701@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20080224055316.FKXC1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> <200802240723.m1O7NpI6028701@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080224163130.JHGZ1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> In response to Spike. I changed the subject line because it is truly insensitive for anyone not to have done this. Thanks. By the way, I lived in Memphis for a time and it was a rocking city. In fact, I like it very much. My experience is not of a backward city at all. Memphis was the music capital of the Blues and Beale Street. And the home of the rock and roll of Elvis, the world famous opera singer Beverly Sills, the Queen Aretha Franklin, sexy Justin Timberlake, The Funk's Richard "Pistol" Allen, co-founder of Stax Records Estelle Axton, award actors Danny Thomas, Kathy Bates and Morgan Freeman, Cybil Shepard, George Hamilton, the oldest living person in the world in 2006 Elizabeth Bolden, country music icon Johnny Cash, Al Green, Isaac Hayes, B.B. King, Jerry Lee Lewis, Otis Redding, Ike Turner, and the list goes on. Natasha From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Feb 24 16:37:24 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:37:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI In-Reply-To: <200802240723.m1O7NpI6028701@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802240723.m1O7NpI6028701@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802241137.24750.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Sunday 24 February 2008 01:57, spike wrote: > I googled on the case and found Keith was referring to one I read about at > the time. City of Memphis employees found they could download pornography > off of the internet. Pornography that was illegal in that particular > district! Therefore the owner of that bulletin boardwas legally liable. We're fighting the same battle today. The government is trying to make ISPs responsible to stop porn and copyright violations from being transmitted on the Internet. They want every ISP to spy on the activities of their users and report. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 16:52:05 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:52:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Memphis In-Reply-To: <20080224163130.JHGZ1990.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@natasha-39y28ni.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <200802241718.m1OHIlo8011925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Natasha Vita-More > Subject: [ExI] Memphis > > In response to Spike. > > I changed the subject line because it is truly insensitive > for anyone not to have done this. Thanks. > > By the way, I lived in Memphis for a time and it was a > rocking city. In fact, I like it very much. My experience > is not of a backward city at all. Memphis was the music > capital of the Blues and Beale Street. And the home of the > rock and roll of Elvis, the world famous opera singer > Beverly Sills, the Queen Aretha Franklin, sexy Justin > Timberlake, The Funk's Richard "Pistol" Allen, co-founder of > Stax Records Estelle Axton, award actors Danny Thomas, Kathy > Bates and Morgan Freeman, Cybil Shepard, George Hamilton, the > oldest living person in the world in 2006 Elizabeth Bolden, > country music icon Johnny Cash, Al Green, Isaac Hayes, B.B. > King, Jerry Lee Lewis, Otis Redding, Ike Turner, and the list goes on. > > Natasha Thanks Natasha, you had me at Elvis. After all these years, he is STILL the KING of rock and roll. {8-] spike From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 17:25:58 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:25:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 1:47 AM, BillK wrote: > Invasions, migrations and the printing press. > Oh - you want more detail?? > > 1066 Norman Invasion started the end of Old English. > The nobility (and courts, etc.) spoke Old French, the commoners - Old English. > The Black Death, 1350, killed about one third of the population, and > the working classes (and their language) grew in importance. By about > 1400 or so, the mixture was complete and England spoke Middle English. > The next wave of innovation in English, and the Great Vowel Shift, > came with the Renaissance, 1450 -1700. > The printing press, Shakespeare, standardised spelling, all created > Modern English. The dialect of London, where most publishing houses > were located, became the standard. Spelling and grammar became fixed, > and the first English dictionary was published in 1604. > > > I don't see any need to create a mystery about it. English is still > changing as words from other languages and fashionable accents enter > the mix. I was about to answer, but Bill K. beat me to it. He's exactly right. There was also a surprising fluidity in the upper classes of intermarriage from other countries, usually orchestrated by parents for strategic, trade, financial or religious reasons. This continues to exist into modern times: Le Bal Crillon des Debutantes in Paris and The International Ball in NY: http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/socialdiary/2005/01_04_06/socialdiary01_04_06.php During that period, it was not only the Norman/French (the conquerors), but Spanish, German, Italian, etc. Interestingly, Lee's fashion concept works with this as well. For instance, when the Spanish held greater influence at the English court during the mid-Tudor period, Spanish as a language, as well as a cultural style (clothing, art, music, etc.) became influential as well. This would also coincide with the Renaissance shift. PJ From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 17:50:22 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:50:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> One more note: Keith's initial comment seems to assume an evolution to a standard pronunciation of English. While English language countries have their "standard" pronunciations that are the gold standard of their media communications -- "Standard British English"/"Received Pronunciation"/"Queen's English"/BBC English or "Mid Atlantic English" (Alistair Cooke) or "Middle American" (American news anchors like Tom Brokaw) -- we know that a Yorkshireman doesn't sound like a Cornwallian, who doesn't sound like a Scotsman. Likewise a New England Yankee sounds nothing like a person from the American Deep South. In New Zealand, I could easily differentiate people raised on the North vs. the South Island. Maybe the gene theory comes into play more here? (isolation x time) + history/influences + genetics = dialect? PJ From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 18:18:27 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:18:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: <200802241718.m1OHIlo8011925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200802241818.m1OIIUcV014129@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Unbelievable! All the original Star Trek episodes! Free! http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php There's about a dozen ExIers we won't be hearing from for a good couple weeks. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 24 18:23:51 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:23:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> At 09:50 AM 2/24/2008 -0800, PJ wrote: >Likewise >a New England Yankee sounds nothing like a person from the American >Deep South. In New Zealand, I could easily differentiate people >raised on the North vs. the South Island. > >Maybe the gene theory comes into play more here? (isolation x time) + >history/influences + genetics = dialect? This "gene theory" of utterance is all the most incredible codswallop. Haven't you guys ever spoken to an Asian-ancestry human raised in California or Sydney, or a Pakistani from Leeds, or a kid from an impoverished background who's been sent to a classy school? Genes, schmemes. (Pun intended.) Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 24 18:20:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:20:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <190e01c87712$296aa230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK wrote > Invasions, migrations and the printing press. > Oh - you want more detail?? Well, you did list a lot of influences that affected the evolution of English, but as Keith said, it really does continue to be a mystery. Here are just two paragraphs of the wikipedia article on "Great Vowel Shift": The surprising speed and the exact cause of the shift are continuing mysteries in linguistics and cultural history, but some theories attach the cause to the mass immigration to South East England after the Black Death, where the difference in accents led to certain groups modifying their speech to allow for a standard pronunciation of vowel sounds. The different dialects and the rise of a standardised middle class in London led to changes in pronunciation, which continued to spread out from London. The sudden social mobility after the Black Death may have caused the shift, with people from lower levels in society moving to higher levels (the pandemic hit the aristocracy too). Another explanation highlights the language of the ruling class-the medieval aristocracy had spoken French, but by the early fifteenth century they were using English. This may have caused a change to the "prestige accent" of English, either by making pronunciation more French in style, or by changing it in some other way, perhaps by hypercorrection to something thought to be "more English" (England was at war with France for much of this period). Another influence may have been the great political and social upheavals of the fifteenth century, which were largely contemporaneous with the Great Vowel Shift. So---theories, theories. PJ adds: > In New Zealand, I could easily differentiate people > raised on the North vs. the South Island. Oh, I love factoids like that. You wouldn't happen to know if to people raised in China, Japanese people look Japanese? :-) > Maybe the gene theory comes into play more here? > (isolation x time) + history/influences + genetics = dialect? But as I asked Keith, we would still need to postulate a plausible mechanism. Okay---sure---people who speak more fashionably can have more offspring, but it would have to be linked to something else, otherwise it's nothing more than meme infestation. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Feb 24 18:28:33 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:28:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200802241125.15396.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <191301c87713$90c20ee0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Harvey writes > giovanni santost wrote: >> I completely disagree, the person of faith [strongly] believes that >> reason, evidence, scientific thinking is not to be trusted, It's not so simple. These people have great faith, if I may use the word, in science in reason in huge other areas of their lives. From chemistry professors to car mechanics, they're just as interested in scientific thinking and evidence as we are. > There is a misleading tendency in our brain to assume that everybody > else must see the same things we see. When we look at evidence and reach a > conclusion, we falsely assume that other people looking at the same evidence > will reach the same conclusion. This simply isn't true. Different people > really do have difference values and beliefs. That is quite so. And it can also be quite subtle the way that our priors, and (as you write) different world views affect what looks like it should be a matter of plain logic. > People really do believe in their religions, or their politics, or their > social theories. Corporations really believe they are doing the right thing. > Criminals really believe they are innocent. :-) Well, not all criminals. They know very well they're breaking the law and "trying to get away with something". In only a few cases do they feel truly justified (e.g. stealing from someone because he's an SOB who done them wrong, or smashing equipment belonging to evil corporations). In most cases, I surmise that they justify it as a sort of game, in which they've played a clever move on someone. > People really believe the latest > fad, urban legend, or pop theory making the rounds. It is a mistake to > interpret other people in terms of our own worldview. This leads to the > classic strawman fallacy where you see your own projection of the other > position and really have no understanding of the actual other position at > all. Quite well said, thanks. lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 24 18:39:36 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:39:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1203878437_37965@S3.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 19:12:02 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:12:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802241112l421e539bjd399a5997515d021@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > This "gene theory" of utterance is all the most incredible > codswallop. Haven't you guys ever spoken to an Asian-ancestry human > raised in California or Sydney, or a Pakistani from Leeds, or a kid > from an impoverished background who's been sent to a classy school? > Genes, schmemes. (Pun intended.) Hey, that was my point, but I thought that I'd at least throw the gene thing in to see if it flew. My inclination says no, or not that much. It's where you're raised and the influences you have, which shift culturally over time. My point was that cultural influences are more malleable and international than people think. Look at my kids. Started as North Island Kiwis (G'day, Mate!), ended up as Southern Californians, Spanglish and all (Hey Mom, C?mo est?s? I got mucho homework.). In fact, Spanglish is a perfect example of languages' cultural shifts in California over 500 years. From AmerIndian to Spanish to English to... Spanglish. PJ From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 19:34:04 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:34:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: <200802241818.m1OIIUcV014129@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802241718.m1OHIlo8011925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200802241818.m1OIIUcV014129@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802241134s59721427qead169b2d0539c5c@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM, spike wrote: > Unbelievable! All the original Star Trek episodes! Free! > > http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php > > There's about a dozen ExIers we won't be hearing from for a good couple > weeks. Too bad they screwed with the frames, making it jerky like bad stop-motion animation, so you think, "I loved that show. I should just buy the DVD." They never give anything away for free... it's all just advertising for a better format. PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 24 19:34:04 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:34:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> At 11:23 AM 2/24/2008, Damien wrote: snip >This "gene theory" of utterance is all the most incredible >codswallop. Haven't you guys ever spoken to an Asian-ancestry human >raised in California or Sydney, or a Pakistani from Leeds, or a kid >from an impoverished background who's been sent to a classy school? >Genes, schmemes. (Pun intended.) Possible admixtures from previous versions of hominids aside, humans were one small interbreeding group 60k years ago or so. So you would expect most of them to be able to pick up the version of speech they are exposed to in childhood. But to say genes have no influence on utterance can't be supported by the evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2 To say that genes cause no bias in the way a language drifts seems to be making an unsupportable statement as well since the language of a culture of people who all had the FOXP2 mutation would rapidly drift away from the parent language, probably in a generally predictable way. Likewise a culture where all the kids had genetically caused cleft palates. "A direct result of an open connection between the oral cavity and nasal cavity is velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI). Because of the gap, air leaks into the nasal cavity resulting in a hypernasal voice resonance and nasal emissions.[2] Secondary effects of VPI include speech articulation errors (e.g., distortions, substitutions, and omissions) and compensatory misarticulations (e.g., glottal stops and posterior nasal fricatives).[3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_palate Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 24 19:54:41 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:54:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224134901.023a6570@satx.rr.com> At 12:34 PM 2/24/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: >To say that genes cause no bias in the way a language drifts seems to >be making an unsupportable statement ... > >Likewise a culture where all the kids had genetically caused cleft palates. Wow. Now you're *really* reaching. :) Don't forget those with genes for no head at all, or for mouths in the middle of their knees. I think it's unlikely that genes among European sub-populations modify accents derived from Indo-European languages (or whatever it's called these days), which is what we're talking about with the Great Vowel Shift--although I have seen suggestions that Asians might have alleles that make it easier to pick up and maybe articulate tonal languages. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 24 20:08:19 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:08:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802241134s59721427qead169b2d0539c5c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200802241718.m1OHIlo8011925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200802241818.m1OIIUcV014129@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30802241134s59721427qead169b2d0539c5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> At 11:34 AM 2/24/2008 -0800, PJ wrote after Spike: > > Unbelievable! All the original Star Trek episodes! Free! > > > > http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php > >Too bad they screwed with the frames, making it jerky like bad >stop-motion animation, Isn't that how it looked all along? I watch the damned reruns on Saturday midnite cable, aghast at the sluggishness, the drawn out laborious e x p l a n a t i o n s , the heavy-handed eye-brow lifted wry ripostes, the gruesome stagy fight scenes... It was the available technology, sure, but two smooth glowing minutes with SG ATLANTIS (however clunky/bogus in its own terms as sf) makes a bloke realize how much the media have improved in 40 years. Damien Broderick From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Sun Feb 24 20:40:09 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:40:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> References: <200802241718.m1OHIlo8011925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200802241818.m1OIIUcV014129@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <29666bf30802241134s59721427qead169b2d0539c5c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: At 11:34 AM 2/24/2008 -0800, PJ wrote after Spike: > > Unbelievable! All the original Star Trek episodes! Free! > > > > http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php > >Too bad they screwed with the frames, making it jerky like bad >stop-motion animation, NBC, ABC, SciFi and some other channels have done a good job putting full episodes of popular shows online in full-screen mode. Unfortunately, it will be a while before they'll be available in HDTV online. CBS, on the other hand, is obviously trying to make TV watching it's primary venue and their online version is pretty lame, from what I can see. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.0/1296 - Release Date: 2/24/2008 12:19 PM From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 20:42:53 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:42:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200802242042.m1OKgtFL022336@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Damien Broderick > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:08 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] original star trek! > > At 11:34 AM 2/24/2008 -0800, PJ wrote after Spike: > > > > Unbelievable! All the original Star Trek episodes! Free! > > > > > > http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php > > > >Too bad they screwed with the frames, making it jerky like bad > >stop-motion animation, > > Isn't that how it looked all along? I watch the damned reruns > on Saturday midnite cable, aghast at the sluggishness, the > drawn out laborious e x p l a n a t i o n s , the > heavy-handed eye-brow lifted wry ripostes, the gruesome stagy > fight scenes... It was the available technology, sure, but > two smooth glowing minutes with SG ATLANTIS (however > clunky/bogus in its own terms as sf) makes a bloke realize > how much the media have improved in 40 years. > > Damien Broderick Ja, that was my take too. The sets were cheesy, the costume budget was approximately twelve dollars per season, the actors either rookies or sit-com rejects, even most of the plots were at least slightly cobby. But look what they were able to do with it. Shows what one can do with a little imagination and even less money. We loved that show. One must also compare to other sci-fi of the day, which was even more grim. But it wasn't just sci-fi; all of the shows available on TV in those days was somewhere between bad and terrible by today's standards. Of course there were only three stations then, and (mercifully) we could only consistently get one of them (CBS). Star Trek was a bolt from the blue. When that one showed up, we knew it was special, the logical follow-on from the previous singular good show, the Twilight Zone. spike From randall at randallsquared.com Sun Feb 24 20:08:29 2008 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:08:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <10D9CF3C-5327-48CC-BBCD-28A8F2F82E80@randallsquared.com> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:50 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > Likewise > a New England Yankee sounds nothing like a person from the American > Deep South. As someone who lives in east-central Alabama, I'd like to point out that it's really rare for someone of my generation (I'm 34) or younger to have a really noticeable "Deep South" accent, even here. TV and increased mobility has nearly wiped it out. -- Randall Randall "If I can do it in Alabama, then I'm fairly certain you can get away with it anywhere." -- Dresden Codak From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 20:47:54 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:47:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802242114.m1OLEZtU018161@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] original star trek! > > At 11:34 AM 2/24/2008 -0800, PJ wrote after Spike: > > > > Unbelievable! All the original Star Trek episodes! Free! > > > > > > http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/video/video.php ... > > NBC, ABC, SciFi and some other channels have done a good job > putting full episodes of popular shows online in full-screen > mode. Unfortunately, it will be a while before they'll be > available in HDTV online. CBS, on the other hand, is > obviously trying to make TV watching it's primary venue and > their online version is pretty lame, from what I can see...James Clement Ja, however it is not at all clear that HDTV would help the original Star Treks. Especially the first season, much of the sets were cardboard. If you watch very closely you can see evidence of that everywhere. It could be that this series is better fondly remembered than viewed. {8-] spike From brian at posthuman.com Sun Feb 24 21:25:39 2008 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:25:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] original star trek! In-Reply-To: <200802242114.m1OLEZtU018161@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802242114.m1OLEZtU018161@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <47C1E0D3.20704@posthuman.com> spike wrote: > > Ja, however it is not at all clear that HDTV would help the original Star > Treks. Especially the first season, much of the sets were cardboard. If > you watch very closely you can see evidence of that everywhere. It could be > that this series is better fondly remembered than viewed. {8-] > Star Trek: TOS in syndication is already partially in HD. They have been converting the eps one by one over time to HD, with new transfers, and also redone special effects - mostly the space scenes and some establishing shots on planets and stuff. Not all local stations showing this are setup to show it in HD, but even if they aren't you can watch the new effects and stuff in standard-def. Not sure if what CBS is showing online is related to this, or if they are showing the original original. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#Remastered_series From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 21:16:05 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:16:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] catastrophic failure of a windmill In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200802242142.m1OLgkuu002091@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA&feature=bz303 From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 24 21:47:18 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:47:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] nudar and the coming age of religious peace In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200802242147.m1OLlKp2007050@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Two different things actually. Is this cool or what? Nudar is software you add to your GPS device to help you find nudity related events or establishments: http://nudar.nudar.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=48 Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, that's right. They don't ever let me into those kinds of places anyway. No geeks allowed. On an unrelated but also cool site, Dawkins talks about an Economist article by Wolfe. http://richarddawkins.net/article,2296,The-coming-religious-peace,Alan-Wolfe -The-Atlantic Wolfe presents an optimistic view of subsiding conflict in the future because of gradual long term decline of religion. Interesting graph of religiosity vs property. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 24 22:20:29 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:20:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224134901.023a6570@satx.rr.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224134901.023a6570@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1203891689_41468@S3.cableone.net> At 12:54 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote: >At 12:34 PM 2/24/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: > > >To say that genes cause no bias in the way a language drifts seems to > >be making an unsupportable statement ... > > > >Likewise a culture where all the kids had genetically caused cleft palates. > >Wow. Now you're *really* reaching. :) Thought experiment. :-) >Don't forget those with genes for no head at all, or for mouths in >the middle of their knees. I know you are joking, but there *are* hox genes that put eyes on the knees of fruit flies. >I think it's unlikely that genes among European sub-populations >modify accents derived from Indo-European languages (or whatever it's >called these days), which is what we're talking about with the Great >Vowel Shift--although I have seen suggestions that Asians might have >alleles that make it easier to pick up and maybe articulate tonal languages. Clark's arguments make it fairly clear that the English, and probably by extension, the Dutch, German and Islandic populations, underwent some serious genetic selection over about the same time frame as the Great Vowel Shift. Now I am well aware that correlation does not equal causation. Still, I don't see how you can just rule out a possible connection. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 22:54:33 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:54:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <1203891689_41468@S3.cableone.net> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224134901.023a6570@satx.rr.com> <1203891689_41468@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, hkhenson wrote: > Now I am well aware that correlation does not equal > causation. Still, I don't see how you can just rule out a possible connection. > Correct. Nobody can *prove* there is no connection. And neither can you or Clark prove that there is a connection. We know of no genes that cause this effect, so until you find them....... Social memes and customs seem much more likely as we see them in action with our own eyes. One of the funniest things I ever saw was after a Scottish family moved down to London. The whole family spoke in broad Scottish accents (much stronger than Scotty in Star Trek). But the children had to survive in school where oddities like accents were severely mocked (and worse). After a few months, while I was visiting them, I saw the children coming home from school, shouting and playing with their school friends. Conversation was in cut-glass upper class accents. They waved goodbye to their friends then came indoors and spoke to their parents in broad Scottish accents. I don't think they even realised what they were doing. They just had one way of talking at home and a different way at school. I suppose it is much the same with immigrant children who also speak a completely different language at home. It isn't driven by genes. It is learned behaviour. When printing started in the Renaissance, people learned to read this new language aloud in the style of where the books were printed (London for England) and rapidly spread the style outwards. This happened much too quickly for inherited genes to have anything to do with it. BillK From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Feb 24 22:55:23 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:55:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <141504.223.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The Great Vowel Shift is a linguistic mystery, so it may be premature to suggest a genetic basis. Given the current disparity in the ways vowels are pronounced (how I pronounce the A's in bath & grass are different from my friends in Yorkshire and most americans would pronounce them), and how language is influenced by the media I would say that there may be an equal shift going on now. Although the printing press may have standardised spellings a good deal, it did not nearly as much as the works of Samuel Johnson's dictionary on English, and Mr. Webster's dictionary on American, which come a good deal later. In one book I read on literacy education, it was claimed the biggest problem with english spelling is that there are 43 or 44 sounds (depending on which linguists you follow), 26 letters, and several different ways of spelling the same sound. While Clare (or Claire) the bear with hair to spare is economical on sounds, it shows a lot of spelling variation. Also, while the written word may have a strong influence on some parts of a language, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will affect the spoken pronunciation. I don't know how accurate the factoid that "Cantonese and Mandarin are completely interchangeable when written down, but spoken very differently" is, but that would suggest writing hasn't affected the language of the people who invented paper too much. Norwegian has two written forms, and I don't know how much effect this has on the spoken language. I could read as many American novelists as I liked, and an American could read as many English authors as he liked, and it wouldn't affect our pronunciation. I think changes in pronunciation are more likely due to radio and TV now, and the pace may well have accelerated. I'm certainly familiar with large amounts of americanisms thanks to LA's television industry, and many people around the world are familiar with the "mockney" accents of British gangster movies. I'm sure these media affect the vocabulary we're familiar with and expressions we use, but I don't know how much effect they have on pronunciation. Finally, to add that most serious of academic resources to my posting, here are some youtube clips to aid understanding of 20th century accents: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tQWPR9TM0Gk http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=byWI-eTzru4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-u3j0d6iI_U Tom __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Inbox. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Feb 24 23:57:23 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:57:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <141504.223.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <141504.223.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30802241557j6aa20998w7b2a91e7fa9a9edb@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > Also, while the written word may have a strong > influence on some parts of a language, it doesn't > necessarily follow that it will affect the spoken > pronunciation. I don't know how accurate the factoid > that "Cantonese and Mandarin are completely > interchangeable when written down, but spoken very > differently" is, but that would suggest writing hasn't > affected the language of the people who invented paper > too much. Norwegian has two written forms, and I don't > know how much effect this has on the spoken language. > I could read as many American novelists as I liked, > and an American could read as many English authors as > he liked, and it wouldn't affect our pronunciation. > I think changes in pronunciation are more likely due > to radio and TV now, and the pace may well have > accelerated. I'm certainly familiar with large amounts > of americanisms thanks to LA's television industry, > and many people around the world are familiar with the > "mockney" accents of British gangster movies. I'm sure > these media affect the vocabulary we're familiar with > and expressions we use, but I don't know how much > effect they have on pronunciation. NATO (North American Treaty Organization) used to have an English pronunciation test for their English language learners that consisted of the following poem: Dearest creature in creation, Studying English pronunciation. I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. It will keep you, Susy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I! Oh hear my prayer. Pray console your loving poet, Make my coat look new, dear, sew it. Just compare heart, beard, and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and sward, retain and Britain. (Mind the latter, how it's written.) Made has not the sound of bade, Say - said, pay - paid, laid, but plaid. Now I surely will not plague you With such words as plaque and ague. But be careful how you speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe. Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore, Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes, and reviles; Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel; Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomene, mankind. Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your pronunciation's OK When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve and sleeve, Friend and fiend, alive and live. Ivy, privy, famous; clamour And enamour rhyme with hammer. River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foul, haunt but aunt, Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant, Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger, And then singer, ginger, linger, Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age. Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth. Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the differences seem little, We say actual but victual. Refer does not rhyme with deafer. Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate; Dull, bull, and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience, scientific. Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the differences, moreover, Between mover, cover~~~~~~~~; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label. Petal, panel, and canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal. Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor. Tour, but our and succour, four. Gas, alas, and Arkansas. Sea, idea, Korea, area, Psalm, Maria, but malaria. Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean. Doctrine, turpentine, marine. Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion and battalion. Sally with ally, yea, ye, Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key. Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver. Heron, granary, canary. Crevice and device and aerie. Face, but preface, not efface. Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Large, but target, gin, give, verging, Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging. Ear, but earn and wear and tear Do not rhyme with here but ere. Seven is right, but so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen, Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk, Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work. Pronunciation -- think of Psyche! Is a paling stout and spikey? Won't it make you lose your wits, Writing groats and saying grits? It's a dark abyss or tunnel: Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale, Islington and Isle of Wight, Housewife, verdict and indict. Finally, which rhymes with enough -- Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough? Hiccough has the sound of cup. My advice is to give up!!! [Author: G. Nolst Trenit?] I hazard to guess many native speakers would have trouble with it. If you look at the words and their etimologies, you'll also notice how many different places the English language comes from. > Finally, to add that most serious of academic > resources to my posting, here are some youtube clips > to aid understanding of 20th century accents: > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tQWPR9TM0Gk > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=byWI-eTzru4 > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-u3j0d6iI_U Thanks for the laugh! PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 25 00:07:55 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:07:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <1203891689_41468@S3.cableone.net> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224134901.023a6570@satx.rr.com> <1203891689_41468@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224175956.0245bfe0@satx.rr.com> At 03:20 PM 2/24/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: >I don't see how you can just rule out a possible connection. I don't (I mentioned the possibility of tonality-conducive phenotypes built by certain alleles) but I do generally, for the reason I gave: kids learn what's around them. I suppose you could say: "Aha! But why did "what's around them" *alter* so suddenly? Was there a crucial genetic change in the population of speakers?" To which I say: "Right, a bit like the genetic change that caused people to stop sweeping with straw brooms and start using vacuum cleaners instead, and use keyboards instead of quills--obviously something to do with the genes governing grasping, manipulation and fine motor control, since what else could it be?" Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 25 00:23:32 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:23:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nudar and the coming age of religious peace In-Reply-To: <200802242147.m1OLlKp2007050@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224140249.022dc0b8@satx.rr.com> <200802242147.m1OLlKp2007050@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1203899072_43850@S3.cableone.net> At 02:47 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote: > >Two different things actually. > >Is this cool or what? Nudar is software you add to your GPS device to help >you find nudity related events or establishments: > >http://nudar.nudar.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=48 > >Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, that's right. They don't ever let me >into those kinds of places anyway. No geeks allowed. > >On an unrelated but also cool site, Dawkins talks about an Economist article >by Wolfe. > >http://richarddawkins.net/article,2296,The-coming-religious-peace,Alan-Wolfe >-The-Atlantic > >Wolfe presents an optimistic view of subsiding conflict in the future >because of gradual long term decline of religion. Interesting graph of >religiosity vs property. > >spike Which is to be expected from the EP model of why wars if you meant to write "prosperity." Actually my case is that it's the future prospects more than the present that's important in keeping war mode shut off in human populations. Since the evolutionary origin and function of religion is that of xenophobic memes that facilitate wars, you would expect religions to decline in places that are 1) have not been attacked for a long time and 2) have decent future prospects. Keith From ablainey at aol.com Mon Feb 25 00:49:18 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:49:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Taking AI to the Next Level - The First Conference on AGI In-Reply-To: <200802241137.24750.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <200802240723.m1O7NpI6028701@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200802241137.24750.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <8CA455F63229E7E-B8-592@mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Harvey Newstrom On Sunday 24 February 2008 01:57, spike wrote: >> I googled on the case and found Keith was referring to one I read about at >> the time. City of Memphis employees found they could download pornography >> off of the internet. Pornography that was illegal in that particular >> district! Therefore the owner of that bulletin boardwas legally liable. > >We're fighting the same battle today. The government is trying to make ISPs >responsible to stop porn and copyright violations from being transmitted on >the Internet. They want every ISP to spy on the activities of their users >and report. This makes about as much legal sense as making road builders responsible for speeding motorists. Perhaps they will try that one next? Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Mon Feb 25 00:56:57 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:56:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] catastrophic failure of a windmill In-Reply-To: <200802242142.m1OLgkuu002091@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8CA456074E170C9-B8-5DA@mblk-d41.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA&feature=bz303 So much for 'safe' energy. A very impressive failure. Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 25 01:40:13 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:40:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] nudar and the coming age of religious peace In-Reply-To: <1203899072_43850@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200802250140.m1P1eK0R022643@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson ... > >Is this cool or what? Nudar is software you add to your GPS ... > > > >http://nudar.nudar.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=48 > > ... > > http://richarddawkins.net/article,2296,The-coming-religious-peace,Alan-Wolfe -The-Atlantic ... > Interesting graph of religiosity vs property. > > > >spike > > Which is to be expected from the EP model of why wars if you > meant to write "prosperity." Actually my case is that it's > the future prospects more than the present that's important > in keeping war mode shut off in human populations... Ja, I did mean prosperity, but it might have been kinda Freudian: to me prosperity means owning lotsa property, so property ~ prosperity. Either that or I incorrectly wrote "prosperty" and instead of fixing it right, the autocorrect changed it to property. I should set my autocorrect such that any time it sees something it doesn't recognize, it automatically changes the word to either "money" or "sex." The result will probably be either what I *really* meant, or at least be funny enough to be a better substitute. {8-] > Since the evolutionary origin and function of religion is > that of xenophobic memes that facilitate wars, you would > expect religions to decline in places that are 1) have not > been attacked for a long time and 2) have decent future prospects. > > Keith Thanks Keith. I am often impressed with how well the modern version of EP correctly predicts the actions of the masses. spike From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 02:02:26 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:02:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <10D9CF3C-5327-48CC-BBCD-28A8F2F82E80@randallsquared.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <10D9CF3C-5327-48CC-BBCD-28A8F2F82E80@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <200802242002.26731.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 24 February 2008, Randall Randall wrote: > As someone who lives in east-central Alabama, I'd like to point > out that it's really rare for someone of my generation (I'm 34) > or younger to have a really noticeable "Deep South" accent, even > here. ?TV and increased mobility has nearly wiped it out. I am in Texas. Super deep south. The accent here is Spanish. Thank you, - Bryan (mostly joking) ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 25 01:39:15 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:39:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240925x49837105v9460871f4730e72a@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224122001.02302780@satx.rr.com> <1203881705_38802@S3.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080224134901.023a6570@satx.rr.com> <1203891689_41468@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1203903614_45806@S1.cableone.net> At 03:54 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote: >On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > > Now I am well aware that correlation does not equal > > causation. Still, I don't see how you can just rule out a > possible connection. > > >Correct. Nobody can *prove* there is no connection. >And neither can you or Clark prove that there is a connection. >We know of no genes that cause this effect, so until you find them....... We won't find them until we look. This is a suggestion of what we might be looking for. >Social memes and customs seem much more likely as we see them in >action with our own eyes. > >One of the funniest things I ever saw was after a Scottish family >moved down to London. The whole family spoke in broad Scottish accents >(much stronger than Scotty in Star Trek). But the children had to >survive in school where oddities like accents were severely mocked >(and worse). After a few months, while I was visiting them, I saw the >children coming home from school, shouting and playing with their >school friends. Conversation was in cut-glass upper class accents. >They waved goodbye to their friends then came indoors and spoke to >their parents in broad Scottish accents. I don't think they even >realised what they were doing. They just had one way of talking at >home and a different way at school. If you have not read The Nurture Assumption you should. >I suppose it is much the same with immigrant children who also speak a >completely different language at home. It isn't driven by genes. It is >learned behaviour. Right. But the ability to learn is the result of genes. Not only that, but the very ability to learn is switched off by genes at some point, Henry Kissenger and his brother being cases on point. >When printing started in the Renaissance, people learned to read this >new language aloud in the style of where the books were printed >(London for England) and rapidly spread the style outwards. This >happened much too quickly for inherited genes to have anything to do >with it. If they had been distributing books on tape you would have a stronger case. But literacy itself went up so slowly that it might well have been an effect of genetic selection. There is a major "political correctness" opposition to significant genetic selection happening post agriculture. It's really silly in the context of a transhumanist group because if races differ in some way that makes a difference (and they probably do) genetic editing will be able to wipe out the differences anyone cares about. And before the kids with these upgraded psychological traits grow up, genes are likely to be abandoned anyway. :-) or :-(, take your choice. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 25 02:24:06 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:24:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <200802242002.26731.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> <29666bf30802240950t6c205b4elaa63cf6d3e008c53@mail.gmail.com> <10D9CF3C-5327-48CC-BBCD-28A8F2F82E80@randallsquared.com> <200802242002.26731.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080224201953.022eaeb0@satx.rr.com> At 08:02 PM 2/24/2008 -0600, Bryan wrote: >I am in Texas. Super deep south. The accent here is Spanish. So am I. The accent here is Australian. :) Hey, melting pot! (And I have to say the melting pot was astoundingly hot today for the middle of winter--85 deg F., probably higher here in San Antonio's downtown heat island.) Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 25 02:40:40 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:40:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift In-Reply-To: <141504.223.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <141504.223.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1203907299_47038@S1.cableone.net> At 03:55 PM 2/24/2008, Tom Nowell wrote: >The Great Vowel Shift is a linguistic mystery, so it >may be premature to suggest a genetic basis. When something is not understood, it never too early to suggest *any* possible explanation. Now without genetic information and the paths by which this lead to mental propensities to shift vowel sounds or physical shape of the vocal apparatus it's certainly premature to state there is a genetic basis for the Great Vowel Shift. Stating this as a possibility will get people to think about it and devise tests. The tests may show it to be true or false, or may fail for now because we don't have the technology yet. But just thinking about it may lead to better ideas about this linguistic mystery. snip (cogent material if not exactly on this topic.) Keith From scerir at libero.it Mon Feb 25 07:36:58 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:36:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot References: <7641ddc60802221600p78c633abh61f8b330669d706e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001101c87781$35b54da0$16961f97@archimede> It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, about 50 miles from here) found where the g-spot is (he also found that not all have it) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3406113.ece http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mystery-of-the-g-spot-explored-785 601.html?r=RSS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7254523.stm From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 08:48:02 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:48:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] First SL-Transhumanists workshop Message-ID: <470a3c520802250048u473127bo6aee8e476104ca40@mail.gmail.com> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/first_sl_transhumanists_workshop/ The SL-Transhumanists group organizes scheduled events (don't miss Natasha Vita-More & Anders Sandberg on Morphological Freedom in Second Life, March 9), and more informal events at "office hours" (picture below). See the event calendar at Extropia Core for office hours. At yesterday meeting we decided to organize a "First SL-Transhumanists workshop" in the second half of March in Second Life. The workshop will permit advancing towards the group's objective of using virtual reality to overcome the fragmentation of transhumanists in brickspace, and build a cohesive-in-diversity community. The format of the workshop will be four talks of 15 min each (I answered the question "why four" with "why not?") by transhumanist speakers, each in support of a different trend or faction (ugly word, but clear), followed by a one hour round table led by a moderator and a Q/A session. The topic: transhumanist outreach and "marketing": how to use all options available in VR and brickspace to ensure that our beautiful vision reaches as many people as possible. We will contact the "obvious" four main speakers and a moderator soon, but please send your suggestions. We hope to produce a fun and interesting event for the audience. with a substantial debate (within the limits of civilized behavior, and humor-impaired readers please ignore the line below). May the Robot God be with you and upload your immortal mindfile to the angelic techno-Heaven of True Believers! From neptune at superlink.net Mon Feb 25 12:36:29 2008 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:36:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Genes and the Great Vowel Shift References: <1203812537_21816@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <007101c877ab$0c6de220$7d893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:47 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:21 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > > > One of the mysteries of the past is why both German and English > > underwent a serious shift between 1200 and 1600 in the way vowels are > > spoken. It's part of the reason English spelling (partly set before > > the shift) is such a non phonetic mess. > > > > Invasions, migrations and the printing press. > Oh - you want more detail?? > > 1066 Norman Invasion started the end of Old English. > The nobility (and courts, etc.) spoke Old French, the commoners - Old English. > The Black Death, 1350, killed about one third of the population, and > the working classes (and their language) grew in importance. By about > 1400 or so, the mixture was complete and England spoke Middle English. > The next wave of innovation in English, and the Great Vowel Shift, > came with the Renaissance, 1450 -1700. > The printing press, Shakespeare, standardised spelling, all created > Modern English. The dialect of London, where most publishing houses > were located, became the standard. Spelling and grammar became fixed, > and the first English dictionary was published in 1604. > > > I don't see any need to create a mystery about it. English is still > changing as words from other languages and fashionable accents enter > the mix. > > > BillK I generally agree. The problem, too, before printing and literacy became widespread was that language change was much more rapid and more localized. Printing and the unification under the London dialect froze spelling at a time while the language was still undergoing major changes. Of course, it's still undergoing changes, but after printing and standardizing languages (nationalizing one dialect to become the official one) this process has slowed down. So my guess is language change before standardization -- in the "interval 800-1600" as Lee puts it -- language change was much more rapid -- even leaving aside the Danish and Norman invasions. Cf. John McWhorter's _The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language_ for more on language change and Melvyn Bragg's _The Adventure of English_ for the particulars of such in English. I don't think this tracks genetic changes. Of course, the Danish and Norman invasions would, but the thing is they were bringing their word hoards to the mix and my guess would be that their genetic contribution was small. (With the Danes, probably tiny and limited to the North.) Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From korpios at korpios.com Mon Feb 25 16:11:42 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:11:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/22/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > Today, the duration of these monopoly periods has been extended to > > ludicrous terms: copyright by simply tacking on decades, and patents > > by not scaling down the term to account for accelerating rates of > > technological change. > > ### So you think that if progress accelerates, you need to make sure > to pay less for it? We all know that technological change accelerated > in many fields, shortening the mean useful lifetime of an invention, > frequently below the duration of the patent itself, thus reducing the > time in which the inventor may recoup his investment. And you say that > the inventor should be further punished by making patent duration > shorter? First off, the inventor should consider themselves lucky that they are receiving a patent *at all*. Second, yes, the useful *chronological* lifetime of an invention is shortened ? thus making it all the more important to shorten the patent time. This is not punishment; if the inventor wants to keep making money off of patents, well, guess what ? they need to *keep inventing*. > I see it quite differently - IP, including copyright and patents, > should be forever. No limits whatsoever. If you invented the wheel, > your 55th generation descendant should still get the royalties.... This is one of the most awful ideas I've ever encountered. (I've encountered it before, but, still.) I'd rather have zero IP than forever-IP; progress would be *faster* without the chilling effect of having to constantly come up with ridiculous workarounds to avoid running afoul of a patent. > unless somebody else invented the wheel independently in the meantime. > Every time somebody invents something independently, he should be > entitled to the same protection, again, and again. So the patent database becomes a black box ? *no one* is going to look at it if there's a chance of "contaminating" their own work. Hell, this is somewhat the case even today, as patent damage awards are increased if the infringement is "knowing", so engineers are instructed to never examine patents, patent claims, etc. > Today this sort of > a system would be still impossible, since we cannot yet analyze the > contents of a new inventor's mind to determine if he indeed invented > on his own, or just cribbed from the PTO site. But in the > not-too-distant future it will be possible to prove the satisfaction > of any court that a given mind was never exposed to information about > a device made public previously. It will be possible to excise any > idea of a the wheel from your mind, and try to find out if you can > re-invent it on your own. What's the *point* of this? Rather than build on each others' works and quickly make progress in a given field, we become fearful paranoids with our ears plugged and eyes covered with blinders? Science is an open discipline, and it's all the better for it; engineering could stand to learn from science's example. There are a few things that would lead me to immediately emigrate from a given nation/state; ultra-strong IP of the sort you describe is one. (Albeit I already consider the IP scheme of the US to be overly strong, as argued above.) From ablainey at aol.com Mon Feb 25 16:58:54 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:58:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Tom Tobin >First off, the inventor should consider themselves lucky that they are >receiving a patent *at all*. Second, yes, the useful *chronological* >lifetime of an invention is shortened ? thus making it all the more >important to shorten the patent time. This is not punishment; if the >inventor wants to keep making money off of patents, well, guess what ? >they need to *keep inventing*. Exactly, I can see no logical reason for inventors to get a free lunch after the recouping of the invention cost. For me the biggest pay off is knowing I have beaten the problem and made the world a slightly better place (hopefully). My plumber doesn't ask me for a check every time I turn on the water, just because he worked hard at the outset. >> I see it quite differently - IP, including copyright and patents, >> should be forever. No limits whatsoever. If you invented the wheel, >> your 55th generation descendant should still get the royalties.... >This is one of the most awful ideas I've ever encountered. (I've >encountered it before, but, still.) I'd rather have zero IP than >forever-IP; progress would be *faster* without the chilling effect of >having to constantly come up with ridiculous workarounds to avoid >running afoul of a patent. Indeed this is a truly awful idea. It would lead to stagnation in innovation and create a class divide beyond comprehension. Might I propose a 'united world invention registry'. Where every new patentable device can be registered for free by the original inventor. Anyone could browse the director for a device which fits their need and the specs downloaded. Manufacturers could register themselves against a device ?and the registry updated with how many working examples of that device have been manufactured/sold etc. If the cost of invention could somehow be factored against market usage and reimbursed accordingly to the inventor (or company paying for the development). I can see the bones of it, where the development cost of new inventions are somehow shared globally. I would like to see the useful and most utilised inventions having development costs paid back quickly and in full (perhaps an additional incentive profit). Where as useless inventions (and poor manufacterers) probably won't ever get the money back. Perhaps some kind of feedback point system could be used which accounts for the quality of the invention in quantifiable ways? This could be linked to the OEM's which are registered against a device, giving consumer freedom. Alex PS apologies for the bad format. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 18:24:14 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:24:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Forbes Special Report: Language Message-ID: <29666bf30802251024j314eb98dg1aae4de86e595533@mail.gmail.com> Per our discussions on language, Forbes is exploring the issues regarding Lingua Francas, talking to aliens and chimps and how to use language as propaganda and tool. They've got Chomsky, Pinker, Goodall, Drake, Morris -- It's a virtual EP/linguistic mash-up. What fun! Use the main link below for the individual links. PJ http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/21/language-english-chinese-tech-language_sp08-cx_ee_mn_0221lang_land_print.html Special Report Language Edited by Elisabeth Eaves and Michael Noer 02.21.08, 6:00 PM ET If America is the new Rome, English is the new Latin. It's the global lingua franca, our shared language of science, politics and commerce. But like the people who speak them, living languages are constantly changing, evolving, being born and dying away. Will English some day be replaced as the world's common tongue? What will replace it? Chinese? Hindi? Or will our most important conversations of the future be with machines, animals or even aliens? English's Bleak Future By Nicholas Ostler Lingua francas never last. Four Days Fluent By Elisabeth Eaves Our intrepid reporter pulls out all the stops in a quixotic quest to learn Mandarin Chinese in just 96 hours. No Tears For Dead Tongues By John McWhorter Sure, languages are dying out wholesale, but that's not a bad thing. Neospeakers By John McWhorter New Languages are being born all the time. Confessions Of A Propagandist By Chris O'Brien When it comes to official language, China remains hopelessly devoted to cryptic Marxist code. Most Popular Foreign Languages By Rebecca Ruiz These 10 languages are the most widely studied at American universities. By The Numbers: Most Popular Foreign Languages How To Talk To Aliens By David M. Ewalt What's the best way to craft a message to an extraterrestrial intelligence? Body Talk By Lauren Streib Nab a lover or a job without saying a word. In Pictures: Body Language For Lovers In Pictures: Body Language For The Office Can Chimps Talk? By Carl Zimmer An experiment sheds some light on the origins of spoken language. Web-lish By Andy Greenberg Search engines that understand English take aim at Google. Noam Chomsky On The Spontaneous Invention Of Language Language abhors a vacuum. Also: Why Kids Learn Languages Easily Jane Goodall On Why Words Hurt The world's foremost chimpanzee expert says language can make it harder to communicate. Desmond Morris On Symbolic Gestures There's a lot of meaning in a raised finger. Steven Pinker On Why We Have Language Renowned psychologist and author says language provides an evolutionary advantage. Frank Drake On Ambiguity An astronomer explains how to talk to extraterrestrials. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 18:39:27 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:39:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <200802241125.15396.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200802241125.15396.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: Anyone who wishes to acquire an understanding of human nature, "reality", and the interwoven nature of the two, should save this post in hardcopy and very large print, and read it over and over again. Two organisms bearing the morphology generated by the H. sapiens genome may be regarded as the same species. But "cultural" differences in the unseen "meme set" make them as different as apples and oranges. Your best bet when encountering a person of "faith" is to remind yourself repeatedly that they might as well be aliens from another galaxy -- they are that different, and walk away (from any attempt to persuade). Best, Jeff Davis On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Sunday 24 February 2008 01:15, giovanni santost wrote: > > I completely disagree, > > the person of faith has strong believes that reason, evidence, scientific > > thinking is not to be trusted, > > Right. There is a misleading tendency in our brain to assume that everybody > else must see the same things we see. When we look at evidence and reach a > conclusion, we falsely assume that other people looking at the same evidence > will reach the same conclusion. This simply isn't true. Different people > really do have difference values and beliefs. > > People really do believe in their religions, or their politics, or their > social theories. Corporations really believe they are doing the right thing. > Criminals really believe they are innocent. People really believe the latest > fad, urban legend, or pop theory making the rounds. It is a mistake to > interpret other people in terms of our own worldview. This leads to the > classic strawman fallacy where you see your own projection of the other > position and really have no understanding of the actual other position at > all. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ABlainey at aol.com Mon Feb 25 19:07:16 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:07:16 EST Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: In a message dated 25/02/2008 18:40:08 GMT Standard Time, jrd1415 at gmail.com writes: > Anyone who wishes to acquire an understanding of human nature, > "reality", and the interwoven nature of the two, should save this post > in hardcopy and very large print, and read it over and over again. > > Two organisms bearing the morphology generated by the H. sapiens > genome may be regarded as the same species. But "cultural" > differences in the unseen "meme set" make them as different as apples > and oranges. > Your best bet when encountering a person of "faith" is to remind > yourself repeatedly that they might as well be aliens from another > galaxy -- they are that different, and walk away (from any attempt to > persuade). > > Best, Jeff Davis > You could put together a list of undeniable logic traps, print off as a leaflet and hand to said H.Sapien-Idiotis. Jesus died for all our sins, so all our sins are pre-forgiven. Sin away! If God is all seeing and all powerful, why does he need you to fight for him? God created the devil, the devil is evil. ergo God..... etc. Does anyone have a list already? or links to one. At the very least it would provide some amusement. Perhaps we could stand on busy street corners asking people if they are interested in a copy of Bullshitnetics? it's all religiculous ! Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 19:31:32 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:31:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > First off, the inventor should consider themselves lucky that they are > receiving a patent *at all*. Just to play the devil's advocate, take the pharma patent. They last the usual 20 years. Yet, the single molecule that arrives on the market, with a more or less wide target, has a commercial life of little more than 10. Moreover, it has to pay in the same period the R&D efforts related to some twenty other molecules that did not go anywhere, or that were never authorised for human consumption. The imitator has just trivial manufacturing costs plus its margins, and can sell generics at less than half the total cost per unit of the developer of a new drug. Who ever would be in a position to get the financing necessary to new drug development with shorter patents, or no patents at all? The current regime is already heavily in favour of multinationals so large and with pocket so deep that can afford a few failures without going bankrupt by working on very high volumes. Stefano Vaj From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Feb 25 13:56:24 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:56:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: <001101c87781$35b54da0$16961f97@archimede> References: <7641ddc60802221600p78c633abh61f8b330669d706e@mail.gmail.com> <001101c87781$35b54da0$16961f97@archimede> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM, scerir wrote: > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, > about 50 miles from here) found where the > g-spot is (he also found that not all have it) My own research (undocumented) clearly suggests that its presence is normative, but results are highly sensitive to experimental setup and methods. - Jef From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Mon Feb 25 19:53:30 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:53:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Stefano Vaj wrote: Just to play the devil's advocate, take the pharma patent. They last the usual 20 years. Yet, the single molecule that arrives on the market, with a more or less wide target, has a commercial life of little more than 10. Moreover, it has to pay in the same period the R&D efforts related to some twenty other molecules that did not go anywhere, or that were never authorised for human consumption. The imitator has just trivial manufacturing costs plus its margins, and can sell generics at less than half the total cost per unit of the developer of a new drug. Who ever would be in a position to get the financing necessary to new drug development with shorter patents, or no patents at all? The current regime is already heavily in favour of multinationals so large and with pocket so deep that can afford a few failures without going bankrupt by working on very high volumes. Because it's a FIFO registration process for patent applications, my guess is that organizations strive to patent their drugs long before they actually have FDA approval. Since such approvals may easily take 7 to 10 years to get, that's also a substantial decrease in the amount of time over which they can sell the product exclusively. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1297 - Release Date: 2/25/2008 9:22 AM From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Feb 25 19:34:18 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: <20080225123418.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.d6480979ef.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From korpios at korpios.com Mon Feb 25 16:14:05 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <200802221842.27669.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221611q128b44e1oa8f4dd0ef3c0b403@mail.gmail.com> <200802221842.27669.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/22/08, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > Little Red Book. You can't outcompete people who innovate unless you > > innovate, too, and you can't innovate without paying inventors. It's > > as simple as that. > > I think you can if you steal. Unless the original entity no longer has the item in question, the action can't be termed "stealing". Infringing on their copyright/patents, sure, but it's not stealing. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 25 20:28:34 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:28:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221600p78c633abh61f8b330669d706e@mail.gmail.com> <001101c87781$35b54da0$16961f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080225142723.0228a060@satx.rr.com> At 05:56 AM 2/25/2008 -0800, Jef wrote: > > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, > > about 50 miles from here) found where the > > g-spot is (he also found that not all have it) > >My own research (undocumented) clearly suggests that its presence is >normative, but results are highly sensitive to experimental setup and >methods. Quite. Rather like psi--the g-spot of the mind. Damien Broderick From korpios at korpios.com Mon Feb 25 20:44:35 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:44:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/25/08, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > First off, the inventor should consider themselves lucky that they are > > receiving a patent *at all*. > > Just to play the devil's advocate, take the pharma patent. They last > the usual 20 years. Yet, the single molecule that arrives on the > market, with a more or less wide target, has a commercial life of > little more than 10. Moreover, it has to pay in the same period the > R&D efforts related to some twenty other molecules that did not go > anywhere, or that were never authorised for human consumption. The > imitator has just trivial manufacturing costs plus its margins, and > can sell generics at less than half the total cost per unit of the > developer of a new drug. > > Who ever would be in a position to get the financing necessary to new > drug development with shorter patents, or no patents at all? The > current regime is already heavily in favour of multinationals so large > and with pocket so deep that can afford a few failures without going > bankrupt by working on very high volumes. I think we're looking at the situation the wrong way. Instead of "How can pharma companies recoup their R&D costs?", I'd like to ask "Is there a better way to enrich the public good regarding medicine?" Between the questionable efficacy of many medical products and a laborious FDA approval process, I don't think the current system is a net gain; I'd rather see slower (and, hopefully, steadier) progress (with a combination of public financing, cheap generics, and looser regulations during a "prototype" testing period). I'd also like to see *far* more emphasis placed on prevention rather than treatment; prevention is both cheaper *and* more effective. A healthy diet and exercise regimen alone is worth more than the fruit of decades of research into new drugs. From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Feb 25 21:17:54 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:17:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> Alex said: >> You could put together a list of undeniable logic traps, print off as a leaflet and hand to said H.Sapien-Idiotis. Jesus died for all our sins, so all our sins are pre-forgiven. Sin away! If God is all seeing and all powerful, why does he need you to fight for him? God created the devil, the devil is evil. ergo God..... etc. Does anyone have a list already? or links to one. At the very least it would provide some amusement. Perhaps we could stand on busy street corners asking people if they are interested in a copy of Bullshitnetics? it's all religiculous ! >> I will start by saying that although I am not a Christian, I respect the belief systems of people with other memesets. That being said, by criticizing and mocking a large percentage of the populations core meme set do you win converts or scorn and animosity. This may be an attempt at humor, but anybody adhering to the popular JudeoChristian memeset would be immediately offended and insulted by such humor and ridicule. By planting these vile seeds of intolerance and ridicule here you reduce our numbers and were I an AGI, I would infer that based on our intolerance we are not worthy of survival! Only those who practice compassion and tolerance of others beliefs deserve to survive the Singularity. And remember our words recorded here may be the AGI's first exposures to Extropians and Transhumanists and kin. I would hate it if we were to be judged not worthy of survival by that AGI based on the sophomoric contempt and scorn that a few fanatical atheists determined to profess their supposed superiority to the world using this mailing list as a vehicle. I thought we had a moderator here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 22:35:38 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:35:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <200802221853.15494.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <200802221853.15494.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802251435u12c19e48oabde91e8cf268f0b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > on his own, or just cribbed from the PTO site. But in the > > not-too-distant future it will be possible to prove the satisfaction > > of any court that a given mind was never exposed to information about > > a device made public previously. > > Interesting idea, but limited. Suppose that I have never seen the > invention of patent xyz, but instead I see parts of the same signal in > other ways, such as different people saying parts of the patent, but in > no specified way that would be necessarily identifiable as the patent > itself, merely as something that would lead me to think the same > thoughts given my known neurochemistry. This makes for a blurry > situation, and even if you had access to all inputs since the beginning > that a particular person has had, when do you stop being schizophrenic > and drawing useless connections between all parts of the datastream. ### If you can replicate an invention by enumerating all connections in your datastream, the invention is not that brilliant. If a random mind can produce it quickly, there is no reason to claim protection for it, since your competitors could easily replicate it, and avoid having to pay you. If, on the other hand, it takes thousands of minds or minds of unusual quality (and price), then re-doing the invention would be as costly as the initial claim. Either way, the inventor could charge a price that would be just below the market clearing price (i.e. the average expected price of re-invention), and thus maximize utility for both consumer and inventor, as expected from a market interaction. Rafal From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 22:56:44 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:56:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <200802221842.27669.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802251656.44880.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 25 February 2008, Tom Tobin wrote: > Unless the original entity no longer has the item in question, the > action can't be termed "stealing". ?Infringing on their > copyright/patents, sure, but it's not stealing. The funding. Not the information. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 22:58:29 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:58:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200802251658.29400.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 25 February 2008, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > Might I propose a 'united world invention registry'. Please don't. There's no way that you can keep track of all invented things; the amount of biological innovation occuring per second is enormous and goes mostly undocumented. Documentation distracts. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 23:00:48 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:00:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: References: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200802241125.15396.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <200802251700.48361.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 25 February 2008, Jeff Davis wrote: > Your best bet when encountering a person of "faith" is to remind > yourself repeatedly that they might as well be aliens from another > galaxy -- they are that different, and walk away (from any attempt to > persuade). And other people see this difference, and then the holocaust happens. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 23:20:07 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:20:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802251520y54d25e35y7c7a87c6a4b1689e@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/22/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > Today, the duration of these monopoly periods has been extended to > > > ludicrous terms: copyright by simply tacking on decades, and patents > > > by not scaling down the term to account for accelerating rates of > > > technological change. > > > > ### So you think that if progress accelerates, you need to make sure > > to pay less for it? We all know that technological change accelerated > > in many fields, shortening the mean useful lifetime of an invention, > > frequently below the duration of the patent itself, thus reducing the > > time in which the inventor may recoup his investment. And you say that > > the inventor should be further punished by making patent duration > > shorter? > > First off, the inventor should consider themselves lucky that they are > receiving a patent *at all*. Second, yes, the useful *chronological* > lifetime of an invention is shortened ? thus making it all the more > important to shorten the patent time. This is not punishment; if the > inventor wants to keep making money off of patents, well, guess what ? > they need to *keep inventing*. ### It looks like you are saying something like this: "Jeez, these uppity inventors, stop asking for money, just do some work, will ya? Be glad that I don't just come and smack you around." You are applying a gut feeling rather than an explicit analysis of incentives and inputs that is needed to predict outputs. If your feelings about the issue are more important to you than the outcome, all you get is a lot of aggravation. No inventor will offer you an invention if the only incentive you offer him is a scornful "well, guess what - you need to *keep inventing". Just imagine how your baker would treat you if you helped yourself to his bread and told him to "just keep baking". Your feelings mean nothing by themselves, what matters are the incentives you present to others. -------------------------------- > > I see it quite differently - IP, including copyright and patents, > > should be forever. No limits whatsoever. If you invented the wheel, > > your 55th generation descendant should still get the royalties.... > > This is one of the most awful ideas I've ever encountered. (I've > encountered it before, but, still.) I'd rather have zero IP than > forever-IP; progress would be *faster* without the chilling effect of > having to constantly come up with ridiculous workarounds to avoid > running afoul of a patent. ### You mean I beat Christianity and John Maynard Keynes? Wow! Now, since you seem to speak with a great degree of conviction, claiming that IP limits innovation, how can you explain the plain fact that innovation is fastest in countries with strong IP laws? How does that play into your thesis? Secondly, the whole notion of perpetual-competitive IP that I am proposing is designed to put an immediate and perpetual *market price* on each and every piece of IP, as opposed to the current practice of temporary monopoly price followed by free availability. Do you understand what it means in economic terms, and especially in terms of incentives to innovators and customers? Your concern about needing "workarounds" is precisely one of the problems addressed by the proposal: Since currently during the patent period the price is monopolistic, it will be high, frequently exceeding the marginal utility of the invention to many users, and prompting them to avoid using the innovation. At the same time, the temporariness of the price forces the patent owner to try to recoup his investment as soon as possible, therefore preventing him from lowering the price. Under the perpetual IP regime, the owner would use the market clearing price (see my previous response to Bryan), which would leave the consumer with a significant consumer surplus. You would not try "workarounds" because the patented IP would be cheaper than the workaround (or else the patent owner would give you a discount so as to entice you to use his patent, instead of something else). You might find it easier to think about IP like you do about bread. Imagine that there was a monopoly on baking bread, but only on alternating weeks. One week the baker would be able to charge anything he wanted but the next week he would have to give bread away for free. Would that be an efficient system? Obviously, no, yet the current IP system works just like that. The perpetual-competitive IP (PC IP) system would make the pricing of inventions much more like the pricing of bread today, and therefore if would make inventors and consumers better off. ------------------------------------------------- > > So the patent database becomes a black box ? *no one* is going to look > at it if there's a chance of "contaminating" their own work. Hell, > this is somewhat the case even today, as patent damage awards are > increased if the infringement is "knowing", so engineers are > instructed to never examine patents, patent claims, etc. ### Of course, if you wish to re-invent something you need to design the inventor's mind so that it will be perfectly ignorant of the patented work - but it still can have the advantage of knowing that the problem it was made to solve actually is solvable. And, you can freely use the patent database to try create novel IP not foreseen by the original inventors. In this way one of the prime advantages of patenting, that is making knowledge available for further progress, would be preserved. ---------------------------------------- > > What's the *point* of this? Rather than build on each others' works > and quickly make progress in a given field, we become fearful > paranoids with our ears plugged and eyes covered with blinders? > Science is an open discipline, and it's all the better for it; > engineering could stand to learn from science's example. ### The point is putting a market price on something that you are now forced to buy at monopoly prices, while maintaining the public availability of information needed for further progress. This is the opposite of what you think would happen, and I am really baffled why you have such expectations. ----------------------------------------------- > There are a few things that would lead me to immediately emigrate from > a given nation/state; ultra-strong IP of the sort you describe is one. > (Albeit I already consider the IP scheme of the US to be overly > strong, as argued above.) > ### You would miss out on the bargain of your life. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 23:33:05 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:33:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802251533i204fa3bake4a18e998ff224ae@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:58 AM, wrote: > > Exactly, I can see no logical reason for inventors to get a free lunch after > the recouping of the invention cost. ### The proposal to tie IP to the cost of making it is an old canard. Basically, if you reward the cost (rather than usefulness) of invention, you get a lot of cost but not that much usefulness. It is exactly the reason why paying workers by the hour is frequently more expensive than paying by the unit of work done. ---------------------------------- > My plumber doesn't ask me for a check every time I turn on the water, just > because he worked hard at the outset. ### Only because there are other plumbers ready to offer you a good deal if he gets too greedy. Why is this so difficult to see it in my proposal - I want to allow re-invention, allow making *other inventors* to provide competitive pricing! Did I describe the proposal clumsily? Didn't this notion come across? ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Might I propose a 'united world invention registry'. Where every new > patentable device can be registered for free by the original inventor. > Anyone could browse the director for a device which fits their need and the > specs downloaded. Manufacturers could register themselves against a device > and the registry updated with how many working examples of that device have > been manufactured/sold etc. > If the cost of invention could somehow be factored against market usage and > reimbursed accordingly to the inventor (or company paying for the > development). ### Yeah, that "somehow", this little word has killed many great ideas. ------------------------------------- > > Perhaps some kind of feedback point system could be used which accounts for > the quality of the invention in quantifiable ways? ### The market? The price mechanism? No? "Something" better? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 23:39:12 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:39:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802251539k1260b241h9427ac9d0f41a46c@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > I think we're looking at the situation the wrong way. Instead of "How > can pharma companies recoup their R&D costs?", I'd like to ask "Is > there a better way to enrich the public good regarding medicine?" > Between the questionable efficacy of many medical products and a > laborious FDA approval process, I don't think the current system is a > net gain; I'd rather see slower (and, hopefully, steadier) progress > (with a combination of public financing, cheap generics, and looser > regulations during a "prototype" testing period). I'd also like to > see *far* more emphasis placed on prevention rather than treatment; > prevention is both cheaper *and* more effective. A healthy diet and > exercise regimen alone is worth more than the fruit of decades of > research into new drugs. ### Yeah? How does that solve the problem of e.g. glioblastoma multiforme? Healthy eating? Prevention??? lol It's so easy to go handwaving with "enriching", "public good" and other pleasant-sounding shibboleths. It's so difficult and expensive to actually make something work. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 26 00:11:55 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:11:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Spock, Anti-Spock Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080225181008.062ab6f0@satx.rr.com> Prefrontal and amygdala volumes are related to adolescents' affective behaviors during parent?adolescent interactions Abstract Adolescence is a key period for the development of brain circuits underlying affective and behavioral regulation. It remains unclear, however, whether and how adolescent brain structure influences day-to-day affective behavior. Because of significant changes in the nature of family relations that also typically occur during adolescence, parent?child interactions provide a meaningful context where affective behavior and its regulation may be assessed. In a sample of 137 early adolescents, we investigated the relationship between aspects of the adolescents' brain structure and their affective behavior as assessed during observation of parent?child interactions. We found a significant positive association between volume of the amygdala and the duration of adolescent aggressive behavior during these interactions. We also found male-specific associations between the volume of prefrontal structures and affective behavior, with decreased leftward anterior paralimbic cortex volume asymmetry associated with increased duration of aggressive behavior, and decreased leftward orbitofrontal cortex volume asymmetry associated with increased reciprocity of dysphoric behavior. These findings suggest that adolescent brain structure is associated with affective behavior and its regulation in the context of family interactions, and that there may be gender differences in the neural mechanisms underlying affective and behavioral regulation during early adolescence. Particularly as adolescence marks a period of rapid brain maturation, our findings have implications for mental health outcomes that may be revealed later along the developmental trajectory. From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 26 02:21:36 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:21:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot Message-ID: <200802260221.m1Q2Lg2R001315@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Subject: Re: [ExI] problems with g-spot > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM, scerir wrote: > > > > > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, about 50 miles from > > > here) found where the g-spot is... ... > Turns out all this time the g-spot was at a university in > Italy, about fifty miles from scerir's house... spike My wife has such a wicked sense of humor. I am embarrassed to tell where she told me that g-spot was to be found. I fell for it (sucker that I am) and like a dutiful husband I searched repeatedly. Now of course I realize that I was off by two continents and an ocean. Oh she really got me with that one. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 02:28:08 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:28:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080225142723.0228a060@satx.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60802221600p78c633abh61f8b330669d706e@mail.gmail.com> <001101c87781$35b54da0$16961f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20080225142723.0228a060@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802251828h66f116vc9230ce2d964ca5c@mail.gmail.com> scerir wrote: > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, > about 50 miles from here) found where the > g-spot is (he also found that not all have it) jeff allbright wrote: My own research (undocumented) clearly suggests that its presence is normative, but results are highly sensitive to experimental setup and methods. >> Is the mysterious g-spot also a part of the highly mysterious process known as "female ejaculation?" And do only some women experience "female ejaculation" with their orgasms? Or could this occur in all women but in such varying degrees of lesser intensity that it often goes unnoticed? John (very confused) From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 26 02:03:37 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:03:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802260230.m1Q2UIeH003059@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] problems with g-spot > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM, scerir wrote: > > > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, about 50 miles from > > here) found where the g-spot is (he also found that not all have it)... Well at least that makes me feel better about my own amorous technique. I never managed to find this mysterious g-spot, but at least now I know why. I was looking in the states. Turns out all this time the g-spot was at a university in Italy, about fifty miles from scerir's house. Scerir, are they currently accepting student applications? spike From korpios at korpios.com Mon Feb 25 22:37:35 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:37:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 2/25/08, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > I will start by saying that although I am not a Christian, I respect the > belief systems of people with other memesets. I don't. This notion ? "respecting" the beliefs of those who make *false* (for the Bayesians, read: close to zero probability) factual claims about reality ? needs to have a stake driven through its heart. I don't necessarily hate the *people* who hold these false beliefs, but there is nothing about the claims that deserves *respect*. We *should* be intolerant of stupid beliefs. Yes, *stupid* ? that's what it is to believe, e.g., that this planet was formed 6,000 years ago, or that there's a magical all-powerful creature looking out for your welfare. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 02:53:16 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:53:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: <200802260230.m1Q2UIeH003059@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200802260230.m1Q2UIeH003059@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802251853m46c58310o13de3d46834ad8e6@mail.gmail.com> Spike wrote: Well at least that makes me feel better about my own amorous technique. I never managed to find this mysterious g-spot, but at least now I know why. I was looking in the states. Turns out all this time the g-spot was at a university in Italy, about fifty miles from scerir's house. Scerir, are they currently accepting student applications? >>> Oh, no, Spike, the place you want to go to is Japan! lol I saw an HBO documentary about a male Japanese "Dr. Ruth" who is absolutely adored over there. He uses a technique reminicient of hypnotism and "old school faith healing by the laying on of hands" to solve the sexual dysfunction problems of Japanese couples. It is considered an absolute honor to have him see you and he allows cameras to document his rather unique methods (though he is an actual medical doctor). When he "got to work" on the hordes of couples which came to see him he often would do so in fairly large groups of people all in one room! It had the feel of a Pentecostal revival crossed with something Rasputin might have done. When he announced publicly that his clinic would need around five interns to help him in his practice the response was quite impressive to say the least. The doctor received well over twenty-five thousand applications! John : ) On 2/25/08, spike wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [ExI] problems with g-spot > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM, scerir wrote: > > > > > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, about 50 miles from > > > here) found where the g-spot is (he also found that not all have it)... > > > Well at least that makes me feel better about my own amorous technique. I > never managed to find this mysterious g-spot, but at least now I know why. > I was looking in the states. Turns out all this time the g-spot was at a > university in Italy, about fifty miles from scerir's house. > > Scerir, are they currently accepting student applications? > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 26 03:03:42 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:03:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802251853m46c58310o13de3d46834ad8e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802260303.m1Q33h2F010254@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > John Grigg ... > > When he announced publicly that his clinic would need around > five interns to help him in his practice the response was > quite impressive to say the least. The doctor received well > over twenty-five thousand applications! John : ) Well it depends on how you count them. I sent in over thirty myself. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 26 02:54:22 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:54:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200802260321.m1Q3L2Pw018695@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of aiguy at comcast.net Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:18 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Basis of Belief Alex said: >> ... interested in a copy of Bullshitnetics? it's all religiculous ! >> ... I would hate it if we were to be judged not worthy of survival by that AGI based on the sophomoric contempt and scorn that a few fanatical atheists determined to profess their supposed superiority to the world using this mailing list as a vehicle. I thought we had a moderator here? We do. Ridicule of religion is allowed here. We might just as likely to be judged worthy of survival by that AGI based on our sophomoric comtempt of religion. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Feb 26 03:52:53 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:52:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802251828h66f116vc9230ce2d964ca5c@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221600p78c633abh61f8b330669d706e@mail.gmail.com> <001101c87781$35b54da0$16961f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20080225142723.0228a060@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670802251828h66f116vc9230ce2d964ca5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:28 PM, John Grigg wrote: > scerir wrote: > > It seems that dr. Jannini (Aquila university, > > about 50 miles from here) found where the > > g-spot is (he also found that not all have it) > > > jeff allbright wrote: > My own research (undocumented) clearly suggests that its presence is > normative, but results are highly sensitive to experimental setup and > methods. > >> > > Is the mysterious g-spot also a part of the highly mysterious process > known as "female ejaculation?" And do only some women experience > "female ejaculation" with their orgasms? Or could this occur in all > women but in such varying degrees of lesser intensity that it often > goes unnoticed? > > John (very confused) Amazingly, I just looked in a seldom-viewed mail folder and I found about 1200 messages sent to me **just today** on this very same subject! I haven't opened any of them yet, but the subject lines say things like "Be her pleasure machine!" and "Make her scream tonight!", so with all this coming it's growing hard to resist the temptation to release my research. I'll let you know offlist, John, if I do the deed. Until then, Google is your friend. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 26 03:56:59 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:56:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <957803.2832.qm@web31308.mail.mud.yahoo.com><200802241125.15396.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <200802251700.48361.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <19b001c8782b$d7ea9120$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Well, I am a bit ashamed of the vehemence of my atheist brethern here. Isn't it possible to entirely disagree with, even despise the notions, ideals, values, and beliefs of others without coming to the point of saying it's like they don't even belong to the same species? That communication is impossible? I just think that Jeff here---and some others---are really overdoing it: > On Monday 25 February 2008, Jeff Davis wrote: >> Your best bet when encountering a person of "faith" is to remind >> yourself repeatedly that they might as well be aliens from another >> galaxy -- they are that different, and walk away (from any attempt >> to persuade). What next? Are people we disagree with politically (and who may be just as hard, i.e. impossible, to "convert") next on the list? I happen to be reading about the French revolution, you see, and this kind of thing often tends to really get out of hand.... Bryan wrote > And other people see this difference, and then the holocaust happens. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but that kind of talk does invite holocausts, all right. Would you be comfortable with some devout Moslems or Christians sadly coming to the conclusion that *you* were hardly human, and certainly not worth saving? You think that this is really smart, or even accurate? People are a hell of a lot more than just their beliefs, and even more than their values. While there is absolutely nothing problematic about saying that some people are WRONG WRONG WRONG about certain things, they're really more like "us" than you think. Lee From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 26 04:10:02 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:10:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802251520y54d25e35y7c7a87c6a4b1689e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802251520y54d25e35y7c7a87c6a4b1689e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/25/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### It looks like you are saying something like this: "Jeez, these > uppity inventors, stop asking for money, just do some work, will ya? > Be glad that I don't just come and smack you around." You are applying > a gut feeling rather than an explicit analysis of incentives and > inputs that is needed to predict outputs. If your feelings about the > issue are more important to you than the outcome, all you get is a lot > of aggravation. No inventor will offer you an invention if the only > incentive you offer him is a scornful "well, guess what - you need to > *keep inventing". I think you discount the potential of open-source, collaborative means of invention and authorship; given the currently available body of ideas and a mandate to go nuts (and maybe a RepRap), why shouldn't the same blooming of useful creative work happen in other fields just as with computer programming? Insofar as *feelings* go, I actually believe that all IP is unethical; just as a conviction that all slavery is unethical, this doesn't stem from reason or a cost/benefit analysis. > Just imagine how your baker would treat you if you helped yourself to > his bread and told him to "just keep baking". Conflating IP with physical property gets far too messy for the point of any analogy to shine through. > Your feelings mean nothing by themselves, what matters are the > incentives you present to others. Yes and no; my feelings don't help me reach goals, but they're also the reason I *have* goals in the first place. If my desire is a zero-IP world, then all the cost/benefit analysis in the world doesn't really do me any good. > > This is one of the most awful ideas I've ever encountered. (I've > > encountered it before, but, still.) I'd rather have zero IP than > > forever-IP; progress would be *faster* without the chilling effect of > > having to constantly come up with ridiculous workarounds to avoid > > running afoul of a patent. > > ### You mean I beat Christianity and John Maynard Keynes? Wow! You're up there with 'em. ;-) > Now, since you seem to speak with a great degree of conviction, > claiming that IP limits innovation, how can you explain the plain fact > that innovation is fastest in countries with strong IP laws? How does > that play into your thesis? The economist's mantra: Correlation does not imply causation. > Secondly, the whole notion of perpetual-competitive IP that I am > proposing is designed to put an immediate and perpetual *market price* > on each and every piece of IP, as opposed to the current practice of > temporary monopoly price followed by free availability. Do you > understand what it means in economic terms, and especially in terms of > incentives to innovators and customers? > > Your concern about needing "workarounds" is precisely one of the > problems addressed by the proposal: Since currently during the patent > period the price is monopolistic, it will be high, frequently > exceeding the marginal utility of the invention to many users, and > prompting them to avoid using the innovation. At the same time, the > temporariness of the price forces the patent owner to try to recoup > his investment as soon as possible, therefore preventing him from > lowering the price. Under the perpetual IP regime, the owner would use > the market clearing price (see my previous response to Bryan), which > would leave the consumer with a significant consumer surplus. You > would not try "workarounds" because the patented IP would be cheaper > than the workaround (or else the patent owner would give you a > discount so as to entice you to use his patent, instead of something > else). Analogous to the calls for mandatory licensing schemes for, e.g., music? Besides the current unfeasibility (which I won't hold against it ? we're on a transhumanist list, after all), what happens to those who don't want to play the game? What happens to people who want to dedicate their work to the public domain? If they "reinvent" something, are all the royalties to the other inventors cancelled? Anything involving mind-scanning strikes me as horrid; I'm even in favor of laptops and other mental prostheses receiving complete privacy protection from all outside parties, including governments with search permits. So as a means for figuring out who "reinvented" something, err, I'd pass. Ultimately, I'll readily admit that I wouldn't care *how* cheap IP might be under this system: the notion that I might hear about an invention and be forever tainted is simply too awful. > You might find it easier to think about IP like you do about bread. Except that I can't think bread into existence, or, more aptly, I can't create a clone of a piece of bread (or a Platonic ideal of bread) that exists somewhere else already by thinking it up. And with bread, the baker no longer has it if I take it. (Can you tell I don't like analogies with physical property?) ^_^ > Imagine that there was a monopoly on baking bread, but only on > alternating weeks. One week the baker would be able to charge anything > he wanted but the next week he would have to give bread away for free. > Would that be an efficient system? Obviously, no, yet the current IP > system works just like that. The perpetual-competitive IP (PC IP) > system would make the pricing of inventions much more like the pricing > of bread today, and therefore if would make inventors and consumers > better off. Again, ideas are *nothing whatsoever* like bread. Hell, we need to stop using the term *IP* (I've been guilty of it, too), because it's not *property*, it's a government-granted monopoly right. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 04:17:14 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:17:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Fwd: Alternate transistors Message-ID: <200802252217.14827.kanzure@gmail.com> This might be of interest re: self-replication. Given easy-to-synthesize transistors, RepRap can start doing self-repping. - Bryan ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Alternate transistors Date: Monday 25 February 2008 From: Bryan Bishop To: Blake Rieger The LiquiFET was using capillary action to work. Wouldn't scale up to my transistor-in-a-jar idea for testing. Only nm. Maybe we can come up with another way to make it happen. Really, for digital logic, all we need is a relay (switch). But the problem is that if you have 20 relays connected in sequence, you get voltage drop-off eventually (obviously) and the circuit just fails completely. The trick with a transistor is that it acts as an amplifier too, keeping the voltage always at the binary logic state. State restoration. In field effect transistors (jFETs), the voltage to the gate pin determines the magnitude of current flowing through the circuit via directly influencing the 'resistance' of the channel. As the gate voltage increases, the depletion region increases in size until eventually there's zero current allowed to flow from source to drain. The depletion region will not carry current. This works because of the purities of the silicon material and the doping. And it works because the electric field naturally repels electrons, constricting the current (= generating resistence). I think it's pretty much an example of two differently sourced junctions (so that one stream of electrons want a ground, the others (holes?) want to go to a source) or something like that. If we wanted to do this without semiconductor manufacturing, we'd need a makeshift semiconductor-- where are we going to find one of these? Actually, we just need a digital relay. But first. There's one way to do it: piezoelectricity. Have a metal piezo contact that would complete the circuit. Applying voltage to the piezo means we can change the metal's shape. This would be useful for, say, compressing a liquid, which when compressed would then transmit its own signal (input/output of its own). This *might* scale well for working with our hands -- get a piezo from a speaker, maybe, but what liquid would experience such a drastic change in conductivity at room temperatures? Solid state is a much, much better idea. Most mechanical relays are clunky and slow. A piezo means we can change the shape of the metal and make it an open/closed circuit within picoseconds of applying the voltage, so maybe the mechanical idea is not so bad after all? I tried running some searches on the net for piezo transistors and piezo relays. Nothing out there yet. There's a company (Kovio) that uses nanocrystals (pre-doped si) to do inkjet printing of transistors. They claim to be going to market later this year. I am wondering how they are generating their pre-doped nanocrystals. Doped semiconductor powder and the preparation thereof: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7081664-fulltext.html There happens to be a few PDFs that Google can find on the net for the synthesis of silicon nanocrystals. Can we figure out the synthesis of doped si nanocrystals? One of the 2001 papers I've looked at was using UHV for si nanocryst synth -- seriously not good. UHV bad. Not simple. There's a paper out there called "Synthesis of silicon nanocrystals in aluminum-doped SiO2 film by laser ablation method." That might be interesting. Can you find it for me? Ah, here's a method that requires just a solution to do the synth: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7214599.html This looks interesting too: http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/20617 > Kortshagen and co-workers begin by injecting a dilute mixture of 5% > silane (SiH4) in 95% helium and argon into a narrow quartz tube about > 23 centimetres long. They then apply around 200 watts of power at a > frequency of 13.56 megahertz to a ring-like electrode that is about 10 > centimetres away from the ground electrode. The resulting plasma is > unstable and is made up of a filament of bright plasma globules. > Existing approaches to plasma synthesis use stable, uniform plasmas. > > The high-energy electrons in the plasma decompose the silane gas into > its constituents and the silicon atoms released in this way then > recombine to form silicon particles. Transmission electron microscopy > reveals that the nanoparticles are all between 20 and 80 nanometres in > size and are predominantly cubic-shaped. Most of the solution-based si nanocryst synth methods seem to involve something known as a Zintl precursor, and it's actually done in silicon tetrachloride solution or something, so it doesn't sound like anything too hideously complex has to be used for the wet-based synthesis of nanocrystals. If we can come up with a si nanocryst powder, we can use this in an inkjet printer, print out the relevant circuits, and there we go. Print out relays or transistors, probably. How hard is it to work with silicon tetrachloride, anyway? Synthesis of semiconductor nanoparticles.pdf > The synthesis of semiconductor nanocrystals has been well > developed for II-VI semiconductors (CdSe, CdS, ZnSe, ZnS, > CdTe) and III-V semiconductors (InP, InAs, GaAs) [1, 2]. The > development of the pyrolytic route to making nanocrystals was > one of the major advancements in the nanocrystal synthesis, > and was the first type to produce samples with size > distributions that were reasonable. Large quantities (? 1 > gram) of nanocrystals can be produced in a few hours. The > underlying strategy of this synthesis is the reaction of the > molecular precursors instantaneously at high temperature in a > coordinating solvent. Varying the concentrations of the > reagents with respect to the reaction solution and growth time > controls of the size of the particles. * solution phase synthesis route > Synthesis details II-VI (CdSe) > Dimethyl cadmium is obtained commercially and transferred into a vial > by a vacuum transfer under Ar at a pressure ? 20 mtorr. This removes (how do we do vacuum transfers??) > impurities which have a higher vapor pressure than the pure compound. > Pure Se metal is purchased under Ar and dissolved in tributyl > phosphine in the glove box. The dimethyl cadmium is added such that > the molar ratio between Cd:Se is 1:1. Size and shape control are the > result of variations in the concentration. The solution should remain > clear, indicating that the reagents have not reacted. > Trioctylphosphine oxide (90%) (TOPO) is degassed and heated under Ar > to 360?C. The impurity in TOPO is crucial to the stabilization of the > nanocrystals in solution [3]. The stock solution is injected > immediately while the temperature is simultaneously lowered to the > temperature for nanocrystal growth (300?C). Further injections will > boost the size as well as improve the size distribution [2]. During > the synthesis, the absorption spectrum is monitored to ensure that > particle growth does not stop due to consumption of the reagents in > solution. Once particle growth stops, Ostwald ripening begins, which > is the growth of larger particles at the expense of smaller ones, an > undesirable process as it increases the size distribution. After the > reaction is complete (either when the desired size is reached or the > reagents are all consumed), the temperature is lowered and the > nanocrystals are precipitated at room temperature with MeOH under Ar > or air. The particles as synthesized are soluble in toluene, hexanes, > and pyridine and can be stored as a solution or a powder indefinitely > in dark and under Ar. The TOPO on the surface can be exchanged with > another ligand or removed to change its solubility properties by > refluxing with a labile ligand such as pyridine. So this looks like a good method to pursue. Kovio already makes circuits for themselves w/ transistors. So I'm betting that they have hired on one of the grad students that worked on nanocrystal synth since 1993 or whenever the first observation was made of their general production. I doubt they have their own too heavily customized protocol for the generation of nanocrysts. So if we start collecting documents on the synthesis of nanoparticles, start to look for commonalities, and also trying to find ways to reduce the needed equipment to stuff that the RepRap should be able to make on its own, we should be set for full self-replication. Although I was really hoping for the transistor in a jar to work out for the better ... maybe just a relay in a jar? Please? g'night - Bryan Various stuff: * Growth of Highly Luminescent Silicon Nanocrystals by Rapid Thermal Chemical Vapor Deposition * http://www.play-hookey.com/semiconductors/junction_fet.html http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6500580.html ------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From korpios at korpios.com Tue Feb 26 04:16:29 2008 From: korpios at korpios.com (Tom Tobin) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:16:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802251539k1260b241h9427ac9d0f41a46c@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802251539k1260b241h9427ac9d0f41a46c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/25/08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > > > I think we're looking at the situation the wrong way. Instead of "How > > can pharma companies recoup their R&D costs?", I'd like to ask "Is > > there a better way to enrich the public good regarding medicine?" > > Between the questionable efficacy of many medical products and a > > laborious FDA approval process, I don't think the current system is a > > net gain; I'd rather see slower (and, hopefully, steadier) progress > > (with a combination of public financing, cheap generics, and looser > > regulations during a "prototype" testing period). I'd also like to > > see *far* more emphasis placed on prevention rather than treatment; > > prevention is both cheaper *and* more effective. A healthy diet and > > exercise regimen alone is worth more than the fruit of decades of > > research into new drugs. > > > ### Yeah? How does that solve the problem of e.g. glioblastoma > multiforme? Healthy eating? Prevention??? lol Prevention would help knock down a whole host of easy targets that claim plenty of lives; when heart disease kills 268 people out of every 100,000 per year, tossing up an example with a 2 per 100,000 incident rate makes me scratch my head. From santostasigio at yahoo.com Tue Feb 26 03:54:34 2008 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:54:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot In-Reply-To: <200802260303.m1Q33h2F010254@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <170903.65355.qm@web31311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think you don't need to go to Italy to find it you have to be Italian. I never failed it to find it. It is easy to locate because it is a very clear roughness in the vaginal wall, that is more or less where the man prostate would be located. I'm surprised that you guys are still looking for it. spike wrote: ... > John Grigg ... > > When he announced publicly that his clinic would need around > five interns to help him in his practice the response was > quite impressive to say the least. The doctor received well > over twenty-five thousand applications! John : ) Well it depends on how you count them. I sent in over thirty myself. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 26 05:20:09 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:20:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] TED 2008 Message-ID: I am looking forward to these (in their recorded form, as in previous years) ! Amara http://www.ted.com/index.php/pages/view/id/48 February 27-March 1, 2008 Monterey Conference Center, Monterey, California, USA Many people come to TED seeking something out of the ordinary. A chance to mentally recharge. A chance to step back and consider the really big stuff that's happening. A chance to understand life in a richer way. TED2008 will be our most ambitious attempt yet to deliver on that agenda. We're building our program around the biggest questions there are. And because it's TED, we'll be seeking answers not just from the sources you might expect, but by bringing together multiple voices from very different disciplines. The "Aha" moments often come from the most unexpected connections. The questions below will give you a flavor of the incredibly rich vein of possibility in this approach. Plenty of Profundity and Challenge, for sure ... but also plenty of room for Cool, Exciting and Whimsical. See the TED2008 Conference Program for details. We think you will like it very much: Who are we? What is our place in the universe? What is life? Is beauty truth? Will evil prevail? How can we change the world? How do we create? What's out there? What will tomorrow bring? What stirs us? How dare we be optimistic? And the point? -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From randall at randallsquared.com Tue Feb 26 05:49:12 2008 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:49:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5277EB83-9CBF-4B62-A63C-1DF0C8636196@randallsquared.com> On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > On 2/25/08, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: >> I will start by saying that although I am not a Christian, I >> respect the >> belief systems of people with other memesets. > > I don't. > > This notion ? "respecting" the beliefs of those who make *false* (for > the Bayesians, read: close to zero probability) factual claims about > reality ? needs to have a stake driven through its heart. I don't > necessarily hate the *people* who hold these false beliefs, but there > is nothing about the claims that deserves *respect*. Nothing inside the universe can be evidence for or against a Creator of the universe. Either you believe in such a thing or you don't, but there's no way to get from one of those beliefs to the other with reason and evidence. If you believe, there's nothing about our universe which could logically dissuade you, since God made it like that. If you don't believe, even miracles and Jesus himself coming to talk to you should only be (e.g.) evidence that you're in a simulation or that you're delusional, rather than that Christianity is ultimately true. Of course, people do change their minds, cease to believe, and so on, but they don't do it for rational reasons. -- Randall Randall "Someone needs to invent a Bayesball bat that exists solely for smacking people [...] upside the head." -- Psy-Kosh on reddit.com From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 26 06:18:41 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:18:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <200802260321.m1Q3L2Pw018695@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <681636.95360.qm@web30406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > We do. Ridicule of religion is allowed here. I thought Extropians where far ahead of this ridicule. >We might just as likely to be judged worthy of >survival by that AGI based on our sophomoric >contempt of religion. You better hope Spike that the AGI doesn't come back with a basic beliefs in religion as religion has been around for centuries. What will you do then? I'm quite sure an AI will have to determine what all that literature was about and how to make sense of it. What if there is an equation...hope your not wrong? Beliefs are personal choices and not all personal choices are the right ones but I guarantee that by ridiculing other peoples beliefs you are not aiding in advancing any cause. Just an opinion Anna Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From robotact at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 07:02:33 2008 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:02:33 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <5277EB83-9CBF-4B62-A63C-1DF0C8636196@randallsquared.com> References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> <5277EB83-9CBF-4B62-A63C-1DF0C8636196@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Randall Randall wrote: > > Nothing inside the universe can be evidence for or against > a Creator of the universe. Either you believe in such a > thing or you don't, but there's no way to get from one of > those beliefs to the other with reason and evidence. If > you believe, there's nothing about our universe which > could logically dissuade you, since God made it like that. > If you don't believe, even miracles and Jesus himself > coming to talk to you should only be (e.g.) evidence that > you're in a simulation or that you're delusional, rather > than that Christianity is ultimately true. > > Of course, people do change their minds, cease to believe, > and so on, but they don't do it for rational reasons. > There is a huge number of factual claims about the world for which there is no evidence. It directly corresponds to them having insanely small probability for you. What is the prior of 1Mb Christianity primer? That's what you are still left with. -- Vladimir Nesov robotact at gmail.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 07:42:03 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:12:03 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <200802260321.m1Q3L2Pw018695@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> <200802260321.m1Q3L2Pw018695@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802252342k6f2e505dj7ede77fd576d7769@mail.gmail.com> On 26/02/2008, spike wrote: > > > > ________________________________ > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > aiguy at comcast.net > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:18 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Basis of Belief > > > Alex said: >> > ... interested in a copy of Bullshitnetics? > > it's all religiculous ! >> > > ... I would hate it if we were to be judged not worthy of survival > by that AGI based on the sophomoric contempt and scorn that a few fanatical > atheists determined to profess their supposed superiority to the world using > this mailing list as a vehicle. > > I thought we had a moderator here? > > > > We do. Ridicule of religion is allowed here. > > We might just as likely to be judged worthy of survival by that AGI based on > our sophomoric comtempt of religion. > > spike Well, if an AGI decides to terminate atheists, it's either because it has some dastardly plan based on it's followers having poor reasoning faculties (so it's an unfriendly AI), or it's figured out that (some) religion is actually true, clearly a quite murderous one, and it's likely to be correct, so things were going to end badly anyway. I wanted to write a longer post, but I think it suffices to state the mundane truth that there is no god. The burden of proof is not on me to prove this statement. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Feb 26 09:42:59 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:42:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net><200802260321.m1Q3L2Pw018695@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0802252342k6f2e505dj7ede77fd576d7769@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <19e801c8785c$355d9930$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Emlyn writes >>> I thought we had a moderator here? >> >> We do. Ridicule of religion is allowed here. (Ridicule of anything should be allowed here--- except ridicule of particular individuals.) > I wanted to write a longer post, but I think it suffices to state the > mundane truth that there is no god. Well said, if rather brief. :-) Humor excuses almost anything, and nothing that I can think of should be exempt from being lampooned. (The only time it bothers me is when it is used in a medium that does not permit rational argument or retort. In those cases, good taste forbids overdoing it.) Lee From ABlainey at aol.com Tue Feb 26 10:49:41 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:49:41 EST Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: In a message dated 25/02/2008 21:18:20 GMT Standard Time, aiguy at comcast.net writes: > I will start by saying that although I am not a Christian, I respect the > belief systems of people with other memesets. > > That being said, by criticizing and mocking a large percentage of the > populations core meme set do you win converts or scorn and animosity. This may be > an attempt at humor, > but anybody adhering to the popular JudeoChristian memeset would be > immediately offended and insulted by such humor and ridicule. > Indeed it was humour and I'm sorry it was perceived in such a negative way. However that in itself highlights the problem. There should be no subject which is beyond ridicule for fear of response by irrational. Many of my own beliefs (although I have few true beliefs) would crumble under either serious logical scrutiny or humorous ridicule. As a rule I think ridicule has been far more effective against such beliefs in the past. There is nothing more effective than a bit of comedy based public humiliation to knock the stupid out of you. > By planting these vile seeds of intolerance and ridicule here you reduce > our numbers and were I an AGI, I would infer that based on our intolerance we > are not worthy of survival! > > Only those who practice compassion and tolerance of others beliefs deserve > to survive the Singularity. And remember our words recorded here may be the > AGI's first > exposures to Extropians and Transhumanists and kin. I would hate it if we > were to be judged not worthy of survival by that AGI based on the > sophomoric contempt and > scorn that a few fanatical atheists determined to profess their supposed > superiority to the world using this mailing list as a vehicle. > > I thought we had a moderator here? > I can't agree at any level that intolerance of illogical zealotry is somehow vile. Would an AGI destroy us based upon our intolerance of murderers and genocide maniacs? or any other negative meme, belief or action? I am not comparing religion to any of these, but just about every 'no no' set out by mankind, law, morality and religion have been committed in the name of God. Should we be tolerant of this just in case an AGI judges us badly? I think not. 'fanatical atheists' Did I state my position as atheist? Here is the crunch. Based upon my own observations, knowledge base and musings. My belief set would place me in the camp of 'believers in God'. However my God would be either a small grey skinned bald chap with a test tube. Or more likely the Sys Admin that brought this simulation on line. Is simulation theory a religion? no, but it does require one to believe in an all powerful creator/s. It also brings up some sticky questions about what is and isn't possible in this existence, including miracles. Just re-code to increase the surface tension of water, etc. Regardless of the name of one's God, the issue of religion and its failings are clearly set apart. If these beliefs fly in the face of common sense, morality or logic. Then I see no problem with knocking them down. Personally I have had many in-depth logic discussions with people 'of faith' and greatly enjoyed them as many have been 'enlightening.' It is the 'because it's Gods will and we can never understand' brigade that are the problem. Those who will not enter into logical discussion because they have no answers or are unwilling to even contemplate discourse. These are the people who would be handed a leaflet. Does that help clarify? ;o) Alex PS, bring on the AGI. I think I am safe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Tue Feb 26 11:23:56 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:23:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <200802251658.29400.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> <200802251658.29400.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CA468135F560DA-10A0-3515@MBLK-M21.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Bishop >On Monday 25 February 2008, ablainey at aol.com wrote: >> Might I propose a 'united world invention registry'. >Please don't. There's no way that you can keep track of all invented >things; the amount of biological innovation occuring per second is >enormous and goes mostly undocumented. Documentation distracts. > >- Bryan Exactly, yet we already do, Or try to. A global registry is the most probable outcome of us following the current path. So do we embrace that idea now and start to build a new global system or do we more sensibly change the fundamental protection ideas? Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Feb 26 12:59:35 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:59:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802252342k6f2e505dj7ede77fd576d7769@mail.gmail.com> References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net><200802260321.m1Q3L2Pw018695@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0802252342k6f2e505dj7ede77fd576d7769@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003101c87877$71e05df0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Emlyn said: >> Well, if an AGI decides to terminate atheists, it's either because it has some dastardly plan based on it's followers having poor reasoning faculties (so it's an unfriendly AI), or it's figured out that (some) religion is actually true, clearly a quite murderous one, and it's likely to be correct, so things were going to end badly anyway. I wanted to write a longer post, but I think it suffices to state the mundane truth that there is no god. The burden of proof is not on me to prove this statement. >> The point has nothing to do with who is right or wrong concerning religion or lack there of. The point is that ridicule is a form of violence. Not physical violence, but it is an invitation to physical violence. Children who are subjected to repeated ridicule are killing other children in our schools. Adults who were raised with ridicule go on to ridicule their children, their spouses, and in many cases supplement the verbal violence with sexual or other physical abuse. Schools are now recognizing that ridicule is the first step in most violent altercations. http://operationrespect.org/parents/parents_overview.php Schools are now teaching programs on bullying prevention that starts with tolerance and respect for differences between individuals. Ridiculing a persons religion is no different than ridiculing them because of their color, sexuality, or how unattractive they are, or of a speech impediment. It is who they are and they are worthy of respect not because you agree with them or find their viewpoints attractive but because we are all human beings and deserve to be respected. This does not preclude editorial cartoons, light hearted satire, or dispassionate analysis when done is such a way so as not to inflame and kindle flames of hatred. But there are lines that should not be crossed as the dead children at Columbine would tell you if they were here. I would hope that an AGI would analyze violence and come to the conclusion that much of violence committed in the name of religion had intolerance and lack of respect for other peoples core belief systems as it's real cause. I hope that the AGI when it is born does not terminate anyone. But there may be those who were raised in homes filled with abuse and ridicule that have gone on to spread that violent meme in their adult lives. Should an AGI grant immortality to such a poisoned soul? From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Feb 26 13:35:15 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:35:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: References: <022520082117.10801.47C33082000B3FFA00002A312206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <40119.12.77.168.245.1204032915.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > We *should* be intolerant of stupid beliefs. Yes, *stupid* ??? that's > what it is to believe, e.g., that this planet was formed 6,000 years > ago, or that there's a magical all-powerful creature looking out for > your welfare. > The part that upsets me is when such folks insist on teaching such beliefs under the heading of "science". If they personally wish to profess such things in church, fine, go for it, but leave the science classes in school alone please. Gah! >:( Regards, MB From ABlainey at aol.com Tue Feb 26 15:21:08 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:08 EST Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: The point has nothing to do with who is right or wrong concerning religion or lack there of. The point is that ridicule is a form of violence. Not physical violence, but it is an invitation to physical violence. Children who are subjected to repeated ridicule are killing other children in our schools. Adults who were raised with ridicule go on to ridicule their children, their spouses, and in many cases supplement the verbal violence with sexual or other physical abuse. Schools are now recognizing that ridicule is the first step in most violent altercations. http://operationrespect.org/parents/parents_overview.php Schools are now teaching programs on bullying prevention that starts with tolerance and respect for differences between individuals. All of the above cases show how it is the inappropriate response to ridicule which is a problem. If someone ridicules my archaic taste in music, I do not shoot them in the face. I simply laugh and say 'everyone is different'. If someone ridicules my beliefs I ask them about theirs, then compare and contrast. I accept mine may be wrong and can only judge so by such comparisons of evidence. Again, I do not shoot them in the face. Perhaps we should also be teaching children how to deal with ridicule rather than trying to litigate against a natural human interaction. After all, we can easily consider them brain damaged* and incapable of stopping themselves from pointing and laughing at each other. (*damaged as comparable to a fully developed adult with frontal lobe damage and subsequent lack of self control) > > Ridiculing a persons religion is no different than ridiculing them because > of their color, sexuality, or how unattractive they are, or of a speech > impediment. > Racism, sexism, etc. are specific morality issues based upon causing offence because of a trait which is unchosen and unchangeable. This is not the same a ridicule of a chosen and changeable false belief. Ridiculing religion is not even the same sport. Ridicule in the sense we are discussing is no different to showing flat earthers an images of a spherical earth taken by satellite. It is just putting the evidence in the face of those who refuse to even discuss. Whether they choose to believe the truth, interpret it differently of shoot us in the face! is entirely up to them. That is the area where the problem lies, not the presentation in evidence of the truth. > It is who they are and they are worthy of respect not because you agree > with > them or find their viewpoints attractive but because we are all human beings > and deserve to be respected. > > This does not preclude editorial cartoons, light hearted satire, or > dispassionate analysis when done is such a way so as not to inflame and > kindle flames of hatred. But there are lines that should not be crossed as > the dead children at Columbine would tell you if they were here. > > I would hope that an AGI would analyze violence and come to the conclusion > that much of violence committed in the name of religion had intolerance and > lack of respect for other peoples core belief systems as it's real cause. > > I hope that the AGI when it is born does not terminate anyone. But there > may be those who were raised in homes filled with abuse and ridicule that > have gone on to spread that violent meme in their adult lives. > > Should an AGI grant immortality to such a poisoned soul? You seem to have drawn a distinct line between ridicule and respect. It is my experience that there is just as much ridicule between friends who respect each other as between enemies. The two are not in any way mutually exclusive. It is also my experience that ridicule is often a catalyst for greater introspection and self development rather than the spreader of Violent memes. I would think that an analysing AGI would register little more than a blip regarding this issue. It may take offence to your last comment ;o) , one which is typical of the throw away type which would cause fists to fly in any of the above mentioned school altercations. It is not ridicule that causes most violence, it is often pointed remarks and lack of self control. Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 16:13:16 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:13:16 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: Message-ID: <019301c87892$81069630$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> ABlainey at aol.com February 26, 2008 12:21 PM Basis of Belief >The point is that ridicule is a form of violence. Not physical violence, >but it is an invitation to physical violence. We are chimps, not bonobos. On the contrary, there would be much more sex and much less violence. :-) Ridiculing is a powerfull weapon on argumentation. If you make your opponent look silly and foolish, then you're closer to winning. If you can make your opponent *feel* silly and foolish then you've definitely won. From scerir at libero.it Tue Feb 26 15:52:12 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:52:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] problems with g-spot References: <200802260230.m1Q2UIeH003059@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001e01c8788f$8eb37080$37bd1f97@archimede> > Scerir, are they currently accepting student applications? > spike Dr. Jannini does not accept 'masculine' application. As far as I can read on the local daily papers (i.e. 'Il Centro') he performed his 'experiments' on 20 women and found that only 50% of them actually had the so called g-spot. By chance, exactly these 10 women declared they usually have good sexual experiences with their partners, not with dr. Jannini. [Ok, there is a possible racism here, about women having the g-spot as opposed to women not having ....] From ablainey at aol.com Tue Feb 26 17:11:03 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:11:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <019301c87892$81069630$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <019301c87892$81069630$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <8CA46B1B3D4532E-F24-506@webmail-df01.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Henrique Moraes Machado ABlainey at aol.com February 26, 2008 12:21 PM Basis of Belief >>The point is that ridicule is a form of violence. Not physical violence, >>but it is an invitation to physical violence. >We are chimps, not bonobos. On the contrary, there would be much more sex >and much less violence. :-) >Ridiculing is a powerfull weapon on argumentation. If you make your opponent >look silly and foolish, then you're closer to winning. If you can make your >opponent *feel* silly and foolish then you've definitely won. Sorry, still having format problems.The above quote should have been from aiguy at comcast.net my response was the larger paragraph after that. And I agree, ridicule is a powerful weapon in argumentation. It's not the prettiest, but it does a good job of killing many fallacious arguments instantly. That is why I would happily use it in this case. Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 26 17:58:18 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:58:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Geologists "Survivor" Message-ID: Rolling over in laughter.. here is a story about what makes a good 'science story' (or rather what _doesn't_) for Reality TV. Enjoy! Amara Geologists in Popular Culture < http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Popular_Culture&action=edit > While the media rarely represents geologists to the general population, (excluding sound bytes on Discovery Channel volcano specials), there was one recent attempt to integrate geologists into a television program. According to various blog sources, CBS was looking to produce a new reality tv show for 2008, after correctly predicting that the writers' strike would cut down on their ability to create blue-toned dramatic shows centering around corpses. One of their production managers happened to see a documentary on a volcanologist researching lava in Hawaii, and seeing the danger and excitement inherent in people smashing molten hot 'magma' with rock hammers, pitched the idea of a 'geologist survivor-type' show. In December of 2007, CBS hired a production crew to pull the show together; the scenario was that nine geologists would be placed in the field, where they would vote each other off based on their willingness to do dangerous geologist type feats common to the field; like researching active volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides, and landing in bush planes on glaciers. Geologists that weren't up to the task would be voted off, and the last remaining "Hard-core geologist" would win a prize.The production was plagued from the beginning. They were successful in finding nine geologists, 6 males and three females, between 25 and 50 years of age, and they quickly set up the first challenge; researching an active volcano in the Phillipines . The geologists and camera crew set up camp near the bottom of the volcano. The camera crew filmed the nine geologists bonding. The geologists were supplied with alchohol (a common strategy to loosen up the cast in reality TV), but the camera crew was surprised to notice that even after drinking gallons of the liquid, the geologists did not change their behavior, and continued talking in an obscure jargonized language about 'bombs', 'breccia,' and 'lahars,' none of which made for good reality tv. This trend continued through the entire first challenge; the geologists were seemingly oblivious to the camera, and the only interpersonal drama occured when the seismologist and structural geologist got into a yelling match over the best recipe for chilli. When the camera-crew and geologists went up to do research on the volcano, instead of sticking together, the geologists scattered into the landscape, and the camera-crew found themselves unable to find more than two at a time. Also, after listening to the volcanologist eagerly predict just how soon the volcano would blow, the camera-crew became extremely nervous and returned to the camp. The final result was almost no footage, and the editors were unable to make sense of what footage their was because they had no idea what the hell the geologists were talking about. Finally, few of the scientists seemed to understand the concept of 'voting off' another member. After consulting a nearby university, the crew finally explained that they 'competing for a GSA research grant.' This didn't go well either, as the geologists pointed out that they didn't have the time to write a paper...finally, they were simply told to get rid of someone on some sort of criteria. After a council, the geologists decided that whoever had the worst aim with a rockhammer would be told to leave. The second event, landing in a bush plane in upper Alaska, was a complete failure. None of the geologists were nervous at the idea, which destroyed the drama the crew was hoping for, and worse yet, no-one in the production crew was willing to accompany the geologists to the site, out of sheer terror. The result was that small cameras were given to two of the geologists to film themselves. When the footage and geologists returned, the editors found tapes filled with footage and commentary about mountains and 'glacial erratics'. Only ten percent of the footage featured humans, and most of that footage was simply the petrologist standing by outcrops for scale. By the time the production reached Hawaii, most of the camera-crew had quit (because of the steady diet of chilli and the dangerous situations), and only five of the geologists were left; not because they had been voted off, but because they had been over-excited by rock formations at various locations and had refused to leave. More-ever, paying for an almost-constant supply of beer and transportation of the geologists' luggage (piles of rocks), had almost exhausted the budget. CBS finally pulled the plug on the project in January, 2008, despite their fear that they might be sued for withdrawing the promise of a prize; however, none of the geologists sued, as they were still under the impression that they needed to publish a research paper to receive the money. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Feb 26 18:25:39 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:25:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 19:24:51 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:24:51 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Kevin>Why is it that some people seem to think that any kind of pressure is the same as violence? Taxation is violence. Law enforcement is violence. >Ridicule is violence. At some point it needs to be recognized that violence >is it's own thing. Just because something is disagreeable or hurts one's >feelings does not make it violent in nature. An "invitation to violence" is >not violence either. It is an invitation. The hurling of words can indeed >cut >deeply, but only in those who are open to listening. Violence on the other >hand doesn't even allow the option of not listening. Things and ideas are >different - hence the reason behind having different words for them. Political correctness (which is a modern plague). And maybe that's the reason that explains the fact that us occidentals are becoming a bunch of whiny wimps. When irony and sarcasm also start being classified as violence I hope I can be off world... There's a saying I like very much to use (and which I don't know who's the author): If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't be ridiculous. From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Feb 26 19:34:02 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:34:02 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: <022620081934.5599.47C469AA0005C7D7000015DF2206999735979A09070E@comcast.net> Kevin said >> Why is it that some people seem to think that any kind of pressure is the same as violence? Taxation is violence. Law enforcement is violence. Ridicule is violence. At some point it needs to be recognized that violence is it's own thing. Just because something is disagreeable or hurts one's feelings does not make it violent in nature. An "invitation to violence" is not violence either. It is an invitation. The hurling of words can indeed cut deeply, but only in those who are open to listening. Violence on the other hand doesn't even allow the option of not listening. Things and ideas are different - hence the reason behind having different words for them. Ridiculing is a powerful weapon on argumentation. If you make you opponent look silly and foolish then you're closer to winning. If you can make your opponent feel silly then you've definately won. >> Most children and adults for that matter do not have strong enough egos and self confidence to stand up to extended amounts of ridicule. Each attack erodes their self esteem and self image and results in resentment and hatred and lack of respect towards the antagonists. Hence in marriage, ridicule turns love into hatred and divorce. At some point primal defense mechanisms may ensue and violence erupts. Thankfully divorce usually ensues before this happens. Anytime you win an argument and have made an enemy in the process, can this be considered winning? Of course I am sure that many of you who use ridicule to win arguments or promote yourselves on a daily basis are oblivious to your enemies because you consider them weak and of little consequence. The sheep you prey upon realize this and in most cases their egos and self-confidence will remain intact enough to resist lashing out at their aggressors. But at some point a certain number of the sheep will go postal and send a message to to wolves still out there who still lack the empathy to realize that mental pain is every bit as real as physical pain. The question that is whether the AGI will consider mental pain as real and as serious as physical pain and equate ridicule with violence and judge you accordingly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: kevin at kevinfreels.com Subject: Re: [ExI] Basis of Belief Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:53:51 +0000 Size: 663 URL: From andres at thoughtware.tv Tue Feb 26 21:46:00 2008 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:46:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV: Nokia Morph Concept Message-ID: Check out the Morph concept by Nokia over at Thoughtware.TV . The video resulted out of a collaboration project of Nokia Research Center and Cambridge Nanoscience Center. The video was contributed today by Thoughtware.TV user, Singularity: http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/show/1531 - Andres *Remember, you too can contribute your favorite Nanotechnology videos at Thoughtware.TV * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Feb 26 23:59:38 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:59:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Henrique said: >> There's a saying I like very much to use (and which I don't know who's the author): If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't be ridiculous. >> That sounds like it's from the same guy who said, if you don't want raped then don't dress like a whore! Or the other classic if she didn't want to be hit she shouldn't have nagged me! In America that logic is known as blaming the victim and thankfully most people here don't buy those arguments anymore! From ABlainey at aol.com Wed Feb 27 01:12:13 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:12:13 EST Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: In a message dated 27/02/2008 00:02:51 GMT Standard Time, aiguy at comcast.net writes: > >> There's a saying I like very much to use (and which I don't know who's > the > author): If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't be ridiculous. >> > > That sounds like it's from the same guy who said, if you don't want raped > then don't dress like a whore! > > Or the other classic if she didn't want to be hit she shouldn't have nagged > me! > > In America that logic is known as blaming the victim and thankfully most > people here don't buy those arguments anymore! > Unfortunately I feel the ever growing backlash against political correctness is resulting in views such as these becoming more popular. It seems the push to get back to the middle ground has gone a little too far over the line. In the same way that feminism has done (i'm sure someone will make me regret saying that! LOL). Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ABlainey at aol.com Wed Feb 27 01:12:51 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:12:51 EST Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: In a message dated 26/02/2008 19:34:36 GMT Standard Time, aiguy at comcast.net writes: > Most children and adults for that matter do not have strong enough egos and > self confidence to stand up to extended amounts of ridicule. > > Each attack erodes their self esteem and self image and results in > resentment and hatred and lack of respect towards the antagonists. > The opposite can also be true and can be more easily achieved with a bit of coaching or support. > Hence in marriage, ridicule turns love into hatred and divorce. At some > point primal defense mechanisms may ensue and violence erupts. Thankfully > divorce usually ensues before this happens. > Violence is not an acceptable response to ridicule. Divorce may well be. > Anytime you win an argument and have made an enemy in the process, can > this be considered winning? > It may depend why you were arguing and if you were correct. Also is the outcome of the argument positive? why would you consider someone an enemy just because they showed you were wrong? > Of course I am sure that many of you who use ridicule to win arguments or > promote yourselves on a daily basis are oblivious to your enemies because you > consider them weak and of little consequence. > > The sheep you prey upon realize this and in most cases their egos and > self-confidence will remain intact enough to resist lashing out at their > aggressors. > > But at some point a certain number of the sheep will go postal and send a > message to to wolves still out there who still lack the empathy to realize that > mental pain is every bit as real as physical pain. > Very worrying. I can only imagine that your personal experiences have somewhat tainted your views. What has drawn you to conclude that this is a you and us argument? or that you know 'Us' well enough to cast such generalities? > The question that is whether the AGI will consider mental pain as real and > as serious as physical pain and equate ridicule with violence and judge you > accordingly. > > As long as you don't have a hand in its original program, I think I am safe ;o) Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 01:20:37 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:20:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <2d6187670802261720j484220e2x6b6371d7277d372a@mail.gmail.com> Gary Miller wrote: That sounds like it's from the same guy who said, if you don't want raped then don't dress like a whore! Or the other classic if she didn't want to be hit she shouldn't have nagged me! >>> And don't forget (should you live in the Greater Phoenix area)... "If you didn't want your bicycle stolen then why did you lock it up here at the ASU campus?? (paraphrasing the words of a campus policeman)" LOL ASU happens to be the epicenter of bike theft in the United States according to national crime statistics. I continue to mourn the loss of my beloved $500 Trek bicycle. I look forward to the development of technologies that make life very hard for bicycle thieves. John : ( On 2/26/08, Gary Miller wrote: > Henrique said: > > >> There's a saying I like very much to use (and which I don't know who's > the > author): If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't be ridiculous. >> > > That sounds like it's from the same guy who said, if you don't want raped > then don't dress like a whore! > > Or the other classic if she didn't want to be hit she shouldn't have nagged > me! > > In America that logic is known as blaming the victim and thankfully most > people here don't buy those arguments anymore! > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Feb 27 02:29:15 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:29:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Best Distributed Computing Project to Support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01c878e8$9281b920$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> What distributed computing projects do the readers here feel are the most Extropian or Transhumanist worthy. I've currently got a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 and 1 core of an Intel 2.4 Ghz Q6600 crunching Folding at Home. The other 3 cores of the Q6600 are running BOINC Rosetta at Home. Both are protein folding applications. I ran cancer targets first at UD (United Devices) which finished in 2007 and Find-A-Drug which finished in 2005. But no drugs to my knowledge have yet emerged from the data from either project. I'm thinking of buying a Playstation 3 to do Folding at Home on also. I understand that the IBM cell processor and the software written to do Folding at Home on the Playstation with help from Sony runs crunches proteins many times faster than a Quad Core PC. The reason I only run 1 core on each machine Folding at Home is because I've not been able to get the Intel multicore version of the Folding at Home client stable on my Vista machine although the single core runs fine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 02:41:21 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:41:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [TransBOINC] Re: Best Distributed Computing Project to Support In-Reply-To: <000c01c878e8$9281b920$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <000c01c878e8$9281b920$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200802262041.21953.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Gary Miller wrote: > What distributed computing projects do the readers here feel are the > most Extropian or Transhumanist worthy. transboinc at googlegroups.com - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 27 04:55:40 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:55:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Gary replied to Henrique > Henrique said: > > > There's a saying I like very much to use (and which I > > don't know who's the author): If you don't want to be > > ridiculed then don't be ridiculous. But ridiculousness lies in the eye of the beholder! Worse, your formula would invite people to hang out only with those who agree with them. After all, if you're in a group where you are an extreme minority, you must expect that your views will be ridiculed. The question is: "What are the moral and ethical responsibilities of the majority? Under what conditions should they be sparing in their ridiculing of persons and of views with which they disagree?" This question has only very complex answers. I would suggest a few principles, however. 1. So long as there is humor involved and you are just having fun please don't worry so long as the targets are out of earshot. This way they do not feel obligated to respond (which you don't want anyway---that wasn't the point of your joking around) 2. If you are lurking on forums where serious discussion is possible, then don't hesitate to "spoil their fun" if you really would like to challenge their common mindset. Serious discussion forums---no matter how much fun they sometimes have--- rightly represent themselves (above all else!) as open to critical examination of points of view. 3. If you are engaging in some fun (e.g. ridiculing the French when no French people are present (or read "Asian", "black", "atheist", what have you)), that's fine---but out of common courtesy and basic respect for others, it ought to stop or be greatly toned down when a "victim" approaches the group and begins to participate in the discussion. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 27 05:39:46 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:39:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1a5c01c87903$2e0213d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> I put forth some possible guidelines about this (what is to me) exceedingly difficult, but rather interesting, topic. > 1. So long as there is humor involved and you are just having fun > please don't worry so long as the targets are out of earshot. > This way they do not feel obligated to respond (which you > don't want anyway---that wasn't the point of your joking around) > > 2. If you are lurking on forums where serious discussion is > possible, then don't hesitate to "spoil their fun" if you really > would like to challenge their common mindset. Serious discussion > forums---no matter how much fun they sometimes have--- > rightly represent themselves (above all else!) as open to critical > examination of points of view. > > 3. If you are engaging in some fun (e.g. ridiculing the French > when no French people are present (or read "Asian", "black", > "atheist", what have you)), that's fine---but out of common courtesy > and basic respect for others, it ought to stop or be greatly toned > down when a "victim" approaches the group and begins to > participate in the discussion. Let me add 4. If you are drawn to a discussion group because of the main thrust of the ideas discussed there, and you find that a coterie of the participants like to have some fun ridiculing certain tangential points of view, then why is it so important to you to ruin their entertainment? Just ignore them if it's not central to the issues which drew you to the forum. For example, suppose that I join a certain group of people who hold very interesting and fascinating discussions about a certain RPG. (No, not Rocket Propelled Grenade, but Role Playing Game, although I suppose that I could have meant the former.) It turns out that they're all Jewish, and sometimes they like to make fun of the goys. Since this is not central to what I want to talk about, I should ignore this bantering. I ought to stay "under cover". It would be completely out of place for me to grand-stand and attempt to force them to stop. Likewise, religious people who would come to the Extropian list to discuss transhumanist developments, futuristic ideas and the technologies that might get us there, ought most likely to just ignore some of the fun that list members may have at the expense of religion. This is crucial: This list is *not* about presenting so-called "religious evidence", and at least so far has never had serious argumentation about the existence of God. Furthermore, it would be quite likely that the list administrators would consider such excursions too very much off-topic, and forbid them. Sadly, I'm doubtful that any small number of principles or guidelines like these will cover even 90% of the cases that make come up along these lines in the real world. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 27 08:06:26 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:06:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Pirates Message-ID: <1204099651_8235@S3.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 27 07:59:32 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:59:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief (Meta) In-Reply-To: <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1204099234_9394@S4.cableone.net> Why do people have beliefs, particularly religious beliefs at all? I think I know the answer, do you? Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 27 09:25:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:25:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief (Meta) References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1204099234_9394@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1a7e01c87923$66632910$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Why do people have beliefs, particularly religious beliefs at all? "beliefs" with a small "b" include perceptions, sensations, 3D knowledge, appreciations of personality differences, recall of favors, what local landmarks there are, and so on and on. We've had them forever, and so do animals. But you are talking about "Beliefs" with a capital "B". In his very nice book "Before the Dawn (Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors)", author Nicolas Wade mentions the not-very-recent theory that religion evolved as a defense against lies. It started as a marker of who you could trust and who you could not. Obviously this fed into group loyalties, and the evolution of "us" vs. "them". We might say, in the case of religion and nationality (of the "nationalism" variety) that these were developments that allowed for social cohesion to extend much further. That is, your "tribe" need no longer be restricted to just those who you had met. Once in place, I will suggest, this evolved towards "us-them" in everything else. Not just Republicans vs. Democrats, for instance, but in everything imaginable. As a mathematical Platonist, I am tempted to look upon everything that the Formalists, or (shudder) the Intuitionists may have to say with great suspicion... :-) BTW, it's particularly funny to me to hear people who suppose themselves to be paragons of utter rationality and logic deign to dismiss others as irrational. We all have "Beliefs" of one sort or another, even if they're based on nothing more profound than, for example, not wanting to be inconvenienced. Everyone here would be mightily inconvenienced, for example, if we had to learn that there was a divine order to the universe, or that the Trilateral Commission really does run everything. > I think I know the answer, do you? What? Lee From test at ssec.wisc.edu Wed Feb 27 09:42:21 2008 From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:42:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] new singularity fiction Message-ID: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/mcnrstm.html From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 11:56:43 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:56:43 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <007301c87937$d3b44cb0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> HeMM>>> There's a saying I like very much to use (and which I don't know who's > the author): If you don't want to be ridiculed then don't be ridiculous. > >> Gary> That sounds like it's from the same guy who said, if you don't want raped > then don't dress like a whore! > Or the other classic if she didn't want to be hit she shouldn't have > nagged > me! > In America that logic is known as blaming the victim and thankfully most > people here don't buy those arguments anymore! Pardon me my PC friend. I thought we were talking about debate, not crime. You're making a hasty generalization. In the subject of belief and debate, the victim *is* to be blamed. From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 12:18:59 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:18:59 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Lee> But ridiculousness lies in the eye of the beholder! Worse, > your formula would invite people to hang out only with > those who agree with them. After all, if you're in a group > where you are an extreme minority, you must expect that > your views will be ridiculed. In this case it's the other way around. I'm talking about a minority (non theists) ridiculing a majority (theists) not the opposite. Lee> 1. So long as there is humor involved and you are just having fun > please don't worry so long as the targets are out of earshot. > This way they do not feel obligated to respond (which you > don't want anyway---that wasn't the point of your joking around) Good rule for life in general. Not for debates. Lee> 2. If you are lurking on forums where serious discussion is > possible, then don't hesitate to "spoil their fun" if you really > would like to challenge their common mindset. Serious discussion > forums---no matter how much fun they sometimes have--- > rightly represent themselves (above all else!) as open to critical > examination of points of view. > 3. If you are engaging in some fun (e.g. ridiculing the French > when no French people are present (or read "Asian", "black", > "atheist", what have you)), that's fine---but out of common courtesy > and basic respect for others, it ought to stop or be greatly toned > down when a "victim" approaches the group and begins to > participate in the discussion. I never said we are to ridicule people for what they are. Only for what they think. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I can't show any respect or courtesy to ludicrous opinions and silly viewpoints. Remember we are allways talking about opinions here. I'm not advocating crime or violence, like Mr. Miller implied earlier. From neptune at superlink.net Wed Feb 27 12:38:44 2008 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:38:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2><1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <009a01c8793d$b1559100$10893cd1@pavilion> Has anyone here read the above book? If so, comments? Regards, Dan http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/ From xuenay at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 13:21:01 2008 From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:21:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable In-Reply-To: <009a01c8793d$b1559100$10893cd1@pavilion> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <009a01c8793d$b1559100$10893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0802270521i5e9af58dr4388b0c00dfd34d2@mail.gmail.com> On 2/27/08, Technotranscendence wrote: > Has anyone here read the above book? If so, comments? I've read about a third - should get around finishing it some time. I'd heard a lot about this book, so I'm a bit surprised over its varying quality - it's written in an entertaining fashion, and it's easy to read, but at the same time a lot of its easiness comes from the fact that it's fluffy. For instance, there are lots of anecdotes, and many of them seem to be in the book just for the sake of being amusing anecdotes - they don't seem to be expressing much of a point. (Don't get me wrong, not /all/ of the anecdotes are just amusing fluff, but many are.) I get the feeling that this could've been written a lot more concisely, so that's a definite minus. It's also the main reason I haven't finished the book. On the other hand, it /does/ contain interesting insights, such as the notion of Mediocristan and Extremistan - that most phenomena can be classed either into ones where frequent, regular, predictable small-impact events make up most of it (earning money from a regular day job that pays by the hour) or ones where rare, irregular, unpredictable high-impact events make up most of it (earning money by winning the lottery). It's plausibly argued that there are a lot of events that we intuitively imagine to be "in" Mediocristan, when they actually are "in" Extremistan, and this messes up a lot of our intuitions. -- http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tspro1/ | http://xuenay.livejournal.com/ Organizations worth your time: http://www.singinst.org/ | http://www.crnano.org/ | http://lifeboat.com/ From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Feb 27 14:03:16 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:03:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable In-Reply-To: <009a01c8793d$b1559100$10893cd1@pavilion> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <009a01c8793d$b1559100$10893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Technotranscendence wrote: > Has anyone here read the above book? If so, comments? I read it several months ago, motivated by my highly favorable assessment of Taleb's earlier book, _Fooled by Randomness_. I found _Black Swan_ to contain two or three nuggets of value, which could have been expressed in a 10-15 page paper. Of the ideas in the book, the concept he calls the Ludic Fallacy is extremely important while being particularly hard for conventional "rationalists" to comprehend. - Jef From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Feb 27 15:39:21 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:39:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief (Meta) Message-ID: <20080227083921.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.df5190c1d2.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Feb 27 16:04:10 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:04:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <1a9001c8795a$bd6305a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Henrique writes > Lee> But ridiculousness lies in the eye of the beholder! Worse, >> your formula would invite people to hang out only with >> those who agree with them. After all, if you're in a group >> where you are an extreme minority, you must expect that >> your views will be ridiculed. > > In this case it's the other way around. I'm talking about a minority (non > theists) ridiculing a majority (theists) not the opposite. On *this* list, the majority are atheists or non-believers. > Lee> 1. So long as there is humor involved and you are just having fun >> please don't worry so long as the targets are out of earshot. >> This way they do not feel obligated to respond (which you >> don't want anyway---that wasn't the point of your joking around) > > Good rule for life in general. Not for debates. Ridicule can be funny and entertaining---but it does not constitute argument. Go ahead and imply that people are very wrong, but not that they're dumb, two things that ridicule doesn't easily recognize the difference between. > Lee> 2. If you are lurking on forums where serious discussion is >> possible, then don't hesitate to "spoil their fun" if you really >> would like to challenge their common mindset. Serious discussion >> forums---no matter how much fun they sometimes have--- >> rightly represent themselves (above all else!) as open to critical >> examination of points of view. >> 3. If you are engaging in some fun (e.g. ridiculing the French >> when no French people are present (or read "Asian", "black", >> "atheist", what have you)), that's fine---but out of common courtesy >> and basic respect for others, it ought to stop or be greatly toned >> down when a "victim" approaches the group and begins to >> participate in the discussion. > > I never said we are to ridicule people for what they are. Only for what they > think. Why on earth ridicule people's beliefs? It's a poor way to try to "win" arguments. Fun is fine, and I'm all in favor, but as someone pointed out, ridicule can embitter, and should stop when your interlocutors---the people you are talking to---object. > I can't show any respect or courtesy to ludicrous opinions and silly > viewpoints. No, of course not. But you have to show some courtesy to the people who hold them. Ridicule by its nature too often crosses that line. > Remember we are always talking about opinions here. Well then *talk* about them. Save the ridicule for another time. > I'm not advocating crime or violence, like Mr. Miller implied earlier. Right, you're not so advocating. But---very sad to say---through excessivly incendiary attacks on people's beliefs one can help foment it, no matter how much we rightly disapprove and denounce that response. It also can help create truly irreconcilable differences. You ought to stop at satire and sarcasm---but even they don't ever have to be employed by a majority in some forum, only by a minority. Put simply, ridicule is fine and highly entertaining. Until someone objects. Lee From pjmanney at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 17:10:42 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: Accuracy of gender test kits in question Message-ID: <29666bf30802270910o3e397f4cv842bb13c2080749@mail.gmail.com> I've often wondered about the issues of accuracy around the popularization of DNA testing. Even though we can test for so many different things, there's little responsibility for accuracy -- so far. It's still in the novelty phase, a Magic Eight-Ball of medicine. Magic Eight Ball says... ... "Ask Again Later." PJ http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/radio/cl-sci-gender24feb24,0,257468.story Accuracy of gender test kits in question The modern-day equivalent of old wives' tales, they can have far greater consequences than inappropriately colored nurseries. By Karen Kaplan Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 24, 2008 Amid the tumult of the delivery room, Rohit and Geeta Jain were calm about one thing: Their new baby was sure to be a boy. Six months earlier, the Jains had spent more than $300 for a test that screened a minute quantity of Geeta's blood for traces of male DNA. The testing company said it was 95% accurate in determining the sex of a baby, even as early as the eighth week of pregnancy. After six hours in the delivery room, Rohit gaped as his wife gave birth to a daughter. "There's only two choices -- either it's a boy or a girl," said Rohit, 35, a computer scientist in the Vancouver, Canada, suburb of Surrey. "I couldn't fathom how it could be wrong." Like scores of other expectant parents, the Jains had stumbled into a corner of the booming genomics industry and discovered that the claims of some genetic entrepreneurs have gone beyond what science can provide. Marketing directly to consumers, the new crop of companies has jumped into a realm of dubious science, mining DNA to offer information on ethnic heritage, long-lost relatives, personalized dieting plans -- even the sports for which one is best suited. The tests are loosely based on legitimate scientific research, much of which has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, among others. But often, the companies' claims of accuracy have not been backed up by independent laboratory analysis. Thousands of consumers have bought tests -- and analysts say the number will only grow as entrepreneurs find more ways to market the mysteries of the human genome. The Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers from false and misleading advertising, has warned buyers to be skeptical of at-home genetic tests, which are now unregulated. In most cases, customers have no way of judging if their test results are accurate. But if a prenatal gender test is wrong, parents will surely find out. The tests, scientists say, are the latest incarnation of old wives' tales about salty food cravings, hairy legs and belly shapes denoting the sex of the impending baby. This time, the predictions are being sold with the patina of cutting-edge genetic technology. A host of companies, such as Acu-Gen Biolab Inc. of Lowell, Mass., and Consumer Genetics Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif., have been selling the tests for $249 and up. Critics say they are banking on most disgruntled parents being too happy -- or too busy -- with their new child to file for a refund. The consequences aren't merely financial. "I wouldn't have had an abortion, but there are women out there who experience really big disappointment," said Jolene Sodano, a stay-at-home mother in Nazareth, Pa., whose daughter was mistakenly identified as a boy. "They really want to give their husbands the little boy they want, or a little girl, and they will abort based on these results." More than 100 women have filed a lawsuit against Acu-Gen and its owner, Chang-ning Wang, that is pending in federal court. At least one customer has been questioned by the FBI. Wang has repeatedly declined to discuss the scientific validity of the test. "It made me very angry at myself for believing this gibberish," said Mandana Kouroshnia, a Redlands dentist who joined the suit after her test incorrectly predicted a boy. "I made a fool out of myself." Ripe for exploitation The rise of direct-to-consumer genetic tests has come with surprising speed after the decoding of the human genome in 2000. Today, about 1,400 different types are being sold to consumers. In the past, virtually all testing was done in medical laboratories for diagnostic purposes, such as searching for the mutations in the BRCA1 gene that are related to breast cancer. But the development of faster and cheaper machines to sequence specific genes quickly gave entrepreneurs an opportunity. Any trivial genetic quirk can be ripe for exploitation. Consumer Genetics, for example, offers a $139 test called CaffeineGEN that screens for a DNA variant that causes caffeine to be metabolized slowly and is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages and nonfatal heart attacks. The company is also developing a test for a gene variant that might allow people to lower their cholesterol levels through moderate wine consumption. Both tests are based on documented genetic aberrations, but there has been no proof that they can accurately predict health outcomes. The gender tests got off to a splashy start in June 2005, when Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor was featured on NBC's "Today" show. Holly Osburn, then seven weeks pregnant, went on the morning program to find out whether her third baby would be another girl or her first boy. On live TV, she appeared to force a smile after being told to expect a daughter. The company's website said its $275 test was able to detect fetal genetic material as early as five weeks after conception with up to 99.9% accuracy. Other companies soon began popping up. Consumer Genetics introduced its $195 Pink or Blue test in 2006, promising on its website 95% accuracy just seven weeks after conception. The company has sold more than 3,500 kits, said Lily Nguyen, the company's product manager for Pink or Blue. It may seem a frivolous use of DNA. But the genetic tests are relatively inexpensive, and some parents figure there is no harm in learning the sex of their baby a little earlier than the usual 10 to 16 weeks needed for traditional medical tests, such as ultrasound. For the Jains, the test was for more than mere curiosity. Geeta discovered the Pink or Blue test on the Internet after an unexpected pregnancy presented the couple with a dilemma. She wanted to keep the baby, but Rohit wasn't sure. With two daughters already, the family's finances were a bit strained. Could they really afford a third child? Geeta countered with another question: What if the baby were a boy? In traditional Indian culture, sons are prized because they will grow up to manage the family resources and support their parents in old age, even lighting their funeral pyres. All Geeta had to do was prick a finger and mail a sample of dried blood to the company's laboratory. "I don't know anything about biology, but it looked like it should be true," Rohit said. "It's DNA. It cannot be wrong." The results arrived in March and stated that the baby was a boy. Geeta was ecstatic. Over the summer, she traveled to India for three weeks and offered prayers of thanks for the son she was carrying. The Jains had no reason to doubt the test until their daughter Anika was born. Though incorrect results are usually revealed during routine ultrasound exams, fear of gender selection prevents many Canadian doctors from revealing a baby's sex. After the initial shock and a tinge of sadness, the family quickly bonded with Anika, Rohit said, adding that they never bothered to seek a refund. "Anybody can start this business and keep half of the money even if they refund for wrong results, according to the law of probability," he noted. The reasons for taking the tests are as varied as the families that buy them. Erin Rivera, a homemaker in Zephyrhills, Fla., took the test in her ninth week so she could share the news as soon as possible with husband Anthony, who was deployed in Afghanistan with the Army National Guard. "Horrible as it sounds, in case anything had happened to him, I would have liked to let him know he was having a son or a daughter," said Rivera. The test was right. They had a boy. Adinda DeBoevere, a mother of three boys in Novato, Calif., wanted a girl so badly that she and her husband spent $25,000 on in-vitro fertilization so that doctors could select female embryos to implant in her womb. "You keep on asking, 'Did it work? Did they put the right embryo in?' " she said. To find out, the former criminologist took a DNA test when she was 10 weeks along. The test said a boy. They had a girl. Scientific studies A baby's gender is determined by one of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in the human genome. Mothers always contribute an X chromosome. If the father provides another X, the baby is a girl. If the father supplies a Y, the baby is a boy. Scientific studies have found that a pregnant woman's blood contains a small amount of fetal DNA, and the gender tests claim they can detect signs of the Y chromosome even if the embryo is no bigger than a grain of rice. The problem is that divining traces of DNA from maternal blood is not simple. Science has tried for more than a decade to find a simple and accurate way to determine gender early -- and largely failed, using the most advanced technology available. In a 2004 study, five medical centers in a National Institutes of Health consortium received identical blood samples from 100 women who were 10 to 20 weeks pregnant. The centers used the same method to look for Y chromosomes in the maternal blood, but none was able to detect all of the 35 fetuses known to be male. According to the study, the detection rates ranged from 31% to 97%. Italian researchers published a study in 2005 demonstrating that they could correctly identify 98.7% of boys and 100% of girls by looking for male DNA in maternal blood drawn during the first trimester. But their method required a relatively large blood sample -- 10 milliliters -- that was processed within a few hours. The companies, in contrast, require just three to 10 drops of dried blood, which can take days to arrive through the mail. Laura Cremonesi, senior author of the Italian study, said that she doesn't know anything about the companies' laboratory procedures and has no idea if their methods would work. Nguyen, of Consumer Genetics, said the Pink or Blue test is more sensitive than the one used in Italy because it looks for a DNA marker that is 100 times bigger. "There's more of it, so it's easier to spot," Nguyen said. For competitive reasons, she wouldn't give any specifics about the particular sequence of male DNA that the company searches for. She didn't know how many customers had complained of an incorrect result, but she acknowledged that early versions of the test didn't make it clear that women had to be at least seven weeks' pregnant before taking it and that DNA from their husbands could contaminate the results. Acu-Gen's website lists dozens of clinical studies that it says corroborate its approach, though none of them involved the specific DNA sequence that Acu-Gen says it uses in Baby Gender Mentor and none reported accuracy as high as 99.9%. A woman who answered the company's phone said she was "not interested" in discussing the test's accuracy. Other calls and e-mails to Acu-Gen were not returned. In court filings, the company denied "any wrongdoing and any liability" in connection with incorrect test results. Diana W. Bianchi, a medical geneticist at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston who worked on the 2004 NIH study, said that little or nothing is known about the companies' methods. "There's no evidence that they've undergone any quality assessment," she said. "As best as I can tell, anybody can set up a virtual shingle and open for business." Complaints about the companies and the lawsuit against Acu-Gen have prompted Bianchi and others to call for federal regulation of the industry. Currently, the tests are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration because they aren't used to diagnose a medical condition, said spokeswoman Karen Riley. Gail Javitt, law and policy director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, said that gender tests could be considered diagnostic because some diseases are sex-specific. Nearly all patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy or the blood clotting disorder hemophilia, for instance, are males. Bianchi added that there is more at stake than just lost money or disappointment. "As a physician, I'm most concerned not that someone has painted the nursery the wrong color, but what are the medical consequences of someone taking this test?" she said. An incorrect result could lead to "unnecessary amniocentesis and other procedures that carry a risk of miscarriage." Melissa Alberti-Araujo subjected her newborn daughter, Nadine, to a battery of tests after she called Acu-Gen to complain that her test results had been wrong. She said Wang came on the line and insisted Nadine had male DNA. "We panicked," said Alberti-Araujo, who is studying to be a family therapist in Three Rivers, Calif., and joined the class-action suit against the company. "We did an ultrasound to make sure she didn't have testicles stuck up in there or anything. She was fine, but it was real emotional for us." The feelings can linger. Plaintiff Anissa Iverson, who works as an office manager at Disney Studios in Burbank, mourned when she discovered that the baby she expected to be a girl was a boy. She had already washed and folded more than $500 worth of clothes for the daughter, to be named Sydney. When she and her husband realized they would be having a son, they changed the baby's name to Zachary. Iverson later became pregnant again, this time with a girl. The clothes bought for Sydney came out of storage, but the name could not be resurrected. "I felt like Sydney had died," she said. "It was a tainted name." Instead, she named her daughter Courtney. karen.kaplan at latimes.com From amara at amara.com Wed Feb 27 17:32:28 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:32:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Technotranscendence wrote: > Has anyone here read the above book? If so, comments? Nice coincidence because it is sitting in front of me since my good friend loaned it to me last week. I've barely started it though. He told me that if you've read Taleb's previous book (_Fooled by Randomness_), then this book is mostly redundant. He also preferred the earlier one; he thought it was written in a more interesting way. Taleb just spoke at The Long Now so maybe that might be a good way to decide if you want to read this book: Audio : http://s3.amazonaws.com/salt-recordings/salt-020080208-taleb/salt-020080208-taleb_web.mp3 blog summary : http://blog.longnow.org/2008/02/07/nassim-nicholas-taleb-the-future-has-always-been-crazier-than-we-thought/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From ablainey at aol.com Wed Feb 27 19:24:00 2008 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:24:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <1a9001c8795a$bd6305a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <1a9001c8795a$bd6305a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8CA478D70A12AAC-EB0-8E0@WEBMAIL-MC08.sysops.aol.com> Lee said >> In this case it's the other way around. I'm talking about a minority (non >> theists) ridiculing a majority (theists) not the opposite. > >On *this* list, the majority are atheists or non-believers. I would include myself in this number despite having stated that my current belief (small b) is that there is a (ahem) 'God'. Taking into account that my 'God' is of the technological kind, be it Alien geneticist or some kind of simulation programmer. Also that the relationship between myself and said 'God' does not involve any sort of worship, recognition or any other bells and whistles such as faith. Would I be defined as a theist/polytheist? Do we have sufficient language terminology to discern the difference between myself and any conventional religious follower? Does my small 'b' qualify as religion? The terms 'God' and 'creator' do not sit well with me, neither do 'believer' or 'follower'. Is the real point here, the little b and the big B. One being believed because of evidence and experience, the other because of indoctrination and blind faith? Alex ________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 20:19:33 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:19:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <8CA478D70A12AAC-EB0-8E0@WEBMAIL-MC08.sysops.aol.com> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <1a9001c8795a$bd6305a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8CA478D70A12AAC-EB0-8E0@WEBMAIL-MC08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802271219n629aae8fs320a41b15594f294@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:24 PM, wrote: > > The terms 'God' and 'creator' do not sit well with me, neither do 'believer' > or 'follower'. > Is the real point here, the little b and the big B. One being believed > because of evidence and experience, the other because of > > indoctrination and blind faith? ### I wonder what is the degree of confidence you have in the existence of this local-universe Programmer..... Is your evidence strong enough to support a >99% probability estimate in favor of ve's existence? A strong hunch ( i.e. probability >50%)? A mere suspicion (probability <50% but >5%)? I proclaimed myself a polytheist or even a maxitheist on this list some years ago, in the sense that as a modal realist I have to accept the likely existence of lots of gods, or even all of them, but mostly very, very far away, so in practical terms I am a (local-universe) atheist. Rafal From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Feb 27 20:38:51 2008 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:38:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: <20080227133851.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.420949e70b.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Feb 27 22:07:32 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An anomalous point Message-ID: Despite my knowing the language, living where I am now is more than ever like living in a foreign country. Sometimes I am struck at how anomalous the US really is. Steve Jurvetson notes the outlier position of the US in a plot of religiosity versus wealth (per capita GDP normalized): http://flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ which brings to my mind Anders Sandberg's plot of Freedom (from the Heritage Freedom Index) against its number of imprisonments (from World Prison Brief numbers), where the US is again a most striking outlier point: "The Best Prisons that Money Can Buy" http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/02/index.html Living in an anomalous point is pretty scary. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 23:04:02 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:04:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802221530s14e9776euaaa15600c4f4f4aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802271504h2f7b7949seb023bbae1d4c1e3@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The bureaucratic rules are "make the hospital function as effectively > and efficiently as possible". ### No, no, no, this is not a rule, just as the preamble to the US constitution is not really a law. This lofty but vague mission statement has almost nothing to do with the daily drudgery of a bureaucrat. The bureaucrat comes to work, drinks his coffee, and goes to the meeting, where they discuss the minutiae of bureaucratic rules that were written by other bureaucrats, with some input from politicians and lobbyists and essentially no direct and truthful input from customers. Obviously, even the customers do not have an incentive to provide a truthful input - they have nothing to lose if they complain and if their complaint is taken into account, others will foot the bill. The inevitable result of this lack of short feedback loops is misallocation of resources, which is obvious from the high cost and poor condition of care in Britain or Canada. ------------------------------- This is measured in terms of multiple > outcomes, such as length of waiting lists, surgical complication > rates, patient feedback, expenditure, income, and so on. Patients are > free to go to another hospital, public or private, if they wish. ### Patients are not "free" to go to a private provider if they have to *pay* . Patients are being charged for nationalized health services whether they use them or not, which means that choosing an alternative imposes a double cost on them. If the cost of a choice is doubled by force, then the choice is no longer free - it is *paid*, it is made artificially expensive. ------------------------------ > Private hospitals in Australia are generally smaller, and if they get > a complicated case they often put them in an ambulance and send them > to the nearest public hospital. The only real advantage to having > private health insurance in Australia (apart from tax advantages for > higher income earners) is that there is a shorter waiting list for > some elective surgical procedures; but as soon as a deficit in the > public system like this is identified there is pressure from the > ministry to improve the situation using available funds, and pressure > from the community to increase available funds if this doesn't work. ### How does the "pressure" work? How many hours of pressure does it take to hire one more nurse in the geriatric ward? You are postulating the existence of feedback loops through political action ("pressure from the ministry") and through collective action ("pressure from the community") but it is well-known that these kinds of feedback loops are inferior to direct, contract-based control with exit option. Really. Case in point: Bakeries. You folks here on this list may not have had the experience of waiting in bread lines for bread baked in a state-run bakery and sold in a state-run grocery. I can tell you, it's no fun! One may take bread for granted if it is readily available from dozens of sources from which you can choose at a whim, and then perhaps it's easier to theorize about the superiority of a political monopoly provider of services but such theories don't survive confrontation with reality. There is no difference between the provision of bread and provision of heart surgeries, and both should be controlled using the same pluralist, short feedback-loop mechanism. ------------------------------------------------ > Thus, the pool of money is constantly shifted around to where it will > do the most good, and the size of the pool is adjusted to what the > community is willing to pay. ### That's what used to tell me in school, too. It's good that I am an ornery skeptic, and stopped buying this line by age 11. --------------------------------------- > > > This is dramatically different from the feedback loops between a > > patient and a doctor who can be fired on the spot, or an insurance > > plan that can be changed with a few phone calls. > > If you don't like your doctor or your nurse in a public hospital you > can complain about them in the same way as you can complain about the > employees in any private corporation, and with the same consequences > to them. ### Complain? So what? What good does it do to *me* if I complain? This is an important question: What benefit do *I* get from complaining about a state employee, if I can't readily go to somebody else? --------------------------------- You can also go elsewhere, including to a private hospital. ### I can't go anywhere else, taxes ate my income, can't afford to pay double for another doctor. --------------------------------------- > The private choice is not available to poor people, but a large number > of relatively wealthy people still choose the public system, sometimes > even when they have private health insurance but they believe they > have a serious illness. > ### If you get screwed to the tune of 500,000$ over your lifetime in the form of the taxes for state medical care expenses taken out of your income, well, one may be inclined to try to get some of this money back. ------------------------------------- > The US spends more as a proportion of GDP, not just in absolute terms. > I would have said that the overhead and dead weight losses of multiple > health insurance funds seeking to avoid paying patients wherever > possible (with all the duplicated corporate bureaucracy that > involves), ### How do you mean "deadweight loss"? This term has a relatively precise meaning in economic analysis but how are you applying it here to multiple independent businesses? You would need to explain that. BTW, the total cost of health administration and insurance overhead in the US is about 7% of the total, and that includes the cost of Medicare administration. It's peanuts compared to the total spending. --------------------------- the better prices drug companies can get for their products > in a fragmented market, ### If you believe that monopsony is a good idea, you should read up on it. Monopsony is bad (i.e. generates deadweight loss), just like monopoly, moreover, it has additional negative long-term consequences beyond the deadweight loss. It leads to long-term attrition and stasis among suppliers, with disastrous consequences on long-term welfare. The whole point of a market is that it is, bah, it *must* be fragmented, or else it is not a market. -------------------------------- and the cost of medical litigation explains > where some of that money goes. ### We are discussing the superiority of competitive, pluralist provision of medical care. Tort reform is another issue. Read up on US medical spending, you will find that the items you mentioned are a minor component of the price differential As I said, some of the extra cost of medical care in the US is good (leads to good outcomes, like innovation), some of it is a side effect of state regulation in a partially free market (Medicare pricing floor, employer health insurance tax exemption, EMTALA, HIPAA), none of it is a net loss due to the partial involvement of pluralist control mechanisms. The problem is Medicare, US medical costs started skyrocketing only after Medicare became a mass program, it is the prime reason for high prices, since Medicare participants are *forbidden by Federal law* to engage in price competition. There is a 50,000 fine for every time you charge somebody less than you would charge a Medicare patient! This is such a stupendous nonsense that it leaves my mind reeling. The very low level of out-of-pocket spending for medical care in the US coupled with employer-provided insurance is another recipe for profligacy. Add medical licensing laws (all courtesy of the state), and the result is inevitable. --------------------------------------------- > > As for outcomes, we have talked about this before, but it's really > hard to explain why you have to finesse the statistics to explain why > the US is near the bottom of the OECD list on almost every parameter > the WHO measures while spending 50-100% more than most other > countries. Could it really be that Americans as a group get sick *so > much* more often and/or severely than Canadians and Australians (who > are basically the same demographic) that despite the superior and > expensive health care they still die younger? ### Near the bottom? Which ones exactly? Average life expectancy? Maybe self-reported health status? Wait times? Life expectancy at age 65? Life expectancy after a diagnosis of breast cancer? Infant mortality rate among non-immigrant population? (try the 2007 CRS Report for Congress for some real numbers) Yes, Americans are more obese than any other OECD country citizens, are more likely to die from accidents and homicide, have a higher incidence of cancer and heart disease, and are not the same demographic as Canadians or Australians. This is why despite stupidly overpriced care of superior quality they die on average about as quickly as people in other countries. Actually, I have no idea how this discussion of the benefits of freedom in medical care somehow inevitably gets derailed into comparisons between various flavors of predominantly non-market systems, with the US the stand-in for "market", and with freedom getting the bad rap for all the stupidities imposed on Americans by their government. American health care system is badly flawed because of insufficient of freedom, and depriving us of all its vestiges would make it only worse. Rafal From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 23:16:03 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:16:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802271504h2f7b7949seb023bbae1d4c1e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60802271504h2f7b7949seb023bbae1d4c1e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802271716.03620.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Patients are not "free" to go to a private provider if they have > to *pay* . Patients are being charged for nationalized health > services whether they use them or not, which means that choosing an > alternative imposes a double cost on them. If the cost of a choice is > doubled by force, then the choice is no longer free - it is *paid*, > it is made artificially expensive. On an off-topic note, I understand that conventionally these things are supposed to cost, but what's preventing you from growing your own bacterial colonies with drugs embedded in the genome? Granted, not all drugs have biosynthete(?) equivalents, but for the ones that do, set up a farm. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 23:18:32 2008 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:18:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <20080227133851.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.420949e70b.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20080227133851.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.420949e70b.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60802271518v49b20fc1x91881aee3b26a88@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:38 PM, wrote: > > My acceptance of a god or gods extends into the future rather than a point > in space but otherwise I see it the same way. Assuming that "god" can > traverse time I suppose I would have to accept the existence of a god at > this very moment. But accepting that there is a god (or will be) is a long > way from believing that you know every detail of the nature of that god and > that it is all written in a perfectly preserved 1500 year old book. ### To further elaborate - If we agree that a god is somebody who can do really cool stuff (e.g. easily create extremely large mathematical structures, like QM-quality simulations of galaxies) and given that the multiverse is infinitely large in terms of patterns of existence contained in it, there must be an infinity of distinct entities fitting this loose definition, even if they may affect only an infinitesimally small measure of everything. So, it's not just one god, there is a whole lot more. Halleluja, anybody? Rafal From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Feb 28 01:29:05 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:29:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <007301c87937$d3b44cb0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <007301c87937$d3b44cb0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <006701c879a9$52a18490$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Henry said: >>"Pardon me my PC friend. I thought we were talking about debate, not crime. You're making a hasty generalization. In the subject of belief and debate, the victim *is* to be blamed." >> If you knew me Henry you would know that I am far from politically correct but I do believe in respecting peoples others people's beliefs and respect their right not to be ridiculed. If I told a dirty joke or an Ethnic joke and the wrong person overhead and was offended I would offer them my sincere apologies. Not because I am PC or because I thought I did was a terrible thing but because I inadvertantly caused them anger, pain, and embarrassment. Maybe I ruined their day! If I did that then they have right to be angry. People come to this list to learn, to be entertained, to hope for the future, they do not come to be insulted for their beliefs. In a debate on the other hand there is an agreement between individuals to argue opposing viewpoints. Posting comments about the intelligence of whether a specific religious group are even human is not a debate it falls under the category of ridicule. And if carried to an extreme such as publishing a pamphlet that contains extreme ridicule and unsubstantiated statements of fact could be prosecuted as a hate crime. On the internet many people are trolls and like to stir up firestorms on mailing lists such as these just to see how excited they can get people and then they sit back and watch the fun. When you attack a group of people with ridicule with the intent to humiliate or lower their self esteem, Wikipedia agrees that this is harassment. Many types of harassment are against the law in civilized societies. Especially if they are repeated or carry implied threats. And if the target of the ridicule is a minority or ethnic group the harassment can be prosecuted as a hate crime. Many people who opposed the civil rights civil rights movement made the same kind of statements about minorities not being human as individuals on this list did towards people who follow a religion. Calling blacks animals was not a debate it was an attempt to strip them of their humanity by classifiying them as animals. As you can see here Henry Wikipedia lists many type of ridicule or verbal harassment that are crimes or have at least been prosecuted as crimes under certain circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment#Types_of_harassments >From Wiki pedia "Types of harassments There are a number of harassments that fall into this category. Bullying Harassment that can occur on the playground, school, in the workforce or any other place. Usually physical and psychological harassing behavior perpetrated against an individual, by one or more persons. Psychological harassment This is humiliating or abusive behavior that lowers a person's self-esteem or causes them torment. This can take the form of verbal comments, actions or gestures. Falling into this category is workplace mobbing. Community Based Harassment - stalking by a group against an individual using repeated distractions that the individual is sensitized to, such as clicking an ink pen. See the following website: http://www.c-a-t-c-h.ca/ Racial harassment The targeting of an individual because of their race or ethnicity. The harassment's include words, deeds, and actions, that are specifically designed to make the target feel degraded due to their race of origin or ethnicity. Religious harassment Verbal, psychological or physical harassment's used against targets because they choose to practice a specific religion. Religious harassment can also include forced and involuntary conversions.[1] Sexual harassment Harassment that can happen anywhere but is most common in the workplace, and schools. It involves unwanted and unwelcome, words, deeds, actions, gestures, symbols, or behaviors of a sexual nature that make the target feel uncomfortable. Gender and sexual orientation harassment fall into this family. Stalking The unauthorized following and surveillance of an individual, to the extent that the person's privacy is unacceptably intruded upon, and the victim fears for their safety. Mobbing Violence committed directly or indirectly by a loosely affiliated and organized group of individuals to punish or even execute a person for some alleged offense without a lawful trial. The 'offense' can range from a serious crime like murder or simple expression of ethnic, cultural, or religious attitudes. The issue of the victim's actual guilt or innocence is often irrelevant to the mob, since the mob relies on contentions that are unverifiable, unsubstantiated, or completely fabricated. Hazing To persecute, harass, or torture in a deliberate, calculated, planned, manner. Typically the targeted individual is a subordinate, for example, a fraternity pledge, a first-year military cadet, or somebody who is considered 'inferior' or an 'outsider'. Hazing is illegal in many instances. Backlash Backlash or 'victim blaming' occurs when the harasser or other people in the environment blame the victim for the harassment, or the resulting controversies and conflicts after the harassment is reported or discovered. Backlash results when people erroneously believe the victim could stop the harassment if they really tried, or that the victim must have done something to cause the harassment. The victim may be accused of trying to get attention, covering for incompetence, or in cases where the harassment is proven, lying about the extent of the effects. "Old school" attitudes about certain kinds of harassment remain and there are in many circumstances social pressure for victims to "keep their mouths shut" about abuse or suffer the consequences. Police Harassment Unfair treatment conducted by law officials including but not limited to excessive force,profiling, threats, coercion, and racial, ethnic, religious, gender/sexual, age, or other forms of discrimination." From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Feb 28 02:27:48 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:27:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <8CA478D70A12AAC-EB0-8E0@WEBMAIL-MC08.sysops.aol.com> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net><01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008d01c8793a$f00f2e90$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><1a9001c8795a$bd6305a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8CA478D70A12AAC-EB0-8E0@WEBMAIL-MC08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <007201c879b1$83965960$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Alex Said: << I would include myself in this number despite having stated that my current belief (small b) is that there is a (ahem) 'God'. Taking into account that my 'God' is of the technological kind, be it Alien geneticist or some kind of simulation programmer. Also that the relationship between myself and said 'God' does not involve any sort of worship, recognition or any other bells and whistles such as faith. Would I be defined as a theist/polytheist? Do we have sufficient language terminology to discern the difference between myself and any conventional religious follower? Does my small 'b' qualify as religion? The terms 'God' and 'creator' do not sit well with me, neither do 'believer' or 'follower'. Is the real point here, the little b and the big B. One being believed because of evidence and experience, the other because of indoctrination and blind faith? >> Alex I believe that what you are describing is the big B, by virtue that I don't believe you have undeniable proof of either an Alien geneticist or that we are in a simulation. So therefore if you believe it you are then basing the belief on faith because neither belief has to this day been proven. There is no doubt that to you given your knowledge and reading that these two beliefs are more probable that what other religions that you know believe in but since you believe it and that belief is based on faith not proof I believe it qualifies as a big B religion. If you were not certain of the existence of the Alien Geneticist or Simulation programmer and did not feel that there was a way to prove or disprove their existence then that would make you an Agnostic I believe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Feb 28 02:58:46 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:58:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802271518v49b20fc1x91881aee3b26a88@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080227133851.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.420949e70b.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <7641ddc60802271518v49b20fc1x91881aee3b26a88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007701c879b5$dabadd20$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> Rafal said: >> To further elaborate - If we agree that a god is somebody who can do really cool stuff (e.g. easily create extremely large mathematical structures, like QM-quality simulations of galaxies) and given that the multiverse is infinitely large in terms of patterns of existence contained in it, there must be an infinity of distinct entities fitting this loose definition, even if they may affect only an infinitesimally small measure of everything. So, it's not just one god, there is a whole lot more. Halleluja, anybody? >> If they've managed to master Quantum communications or create wormholes through spacetime for communication who is to say they haven't all networked together when they reached a certain tech level and now share a single consciousness. In a Enlightenment level mystical experience people lose a sense of their individual ego and time for a period and experience what many describe as a merger with god. Enlightenment, Rapture, revelation, satori, nirvana, mystical experiences that cross cultural boundaries. Some drug induced, some meditation induced, some torture induced. What many people don't realize is that if religion did not exist then the next person to have one of these experiences would go out and invent it! There is some reason that people will abandon their everyday lives to pursue a lifetime spiritual sacrifice and mystical experience. That being said it quite possible that these experiences are all chemistry induced within the brain but it is also possible that we are somehow tapping into a signal source which lies outside of the electromagnetic spectrum. Perhaps quantum perhaps something else. Gnostic teachings encourage us to reject what is written in books and only believe what knowledge we receive through direct communication with a deity whether real or imagined. The Gnostic teachings so threatened the power base of the Catholic church that they went to any lengths to suppress their teachings and brand them as heretics. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 28 06:10:57 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:10:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Basis of belief Message-ID: <872260.13751.qm@web30403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Ridicule only tells another what not to believe but not why." ABlainey at aol.com ABlainey at aol.com wrote: >Would an AGI destroy us based upon our intolerance >of murderers and genocide maniacs? Highly unlikely as murderers and genocide maniacs have been around for quite some time:) >or any other negative meme, belief or action? A meme is a belief and/or action (amoungst others). What makes it negative is the belief holder. >I am not comparing religion to any of these, but >just about every 'no no' set out by mankind, law, >morality and religion have been committed in the >name of God. It's easy to blame it on God...who else are they supposed to blame it on. Watch a 5 year old die of disease and get back to me as to why people need some assurance that there was a reason. Otherwise all you have is death and disease and i'm not too interested in those causes unless it's possible to fix them. >Should we be tolerant of this just in case an AGI >judges us badly? Like Science, if you haven't done any research and flap your mouth about how much you know without really knowing much, chances are that others will figure out you are talking out of your arse. I would hope that a built AGI system will judge accordingly without bias but then again, the AI will figure it out. >It is the 'because it's Gods will and we can never >understand' brigade that are the problem. Those who >will not enter into logical discussion because they >have no answers or are unwilling to even contemplate >discourse. These are the people who would be handed >a leaflet. 100% agree. I get the debate between the Atheists point of view as opposed to a Religious point of view, I've taken the time to learn about it. I just see so much ignorance that I get bored of the same reprisals. It seems to me impossible to have a logical discussion on something that can't be explained yet ask me and i'll tell you i'm religious about certain factors. I also agree I don't get the "God Theory" based on the Bible but I am a strong believer of hope and inspiration. Does that help clarify? Yes thanks, it gave me someting to think about. Anna Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 06:39:25 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:09:25 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief (Meta) In-Reply-To: <1204099234_9394@S4.cableone.net> References: <20080226112539.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.0485273158.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <01eb01c878ad$45c0d5c0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <00b001c878d3$a63a72a0$6401a8c0@ZANDRA2> <1a5801c878fd$5c43b7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1204099234_9394@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802272239j2bd01245hb3ab6ca2c20dbf57@mail.gmail.com> I understand that mainly we evolved to be social, due to the mental social arms race in our past. Central to that was detecting the purpose behind behaviours; we try to model the minds of those around us, to figure out why they act the way they do (theory of mind). Also, events in the inanimate world, irregularities or just things of interest, might very well be the result of humans, and false negatives probably killed us more often than false positives in that regard, so we err toward seeing everything as ultimately the product of a thinking being (who's mind we will then try to model). We are meaning finding machines. This would then lead to a universal tendency to see agency behind all things. I think this explains the dual truth that belief in gods is a cross cultural phenomenon, while the detail of that belief varies wildly (randomly!), to the point that many belief systems are unrecognisably different from one another. Why we solidify these probably vague ideas into concrete bodies of belief, that's probably all about in-group reinforcement, our tribal circuitry taking the output of a misfiring heuristic and blowing it out of all proportion. Maybe we love to do this with religion because in the end it's still mostly not too damaging (in terms of fitness), and is balanced by providing an opportunity to signal our group loyalty. Because the belief system is complicated and outlandish, the group loyalty signal is strong (one wouldn't accidentally profess the belief, one would only do so to affirm place in the group). Faith binds us together. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com On 27/02/2008, hkhenson wrote: > Why do people have beliefs, particularly religious beliefs at all? > > I think I know the answer, do you? > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 09:24:35 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:24:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <8CA468135F560DA-10A0-3515@MBLK-M21.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CA45E6D69FD983-CA8-3B4@webmail-mf04.sysops.aol.com> <200802251658.29400.kanzure@gmail.com> <8CA468135F560DA-10A0-3515@MBLK-M21.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM, ablainey wrote: > A global registry is the most > probable outcome of us following the current path. > > So do we embrace that idea now and start to build a new global system or do > we more sensibly change the fundamental protection ideas? > An article just published shows how broken the US patent system is. US patent backlog, employee attrition grow at alarming rates Submitted by Layer 8 on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 4:34pm. Even with its increased hiring estimates of 1,200 patent examiners each year for the next 5 years, the US Patent and Trademark Office patent application backlog is expected to increase to over 1.3 million at the end of fiscal year 2011 the Government Accounting Office reported today. ---------------------------- So it is becoming evident even to the Patent Office that the job, as presently defined, is impossible. That is one way of making a decision. Wait until the situation gets so bad that a rethink is forced. BillK From dharris234 at mindspring.com Thu Feb 28 09:59:51 2008 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:59:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] An anomalous point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47C68617.4090306@mindspring.com> Hi Amara, I attribute the deviation of the US on these 2 graphs to our strong individualism. The people who didn't get along well in other countries were the ones to come to America. We've learned to make quick but shallow friendships, but Americans seek friends both in churches and in voluntary associations. See Alexis de Tocqueville*,* who noted the voluntary associations soon after the American Revolution. I see the individualism as creating labor mobility and the attendant prosperity, loneliness that makes us satisfy our need for human contact in clubs and churches, and an inner hunger for secure significance that a religious theology can bring. So I see individualism as the prime cause for the religiosity. Now what kind of religion came to America? A lot of anti-pleasure religious doctrines, which joined historic accident and racism to make drugs illegal and fill our many prisons. I wonder if someone has good estimates of how much lower our prison populations would be if drugs were as legal as addictive Valium or codeine used to be when I was young. With these concepts I find living in the anomalous points explainable and less disconcerting. And they direct my efforts toward reducing rigid religiosity and ending the insanity of Drug Prohibition. - David Harris, Palo Alto, California Amara Graps wrote: > Despite my knowing the language, living where I am now is more > than ever like living in a foreign country. Sometimes I am struck > at how anomalous the US really is. > > Steve Jurvetson notes the outlier position of the US in a plot > of religiosity versus wealth (per capita GDP normalized): > > http://flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ > > which brings to my mind Anders Sandberg's plot of Freedom (from > the Heritage Freedom Index) against its number of imprisonments > (from World Prison Brief numbers), where the US is again a most > striking outlier point: > > "The Best Prisons that Money Can Buy" > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/02/index.html > > Living in an anomalous point is pretty scary. > > Amara > From lists at lumen.nu Thu Feb 28 10:53:12 2008 From: lists at lumen.nu (Joost Rekveld) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:53:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] An anomalous point In-Reply-To: <47C68617.4090306@mindspring.com> References: <47C68617.4090306@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <724A17D3-8A78-44D0-A978-A929C0461596@lumen.nu> what strikes me on this religiosity-income graph is that both of the anomalies (Kuwait and the US) are countries with very unevenly distributed wealth. It would be interesting to see how religiosity relates to wealth within these countries. One cliche assumption would be that poorer people in these countries are more religious and contribute to the Y-axis position because of their high numbers, whereas the very rich are less religious but contribute to the X-asis position because of their big wealth. just a thought, Joost. On 28 Feb, 2008, at 10:59 AM, David C. Harris wrote: > I attribute the deviation of the US on these 2 graphs to our strong > individualism. ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- "There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We are all crew.? (Marshall McLuhan) ------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 11:21:21 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:21:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] An anomalous point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520802280321g1109b222j7e60f57f221c29ff@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Despite my knowing the language, living where I am now is more > than ever like living in a foreign country. Sometimes I am struck > at how anomalous the US really is. > > Steve Jurvetson notes the outlier position of the US in a plot > of religiosity versus wealth (per capita GDP normalized): > > http://flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ Very interesting. So the US is an anomaly because it is both rich and religious. It is also an anomaly because things get done. In Europe we don't take seriously things like religion, patriotism etc. This is good. I was watching the debate between the two Spanish top politicians before the election, and I realized that I was watching it as one watches a sport game, not believing for a second that they really meant any of their electoral promises. This is also good, one should not be too naive. But here in Europe things do NOT get done. This is not so good. I wonder what is the correlation. Why do religion and naive patriotism correlate with results. G. From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 13:15:52 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:15:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists Message-ID: <470a3c520802280515v71bbfc66v682163b0e5640204@mail.gmail.com> Links in http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/the_manifesto_of_italian_transhumanists/ The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists begins with "We trannshumanists have adopted a clear and ambitious goal since the birth of the Italian Transhumanist Association: to create in our country the conditions for a moral and intellectual revolution with a Promethean orientation. A revolution capable of producing radical changes in the world of culture and daily life". I have had the pleasure and the honor to contribute to this very important document, together with Giuseppe Lucchini, Alberto Masala and Stefano Vaj. But the main writer is the philosopher Riccardo Campa, the President of the Italian Transhumanist Association and a former Board member of the World Transhumanist Association. I hope the Manifesto will be translated, but translating a dense document of 14 pages is not easy work. I will translate some excerpts here, and wish to urge all Italian speakers to read the full text. The definition of transhumanism is simple and crystal clear: "The cornerstone of transhumanism can be summed up in a formula: it is possible and desirable to move from a phase of blind evolution to a stage of purposeful self-directed evolution". I agree that this simple sentence says it all. One of my first impression is that the Manifesto is a very reasonable document, very far from hysteria and "who is not with me is against me" fundamentalism. Riccardo, a visionary but pragmatic thinker, has avoided the easy mistake of proposing a one-size-fits-all black and white worldview, and acknowledged the _necessary_ diversity of opinions in the transhumanist community. So, about politics: "Regarding politics, a recent poll shows that, in qualitative terms, in the WTA there are transhumanists of nearly every color, from the extreme left to the extreme right, and everything that lies between the two poles? transhumanists are able to look farther compared the traditional policy. The birth and development of the Internet and geographically distributed virtual communities require rethinking a whole range of issues such as the management of technology patents, copyright standards, the phenomenon of Open Source, telematics systems and satellite surveillance, citizen privacy. Technological development shows the inadequacy of a leadership still focused on the public-private dichotomy and still reasoning in limited nation-state terms". And also: "in our synthetic view the three major fetish ideologies of the nineteenth century -the market, the state, the race- abandon the center stage to a higher value, self-directed evolution". About religion: "Transhumanism is not and should not be classified as a religion, although nothing prevents it from being interpreted as an alternative to religion, or as a vision that can find space inside a religious doctrine". But also "Although open to dialogue with everyone, we see the impossibility of an agreement over principles with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, especially on issues such as artificial insemination and research in biotechnology". Much of the discussion on politics and religion is centered on Italian politics and the disproportionate influence of the Church on it (strange in a country where, as in most of Europe, most people do not take really seriously a religion which is not an important factor in their day-to-day life). But a lot goes much beyond Italy and is applicable also to global politics and policy making. About the scientific worldview: "The boundary between science and science fiction is well defined. Scientific theories are one thing, and futurist speculations are a very different thing. These two areas have different functions. Research must develop, enrich and deepen the scientific conception of the world, while futurology (which is not science as it deals with futurabilia, things that may be possible but do not exist yet) explores possible future developments of current work. Without any certainty or faith? We will take care to avoid speculations too bold in public policy discourse". But also: "To sum up, only when a technology exists and is experimentally proven it can be considered in a transhumanist policy program of action - which is typically aimed at ensuring access to citizens. Until then, it can be only a working hypothesis of scientists in their laboratories or science fiction writers in their literary works. Transhumanists are ready to recognize the importance of these speculations, because they can give meaning and direction to activism and offer a far reaching vision that permits seeing today's issues in a cosmic perspective". Very far from both naive wishful thinking and bigot ultra-rationalist fundamentalism. I agree with each and every word in the text quoted, and I have been accused of being both a ultra-hard scientist without imagination, and an anti-scientific cultist. Well, these two accusations cannot be both true at the same time, and I guess I will just continue to ignore them. One final comment to sum everything up: Bravo Riccardo! From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 13:27:53 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:27:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Medical Costs In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60802271504h2f7b7949seb023bbae1d4c1e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <391783.21192.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <16ea01c872b2$9ab9c470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60802221530s14e9776euaaa15600c4f4f4aa@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802271504h2f7b7949seb023bbae1d4c1e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 28/02/2008, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > The bureaucratic rules are "make the hospital function as effectively > > and efficiently as possible". > > > ### No, no, no, this is not a rule, just as the preamble to the US > constitution is not really a law. This lofty but vague mission > statement has almost nothing to do with the daily drudgery of a > bureaucrat. The bureaucrat comes to work, drinks his coffee, and goes > to the meeting, where they discuss the minutiae of bureaucratic rules > that were written by other bureaucrats, with some input from > politicians and lobbyists and essentially no direct and truthful input > from customers. Obviously, even the customers do not have an incentive > to provide a truthful input - they have nothing to lose if they > complain and if their complaint is taken into account, others will > foot the bill. The inevitable result of this lack of short feedback > loops is misallocation of resources, which is obvious from the high > cost and poor condition of care in Britain or Canada. The feedback loops in large organisations are not that different whether the organisation is public or private. If the cleaner doesn't do a good job, customers or other staff bring it to the attention of his supervisor, who either tries to make him work harder or argues to his superiors that more cleaners need to be employed. If a bad decision is made - too much or not enough money spent employing cleaners, or too many incompetent cleaners employed - this comes to the attention of management further up. By it reaches the board of directors it will have become very serious, affecting sales, customer complaint levels, or some other outcome measure. Some work will need to be done to determine why exactly the customers are leaving or why the incidence of gastroenteritis has increased. Ultimately, if things are handled badly enough, the shareholders/electors can vote to sack the board of directors. > > Private hospitals in Australia are generally smaller, and if they get > > a complicated case they often put them in an ambulance and send them > > to the nearest public hospital. The only real advantage to having > > private health insurance in Australia (apart from tax advantages for > > higher income earners) is that there is a shorter waiting list for > > some elective surgical procedures; but as soon as a deficit in the > > public system like this is identified there is pressure from the > > ministry to improve the situation using available funds, and pressure > > from the community to increase available funds if this doesn't work. > > > ### How does the "pressure" work? How many hours of pressure does it > take to hire one more nurse in the geriatric ward? You are postulating > the existence of feedback loops through political action ("pressure > from the ministry") and through collective action ("pressure from the > community") but it is well-known that these kinds of feedback loops > are inferior to direct, contract-based control with exit option. Sometimes a lot of pressure is needed; sometimes the nurses have had to threaten strike action because they are overworked, or they have left nursing for more lucrative and easier jobs forcing the government to increase pay and improve conditions. But the same happens in private hospitals: the most common complaint I hear from private patients is that the time they get from nurses and doctors is too low, often lower than in public hospitals. I guess it just isn't profitable to run a more expensive, but very well staffed hospital. > Really. Case in point: Bakeries. You folks here on this list may not > have had the experience of waiting in bread lines for bread baked in a > state-run bakery and sold in a state-run grocery. I can tell you, it's > no fun! One may take bread for granted if it is readily available from > dozens of sources from which you can choose at a whim, and then > perhaps it's easier to theorize about the superiority of a political > monopoly provider of services but such theories don't survive > confrontation with reality. > > There is no difference between the provision of bread and provision of > heart surgeries, and both should be controlled using the same > pluralist, short feedback-loop mechanism. Maybe a combination of private (to provide competition) and public (to guarantee a basic standard) is the ideal. I usually send patients to a private pathology provider, because they don't have to wait as long, while I send them to the public hospital for echocardiograms (for monitoring clozapine treatment), also because they don't have to wait as long. Next year, the situation may reverse. > > Thus, the pool of money is constantly shifted around to where it will > > do the most good, and the size of the pool is adjusted to what the > > community is willing to pay. > > > ### That's what used to tell me in school, too. It's good that I am an > ornery skeptic, and stopped buying this line by age 11. Good for you: you should always question propaganda. But your life would not necessarily have been any better had you lived in one of the many poor, disorganised countries where the propaganda (and the prisons, and the death squads) was intended for the evil socialists. > > > This is dramatically different from the feedback loops between a > > > patient and a doctor who can be fired on the spot, or an insurance > > > plan that can be changed with a few phone calls. > > > > If you don't like your doctor or your nurse in a public hospital you > > can complain about them in the same way as you can complain about the > > employees in any private corporation, and with the same consequences > > to them. > > > ### Complain? So what? What good does it do to *me* if I complain? > This is an important question: What benefit do *I* get from > complaining about a state employee, if I can't readily go to somebody > else? There are many commercial situations where you can't readily go to someone else, for example if you live in an apartment building and you don't agree with the way it is being renovated. You could move, but at great cost and inconvenience. With a public hospital (the ones I am familiar with) at least your complaint will be taken seriously, and the board of management includes community members whose only role is patient advocacy. If you still disagree with a hospital decision there is a health ombudsman, the various professional registration bodies (which can revoke a practitioner's licence to practice), and ultimately the courts if there is negligence. But yes, if you can't afford anything else, and you don't like the variety of the food on offer, there is probably no immediate personal gain from complaining. It's better not to be poor, if you can help it. > ### If you get screwed to the tune of 500,000$ over your lifetime in > the form of the taxes for state medical care expenses taken out of > your income, well, one may be inclined to try to get some of this > money back. Oddly enough, the Australian taxation system penalises high income earners who don't take out private health insurance: they pay a higher tax rate, which can work out to many times more than the cost of the insurance depending on income, so people have an incentive to take out insurance even if they don't think they need it. This was brought in as an attempt to curtail public health spending by shifting some of the burden to the private sector. The result has not been that public hospitals are left in the dust by their private counterparts. The only real advantage of private insurance has traditionally been quicker access to some types of elective surgery, such as joint replacement. But even this has changed as public patients have been demanding quicker service, perhaps comparing themselves to their private counterparts. In terms of research, handling of complicated cases, innovative techniques and general prestige, the large public hospitals are still way ahead. > > The US spends more as a proportion of GDP, not just in absolute terms. > > I would have said that the overhead and dead weight losses of multiple > > health insurance funds seeking to avoid paying patients wherever > > possible (with all the duplicated corporate bureaucracy that > > involves), > > > ### How do you mean "deadweight loss"? This term has a relatively > precise meaning in economic analysis but how are you applying it here > to multiple independent businesses? You would need to explain that. > BTW, the total cost of health administration and insurance overhead in > the US is about 7% of the total, and that includes the cost of > Medicare administration. It's peanuts compared to the total spending. OK, I didn't know that definition of "deadweight loss" and assumed you meant the cost of administration and the bureaucracy. The following article suggests that administration costs in the US are much higher than in Canada, 31% versus 17% in 1999: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768 > the better prices drug companies can get for their products > > in a fragmented market, > > > ### If you believe that monopsony is a good idea, you should read up > on it. Monopsony is bad (i.e. generates deadweight loss), just like > monopoly, moreover, it has additional negative long-term consequences > beyond the deadweight loss. It leads to long-term attrition and stasis > among suppliers, with disastrous consequences on long-term welfare. > The whole point of a market is that it is, bah, it *must* be > fragmented, or else it is not a market. The Australian PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Benefits_Scheme) is not a monopsony. Australia is a small market by world standards and drug companies are free not to release drugs in that market if they feel it isn't profitable, or to release them on a private script only basis. You may as well accuse pharmacies of being monopsonies on the grounds that they buy medications in bulk. The majority of the 200,000 Australians with schizophrenia are provided with free or almost free second generation antipsychotics at a monthly cost to the PBS of $200-$300 per person. I don't see any of the drug companies withdrawing their product on the grounds that this revenue isn't worth their while. -- Stathis Papaioannou From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Thu Feb 28 13:27:35 2008 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:27:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physics of the Impossible available on March 11 Message-ID: <1E83F1FF-7A6D-47E5-82CD-FCAB0E043ABF@mac.com> "As someone who has purchased or rated books by Michio Kaku, you might like to know that Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel will be released on March 11, 2008. Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel Michio Kaku List Price: $26.95 Price: $17.79 You Save: $9.16 (34%) Release Date: March 11, 2008 From Publishers Weekly In this latest effort to popularize the sciences, City University of New York professor and media star Kaku (Hyperspace) ponders topics that many people regard as impossible, ranging from psychokinesis and telepathy to time travel and teleportation. His Class I impossibilities include force fields, telepathy and antiuniverses, which don't violate the known laws of science and may become realities in the next century. Those in Class II await realization farther in the future and include faster-than-light travel and discovery of parallel universes. Kaku discusses only perpetual motion machines and precognition in Class III, things that aren't possible according to our current understanding of science. He explains how what many consider to be flights of fancy are being made tangible by recent scientific discoveries ranging from rudimentary advances in teleportation to the creation of small quantities of antimatter and transmissions faster than the speed of light. Science and science fiction buffs can easily follow Kaku's explanations as he shows that in the wonderful worlds of science, impossible things are happening every day. (Mar. 11) " -- Sergio M.L. Tarrero Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 28 15:18:54 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:18:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics Message-ID: I've been generally impressed with Eliezer's posts at the Overcoming Bias blog, especially as they indicate progress along the path toward a rational accounting of inherently subjective agency within an increasingly objective model of our world. Best of all, Eliezer puts a lot of thought and time into his essays, going well beyond my own five-paragraph rule. This one I found particularly gratifying, expanding on the inherent subjectivity of entropy and the ineluctable role of the observer in any description of "reality." Setting the stage for a rational metaethics of increasingly rational choice. - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 15:38:38 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:38:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802280738v508a89ddj6ae66e9a81ee9f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:53 PM, James Clement wrote: > > > Because it's a FIFO registration process for patent applications, my guess > is that organizations strive to patent their drugs long before they > actually > have FDA approval. Since such approvals may easily take 7 to 10 years to > get, that's also a substantial decrease in the amount of time over which > they can sell the product exclusively. > There is another reason. Once a molecule is in the approval phase in any jurisdiction, your ability to obtain a patent is over, since the invention is considered as divulged. Thus, you cannot wait the end of that process to apply, not only because somebody else might file before you do, but because your application would be void anyway. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 16:02:47 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:02:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802280802pd6f440bp4fa7bf3e4f1bb329@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Tom Tobin wrote: > I think we're looking at the situation the wrong way. Instead of "How > can pharma companies recoup their R&D costs?", I'd like to ask "Is > there a better way to enrich the public good regarding medicine?" I could not care less if pharma companies recoup their R&D costs. What I am only saying is that economic fundamentals say they would not and could not spontaneously invest in R&D if pharma patents were abolished or substantially shortened, all the rest being equal. There are however plenty of other conceivable methods to finance and/or motivate R&D. The Soviet Union, e.g., put a Sputnik in orbit without a patent system at all. :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 16:06:02 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:06:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802281006.02410.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 28 February 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > A good post, it's making me wonder where he's getting his material. > The connection in the other direction is less obvious. Suppose there > was a glass of water, about which, initially, you knew only that its > temperature was 72 degrees. Then, suddenly, Saint Laplace reveals to > you the exact locations and velocities of all the atoms in the water. > You now know perfectly the state of the water, so, by the > information-theoretic definition of entropy, its entropy is zero. > Does that make its thermodynamic entropy zero? Is the water colder, > because we know more about it? Ignoring quantumness for the moment, > the answer is: Yes! Yes it is! Saint Laplace, supposedly being a mystical being able to reveal this information to you, would have to directly measure all of these pieces of information -- otherwise I would have to argue that it is _not_ colder. In other words, whether it is St. Laplace or yourself that does the measurements: the measurements must be within this universe, else I would have to debate the point that it is colder. But this is just nit-picking, since the basic point that anything that you know more about gets colder. (That's why programmers hate documentation: it's cold.) > Which is to say: To form accurate beliefs about something, you really > do have to observe it. It's a very physical, very real process: any > rational mind does "work" in the thermodynamic sense, not just the > sense of mental effort. I wonder what the correlation is between thermodynamic 'work' (heat cycles?) and mental effort. I know that it's not one-to-one, but still. - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 28 16:04:51 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <470a3c520802280515v71bbfc66v682163b0e5640204@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520802280515v71bbfc66v682163b0e5640204@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080228100318.023cdfa8@satx.rr.com> At 02:15 PM 2/28/2008 +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/the_manifesto_of_italian_transhumanists/ > >The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists begins with "We >trannshumanists have adopted a clear and ambitious goal since the >birth of the Italian Transhumanist Association: to create in our >country the conditions for a moral and intellectual revolution with a >Promethean orientation. A revolution capable of producing radical >changes in the world of culture and daily life". > >I have had the pleasure and the honor to contribute to this very >important document, together with Giuseppe Lucchini, Alberto Masala >and Stefano Vaj. But the main writer is the philosopher Riccardo >Campa, the President of the Italian Transhumanist Association and a >former Board member of the World Transhumanist Association. I hope the >Manifesto will be translated, but translating a dense document of 14 >pages is not easy work. I will translate some excerpts here, and wish >to urge all Italian speakers to read the full text. This looks very promising indeed. Let's hope it is translated in full into English very soon! Damien Broderick From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 16:13:03 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:13:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60802251520y54d25e35y7c7a87c6a4b1689e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802280813k17fa2df0t4ec0944de788b67f@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:10 AM, Tom Tobin wrote: > I think you discount the potential of open-source, collaborative means > of invention and authorship; given the currently available body of > ideas and a mandate to go nuts (and maybe a RepRap), why shouldn't the > same blooming of useful creative work happen in other fields just as > with computer programming? > > Insofar as *feelings* go, I actually believe that all IP is unethical; > just as a conviction that all slavery is unethical, this doesn't stem > from reason or a cost/benefit analysis. > In fact, it is by no means the case that extending the scope, areas and duration of IP indefinitely provides indefinite increments in the sought results. On the contrary, there is a curve of steeply diminishing returns that may well justify an opposition to patents on, say, culinary recipees, software and business methods, or to a duration of copyright on books for life-plus-70-years. Insofar as "ethical" feelings are concerned, the situation is similar to that of Sharia and lending money for an interest: if this is unacceptable for you, you should either come up with other workable ideas for operating a banking system, or accept to do without it. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 28 16:27:28 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:27:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An anomalous point Message-ID: David C. Harris dharris234 at mindspring.com : >I attribute the deviation of the US on these 2 graphs to our strong >individualism. No, the character traits of individuality doesn't satisfactorily (to me) explain it. Why? Notice what happens when some person or persons who is 'different', but at the same economic lifestyle as others around him/her, enters the environment. Being different is not respected and not tolerated well. Notice the chain stores of stupefying sameness; they exist not only due to economic pressures. If people didn't want that sameness, that predictability, then those shops would go out of business. Why would a culture of 'individualism' want thousands of shops of sameness? Now you _could_ say that character traits of individualism explain the background of violence that, in my opinion, is very real and has been a part of the culture since the beginnings of the country. And I find it scary from that standpoint, from the standpoint of frighteningly strong enforcement mechanism in place, starting from the government (record number of citizens in jail, broken civil rights) down to the 'citizen' (the US citizens holds the largest number of guns in the world), and all of these 'mechanisms' are in fact being used on people within and without the country's borders. I do think that there still must be another explanation for those anomalous points. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 16:39:40 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:39:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Recent Slashdot comments Message-ID: <200802281039.40325.kanzure@gmail.com> There has been a recent outbreak of insightfulness on Slashdot, after the pirate stories last month and now the recent internet prank article, the one about an FBI agent wanting a "better, more secure internet", and then the one about Gershenfeld and personal fabrication (RepRap, MNT, 3D printers, bacterial nanotech), I remember this: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/25/147200 > If the gap between teachers and pupils is as large as the one between > parents and children then it is no surprise that todays teachers > really don't know what to do with the technology savvy generation that > is about to supplant them. Schools haven't got a clue about the > internet, how to use it and what it could bring them. Pupils are > running circles around their supposed betters and are showing earlier > in life a degree of independence that teachers wished they had had > when they were young. Todays youth are so connected using cellphones, > the net and social networking that they are as alien from the previous > generation as any that has ever been. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=469244&cid=22583054 > The transition will be difficult. The digital immigrants with > extensive investigative experience and the digital natives who are > novices in their profession will have to cooperate and exchange their > knowledge and wisdom, and in the meantime, some criminals will slip > through the cracks. That's the price of progress. Maybe there's a way that we can help ... ease the transistion? - Bryan ________________________________________ Bryan Bishop http://heybryan.org/ From ABlainey at aol.com Thu Feb 28 17:18:28 2008 From: ABlainey at aol.com (ABlainey at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:18:28 EST Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: In a message dated 28/02/2008 02:31:08 GMT Standard Time, aiguy at comcast.net writes: > Alex I believe that what you are describing is the big B, by virtue that I > don't believe you have undeniable proof of either an Alien geneticist or that > we are in a simulation. So therefore if you believe it you are then basing > the belief on faith because neither belief has to this day been proven. > There is no doubt that to you given your knowledge and reading that these two > beliefs are more probable that what other religions that you know believe in > but since you believe it and that belief is based on faith not proof I believe > it qualifies as a big B religion. > > If you were not certain of the existence of the Alien Geneticist or > Simulation programmer and did not feel that there was a way to prove or disprove > their existence then that would make you an Agnostic I believe. > > I would have to agree that in the case of Alien input somewhere in our evolutionary past, this would be big B if truly believed based upon current evidence. Although there are many hints that this may have happened and it is entirely within the realms of possibility. The evidence is far short of proving it. So based upon the logic, I would regrade it as b- or a wishful belief which is unproven, but would be very entertaining if proven to be true. Really not a belief at all, just a believable and amusing possibility Regarding a God in the context of simulation theory, this is also unproven. However I see this more of a belief of probability as per Rafal's post. So I would say small b. Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Thu Feb 28 17:41:43 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:41:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: <580930c20802280738v508a89ddj6ae66e9a81ee9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802280738v508a89ddj6ae66e9a81ee9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Stefano Vaj wrote: There is another reason. Once a molecule is in the approval phase in any jurisdiction, your ability to obtain a patent is over, since the invention is considered as divulged. Thus, you cannot wait the end of that process to apply, not only because somebody else might file before you do, but because your application would be void anyway. U.S. patent laws differ from European laws in several respects, including a "first to invent" rather than "first to file" rule. Therefore, in the U.S. you may publish or put your invention to commercial use for up to one year and still patent it afterwards. However, if you commercialize it first, you will likely NOT be able to obtain a patent outside the U.S. for it. See below: 35 U.S.C. ? 102(b) requires that a U.S. patent application must be filed within one year of any of the following three events: 1. The disclosure of the invention (by any person) in a printed publication (probably includes public disclosures using overheads and slides, "video" publications, trade literature); 2. The offering for sale (or sale) of the invention (by any person) - does not include efforts to license patent rights to others; or 3. The commercial use of the invention (by any person) - called "public use." To obtain protection in foreign countries (except for a limited exception in Canada), an application must be filed in the U.S. before the invention is sold or disclosed to the public. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 2/28/2008 12:14 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 17:52:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:52:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Problem with Pattents In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60802221644u236b26d2u425008563b2772ba@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802251131v40c45b8co7956591073b4cd21@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802280738v508a89ddj6ae66e9a81ee9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802280952r1dd2b68cj586e09f16353f9a4@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, James Clement > > *U.S. patent laws differ from European laws in several respects, including > a "first to invent" rather than "first to file" rule. Therefore, in the > U.S. you may publish or put your invention to commercial use for up to one > year and still patent it afterwards. > * > Yes, you are right. On the other hand, after one year, the divulged invention falls into public domain. And of course you risk to have to challenge any patent that a third party may have filed in the meantime alleging prior invention. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 28 18:28:46 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:28:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists Message-ID: Damien B. >Let's hope it is translated in full into English very soon! I think you'll be waiting for a very long time. I expressed my interest last Fall on wta-talk in having more dual-language works be exchanged between the Italian Transhumanists and the broader English-speaking WTA community, and my impression from Riccardo's response to my suggestion is that he is not interested in that much language exchange. That is, that these transhumanist documents are for the Italian-speaking community mostly. If I'm wrong, then maybe Giulio can correct me. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 18:50:52 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:50:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520802281050u55f176c0h2456ebdcb7639668@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Damien B. > >Let's hope it is translated in full into English very soon! > > I think you'll be waiting for a very long time. I expressed my interest > last Fall on wta-talk in having more dual-language works be exchanged > between the Italian Transhumanists and the broader English-speaking WTA > community, and my impression from Riccardo's response to my suggestion > is that he is not interested in that much language exchange. That is, > that these transhumanist documents are for the Italian-speaking > community mostly. If I'm wrong, then maybe Giulio can correct me. > > Amara The plan is to translate the document, but it is going to take some work (the pdf version is 14 pages). Google Translate produces a reasonably understandable result but the output must be corrected by someone fluent in both languages. So producing a good translation will take at least one full day of work. I translated some sentences that in my opinion are really central, but do not have the time to translate the document in full. Too bad because there is a lot of good material. Perhaps we will look for volunteers on the Italian lists, but I think most AIT members who speak English fluently are also here. btw any volunteer? G. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 19:46:07 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:46:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the $$$ TED Conference Message-ID: <2d6187670802281146id0e6eablf4b1e1b3695aa5a9@mail.gmail.com> I was shocked to learn a ticket to the "Uber-Con" TED Conference is six thousand dollars! Yeouch!!! I wonder if I could get in as a volunteer? LOL It does sound pretty amazing and comes with quite a roster of visiting dignitaries and celebrities. I hope Natasha Vita-More gives us an insider's view on how things went. : ) John Grigg http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2008/02/ted_walkup A sold-out confab of celebrities, industry titans and alpha geeks will converge on Monterey, California, for a four-day, invitation-only celebration of big ideas this week. Now in its 24th year, TED begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday. It is an elite event where leaders in technology, entertainment and design gather to cross-pollinate ideas and gain inspiration from presentations on the latest developments in sciences and the arts. Political leaders take the stage too: Former President Bill Clinton received the annual TED prize at last year's conference; former Vice President Al Gore has also been a speaker. The conference attracts a wide range of people, from Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to musician Peter Gabriel and filmmaker J.J. Abrams. Those who can't afford the $6,000 price tag for TED's excellent adventure have an alternate for the first time this year with a parallel conference called BIL , which will be held near the conference center housing TED. BIL is an open-ended gathering designed to complement TED, and begins just after the closing beach party that ends TED on Saturday. BIL does not charge attendees but conference goers must create their own roster of speakers -- anyone who shows up at BIL can give a presentation there. The list of scheduled speakersincludes some current and past TED presenters. About 1,100 people are expected to attend TED. This year's conference theme is "Big Questions," and speakers will be looking at core issues like who we are, where we came from and what our place is in the universe. The 50-plus speakers will include theoretical physicist Garrett Lisi, who garnered headlines last year after publishing his Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything online, which proposes a unified theory of the universe's structure that rivals the widely supported string theory. Experimental physicist Brian Cox will be discussing the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN lab outside Geneva, Switzerland, which scientists hope will provide information to support string theory or other theories of the universe after the Collider's turned on for the first time this summer. Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo will look at why people become evil by discussing his famous 1971 Stanford prison experiment, in which students playing "prison guards" in a simulation quickly became abusive toward their "prisoners." Zimbardo will discuss how the abuses perpetrated by the students in his study parallel what guards at the Abu Ghraib prison did to inmates in Iraq. Other speakers include John Knoll, creator of Photoshop and visual effects supervisor for Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith and Mission Impossible, author Amy Tan and fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi. Former Vice President Al Gore is also slated to give a presentation, though organizers haven't revealed the subject of his talk yet. Two years ago Gore presented his now-famous slide show on global warming to the influential TED crowd. The conference has recently adopted a more socially-conscious focus designed to get the wealthy power brokers thinking about projects that can improve the world. That was the impetus for the TED prize, an annual award launched in 2005 to recognize individuals whose work has had and will have a powerful and positive impact on society. It provides each recipient with $100,000 and the chance to ask for help from the TED community in achieving one grand wish to change the world. The three winners of this year's TED prize will announce their wishes at the conference on Thursday. The winners include Cambridge University theoretical physicist Neil Turok, author and founder of the 826 Valencia literacy project Dave Eggersand former nun and comparative-religions scholar Karen Armstrong. TED, which has long been an elite gathering, opened up to a much wider audience after it began posting video of its talkson its website in 2006. According to conference organizers, 200 talks from past TED gatherings have been posted so far and have been viewed around 30 million times. Wired.com will publish stories from the conference all week and will also be covering it on our Epicenter blog . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 22:50:44 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:20:44 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.com> On 29/02/2008, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > If you were not certain of the existence of the Alien Geneticist or > Simulation programmer and did not feel that there was a way to prove or > disprove their existence then that would make you an Agnostic I believe. An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to know god. The existence of god is unknowable, and thus has no relevance to anything. I used to call myself agnostic, along these lines, but I've softened in recent years into a hardline atheist. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Feb 28 23:21:15 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:21:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief Message-ID: <022820082321.12060.47C741EA000E0CE300002F1C2213575333979A09070E@comcast.net> Emlyn said: > >An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to know god. The existence of god is unknowable, and thus has no relevance to anything. >> Emylyn you a confiusing an "Agnostic" with an "Gnostic". They sound alike but that where the similarity ends. >From the Free Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic ag??nos??tic (g-nstk) n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. adj. As opposed to Gnostic (plural Gnostics) A believer in Gnosticism http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gnosticism Gnosticism (from Greek gnosis, knowledge) is a term created by modern scholars to describe a diverse, syncretistic religious movement, especially in the first centuries C.E. Gnostics believed in gnosis, the knowledge of God enabled by secret teachings. Some Gnostics considered themselves Christian, identifying Jesus as the divine spirit incarnated to bring gnosis to humanity. However, Gnostic dualism placed it in stark contrast to Orthodox Christian non-dualistic teaching, and Gnostics were labelled heretics. Other Gnostics were not even nominally Christian, and several Gnostic texts appear to have no Christian element at all. Still others were certainly devout mystic ascetics who worshipped Jesus and lived in their own unique ways according to His teachings. Simon Magus is believed by some Christians as being the founder of Gnosticism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 28 23:26:44 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:26:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080228172346.023b5c98@satx.rr.com> At 09:20 AM 2/29/2008 +1030, Emlyn wrote: >An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via >gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to >know god. Well, no, that's a false etymology, and if it were correct agnostic would mean that gnosis is *wrong* (since the a- prefix negates whatever follows). It just means "Dunno one way or the other, no knowledge on that one, next question please." Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 29 00:07:17 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:07:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080228172346.023b5c98@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080228172346.023b5c98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080228180323.0236c9e8@satx.rr.com> At 05:26 PM 2/28/2008 -0600, I wrote: >At 09:20 AM 2/29/2008 +1030, Emlyn wrote: > > >An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via > >gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to > >know god. > >Well, no, that's a false etymology, and if it were correct agnostic >would mean that gnosis is *wrong* Oops, re-reading I see I put my own weight on the wrong foot. It's still a false etymology (since in Huxley's coinage of the word "gnosis" just means "knowledge"), but I see we're not *really* disagreeing; it means there's no way to be certain about any answer to the god question. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 02:30:12 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:30:12 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 29/02/2008, Emlyn wrote: > An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via > gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to > know god. The existence of god is unknowable, and thus has no > relevance to anything. In Greek "gnosis" just means knowledge, and "agnostos" means unknown. The word "Gnosis" with an upper case "G" means something else. -- Stathis Papaioannou From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 02:34:31 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:04:31 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080228180323.0236c9e8@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0802281450l14bc77c0t8738313b5d28379d@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080228172346.023b5c98@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080228180323.0236c9e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802281834i1e220bd0mebe16b4279a0bc1@mail.gmail.com> On 29/02/2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 05:26 PM 2/28/2008 -0600, I wrote: > > >At 09:20 AM 2/29/2008 +1030, Emlyn wrote: > > > > >An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via > > >gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to > > >know god. > > > >Well, no, that's a false etymology, and if it were correct agnostic > >would mean that gnosis is *wrong* > > Oops, re-reading I see I put my own weight on the wrong foot. It's > still a false etymology (since in Huxley's coinage of the word > "gnosis" just means "knowledge"), but I see we're not *really* > disagreeing; it means there's no way to be certain about any answer > to the god question. > > Damien Broderick > Yeah sorry all, that's what I meant. I meant that agnostics think this inner-knowledge thing is bunk (I wasn't just asserting that). Wikipedia on agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic It's problematic that weak agnosticism (I don't know if there's a god, unsure) and strong agnosticism (the question of god's existence is in principle unknowable) are conflated. They're entirely different positions; I can't see anything similar about them. The first seems to me to be held by watered down theists, while the latter is a position that is very negative about god, particularly when you consider that it is a high rationalist argument (the unspoken corollary is "in light of Occam's Razor, god has no place in our theories"). -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 02:38:42 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:08:42 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief In-Reply-To: <022820082321.12060.47C741EA000E0CE300002F1C2213575333979A09070E@comcast.net> References: <022820082321.12060.47C741EA000E0CE300002F1C2213575333979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0802281838j20f9a144n6b500a24b23ab8e5@mail.gmail.com> On 29/02/2008, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > > Emlyn said: > > > >An Agnostic is someone who says that the only way to know god is via > gnosis (internal insight?), and since that's bunk, there is no way to > know god. The existence of god is unknowable, and thus has no > relevance to anything. >> > > Emylyn you a confiusing an "Agnostic" with an "Gnostic". > No, I just didn't express myself very well. If I ever profess a belief in Gnosticism, somebody please send the deprogramming squad round to my place pronto! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 29 02:48:30 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:48:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief (Meta) Message-ID: <1204253373_17662@S1.cableone.net> At 02:25 AM 2/27/2008, you wrote: >Keith writes > >>Why do people have beliefs, particularly religious beliefs at all? > >"beliefs" with a small "b" include perceptions, sensations, 3D knowledge, >appreciations of personality differences, recall of favors, what local >landmarks there are, and so on and on. We've had them forever, and >so do animals. > >But you are talking about "Beliefs" with a capital "B". In his very nice >book "Before the Dawn (Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors)", >author Nicolas Wade mentions the not-very-recent theory that religion >evolved as a defense against lies. Considering the non existent relation between religions and objective truth, that's a weird theory. >It started as a marker of who you >could trust and who you could not. Obviously this fed into group >loyalties, and the evolution of "us" vs. "them". >We might say, in the case of religion and nationality (of the "nationalism" >variety) that these were developments that allowed for social cohesion >to extend much further. That is, your "tribe" need no longer be restricted >to just those who you had met. While the psychological mechanisms for religious beliefs may have figured into the cohesion of groups larger than a tribe, that wasn't the discussion I was looking for. Groups larger than hunter-gatherer bands are a recent phenomena in genetic selection terms. Human psychological mechanisms are the result of natural selection in the EEA. For example, capture-bonding, the psychological mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome, was obviously directly selected. Something like 10 % of our female ancestors were filtered though this selection process every generation. Drug addiction is just as clearly a side effect of selection for some other psychological trait. (Unless you can come up with a selective advantage for lying under a bush wasted on plant sap.) Since the psychological mechanisms behind religious beliefs are so common, perhaps on a par with the mechanisms behind capture-bonding, those mechanisms must have had a substantial genetic advantage in the EEA. But I strongly suspect that "genetic" advantage was in "inclusive fitness" i.e., copies of genes in relatives. The model is that the mechanisms that lie behind religions (xenophobic memes) were those that fired up warriors for a do or die attempt to kill neighbors when the future started looking bleak. >Once in place, I will suggest, this evolved towards "us-them" in everything >else. How long did this take? The EEA includes right up to the present, but you have to have a heck of an advantage for a gene to spread in the time since settled agriculture. >>I think I know the answer, do you? > >What? See above. Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 29 04:54:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:54:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics References: <200802281006.02410.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005201c87a8f$e9ea7d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes, based on what Jef posted about Eliezer's entropy essay > On Thursday 28 February 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: >> >> >> "The connection in the other direction is less obvious. Suppose there >> was a glass of water, about which, initially, you knew only that its >> temperature was 72 degrees. Then, suddenly, Saint Laplace reveals to >> you the exact locations and velocities of all the atoms in the water. >> You now know perfectly the state of the water, so, by the >> information-theoretic definition of entropy, its entropy is zero. >> Does that make its thermodynamic entropy zero? Is the water colder, >> because we know more about it? Ignoring quantumness for the moment, >> the answer is: Yes! Yes it is!" The arguments about what entropy is (or how it should be regarded) are very old, and years ago I spent hours and hours involved in them. Almost all the time, I stick with this idea: Temperature of a gas is the mean kinetic energy of its molecules. I doubt if anyone wants to really "subjectivize" what velocity and mass are---the classical conceptions are simply too useful. Still, of course, velocity is relative to an observer, (and so is mass-energy, unless you speak of a relativistic invariants and so on). But I think these would be red-herrings to the real issue right here. > Saint Laplace, supposedly being a mystical being able to reveal this > information to you, would have to directly measure all of these pieces > of information -- otherwise I would have to argue that it is _not_ > colder. Are you suggesting that the act of measuring those particles affects them? That would be true, but I don't see the relevance for the discussion. A simulation of 100 molecules in a box could be created in a number of different contexts, and the locations and velocities known as functions of time. So without doing more that skimming Eliezer's paper, and having no time for all the inevitable comments, can someone briefly explain why I should abandon "Temperature in gas is the mean kinetic energy of its molecules"? > In other words, whether it is St. Laplace or yourself that does > the measurements: the measurements must be within this universe, else I > would have to debate the point that it is colder. But this is just > nit-picking, since the basic point that anything that you know more > about gets colder. Suppose I read a magazine article that tells me the rotational energy of a centrifuge at NASA that is kept going at a constant angular momentum etc. Should I then in good conscience---having read all the above---dash off an email telling them to lower their estimate of its temperature/energy ever so slightly? After all, I, Lee, now *know* more about it than I did this morning, hence it must be colder. (????????) Sorry. Can't believe that. Sounds like quite a number of sentences need to be further qualified. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 29 05:24:05 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:24:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Basis of Belief (Meta) References: <1204253373_17662@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <005901c87a93$6b4d2c20$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > [Lee wrote] >>"beliefs" with a small "b" include perceptions, sensations, 3D knowledge, >>appreciations of personality differences, recall of favors, what local >>landmarks there are, and so on and on. We've had them forever, and >>so do animals. >> >>But you are talking about "Beliefs" with a capital "B". In his very nice >>book "Before the Dawn (Recovering the Lost History of our Ancestors)", >>author Nicolas Wade mentions the not-very-recent theory that religion >>evolved as a defense against lies. > > Considering the non existent relation between religions and objective > truth, that's a weird theory. What was meant is that you could trust your co-religionists. Roy Rappaport's 1971 theory was that the language also brought about the possibility of telling untruths, and that the emergence of the sacred could "help to maintain the general features of some previously existing social organization in the face of new threats posed by an every-increasing capacity for lying". But I hardly need all of Rappaport's theory to make the rather (now) banal point that trust can be extended members of any large group that one identifies with. > While the psychological mechanisms for religious beliefs may have > figured into the cohesion of groups larger than a tribe, that wasn't > the discussion I was looking for. Groups larger than hunter-gatherer > bands are a recent phenomena in genetic selection terms. Okay, but larger groups may be relatively recent, but as we know---and as you have brought up---with conceptual advances similar to those Clark writes about, non-mutational evolution is still going strong. > Human psychological mechanisms are the result of natural selection in > the EEA. For example, capture-bonding, the psychological mechanism > behind Stockholm syndrome, was obviously directly > selected. Something like 10 % of our female ancestors were filtered > though this selection process every generation. Drug addiction is > just as clearly a side effect of selection for some other > psychological trait. (Unless you can come up with a selective > advantage for lying under a bush wasted on plant sap.) Okay. The origins of the mechanisms, brought about by mutation, are pretty old. But the distribution of the alleles continues to change. > Since the psychological mechanisms behind religious beliefs are so > common, perhaps on a par with the mechanisms behind capture-bonding, > those mechanisms must have had a substantial genetic advantage in the EEA. Right. > But I strongly suspect that "genetic" advantage was in "inclusive > fitness" i.e., copies of genes in relatives. The model is that the > mechanisms that lie behind religions (xenophobic memes) were those > that fired up warriors for a do or die attempt to kill neighbors when > the future started looking bleak. But why wouldn't an "us-vs.-them" attitude have undergirded such impulses towards warfare. They would have, no? We do know that even chimpanzee tribes "war" on one another. I'm just saying that those xenophobic memes came before language, before memes, and before modern notions of totally exterminating an enemy on ideological grounds. >>Once in place, I will suggest, this evolved towards "us-them" in everything >>else. > > How long did this take? The EEA includes right up to the present, > but you have to have a heck of an advantage for a gene to spread in > the time since settled agriculture. Hmm, I'm confused. (But then that is part of the point of these exchanges, to get past confusion.) I will say now (and I think I said) that the "us-them" was extremely ancient, probably even before the EEA. So I am also claiming that with our language- enhanced brains, we now apply those same instincts to even, say, whether you are for one sports team or---like your brother in law who you can't stand, partly for this reason---for a competing sports team. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 29 07:26:22 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:26:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics References: Message-ID: <007901c87aa4$763b1d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef wrote > This one I found particularly gratifying, expanding on the inherent > subjectivity of entropy and the ineluctable role of the observer in > any description of "reality." Setting the stage for a rational > metaethics of increasingly rational choice. > > Well, after examining the comments to Eliezer's post, it's easy to see that he created a lot of confusion with "Is the water colder, because we know more about it? Ignoring quantumness for the moment, the answer is: Yes! Yes it is!" But aside from what was evidently an overstatement, why do you believe that the role of the observer is "ineluctable" in any description of reality? Jaynes was a philosophical realist, and I think that Eliezer is too (he was the last time I talked to him in person). To use the language of Jaynes: Suppose we have two robots A and B. Each of them has different information concerning some system S. Indeed their Bayesian probabilities of S having certain characteristics will differ. (It was ingenious of Jaynes to introduce his robot, *because* it banished a certain kind of subjectivity.) But don't you believe that the system ITSELF has certain properties and characteristics? Surely you haven't abandoned realism entirely. Lee From estropico at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 10:23:44 2008 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:23:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> > From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" > > The plan is to translate the document, but it is going to take some > work... > > btw any volunteer? Well, I'd like to volounteer a *partial* translation: "While open to dialogue with anyone, we must recognise the current impossibility of an accord with the Church leaders, especially on topics such as assisted reproductive technology and biotech research. This has been called for by some Italians who describe themselves as extropians. We don't think this is either acceptable or in line with the extropian ethos, considering how Max More, founder of ExI, has never hidden his secularism or even anti-clerical and anti-religious feelings." This "misunderstanding" has long been exploited by Campa and others for internal power-struggles (a few people have since been silenced on the Italian Transhumanist Association's mailing list). Let's see if I can clarify it once and for all. What I actually said (and I'm not responsible for what others that Campa might consider "extropians" might have said) is that confrontation with the catholics is not necessarily the only available tactic (tactic, not strategy). I also quoted an Italian author (Carlo Pelanda) who in article wrote of the risk of a "war" between science and religion that could backfire, undermining public support (and funding) for the coming "biorevolution". The response to my comments was a torrent of rather surreal accusations of clericalism and of being "pro-Vatican"... Italy (like any other country) is unique. Part of its "uniqueness" is the presence of the Vatican and the power of catholic institutions. Is this an obstacle to the transhumanist project? Often it is (embryonic stem cells), sometimes it isn't (genetically modified crops). So, which is the best approach? I don't claim to know, but I see that all mainstream parties, on both the left and right, are always very cautious not to upset the "catholic vote", and I see that the most anti-catholic (in the political sense) parties are the small ones. I also see that Italians have a healty tendency to take the Vatican's pronouncements with a pinch of salt. How else to explain Italy's birthrates (among the lowest in the world), given the Vatican stance on contraception? Am I the only one to think that twenty years from now Italians will take the same pragmatic approach to life-extension therapies? Cheers, Fabio From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 29 11:03:44 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:03:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> Fabio: > Italy (like any other country) is unique. Part of its "uniqueness" is > the presence of the Vatican and the power of catholic institutions. Is > this an obstacle to the transhumanist project? Often it is (embryonic > stem cells), sometimes it isn't (genetically modified crops). So, > which is the best approach? I don't claim to know, but I see that all > mainstream parties, on both the left and right, are always very > cautious not to upset the "catholic vote", and I see that the most > anti-catholic (in the political sense) parties are the small ones. I > also see that Italians have a healty tendency to take the Vatican's > pronouncements with a pinch of salt. How else to explain Italy's > birthrates (among the lowest in the world), given the Vatican stance > on contraception? Am I the only one to think that twenty years from > now Italians will take the same pragmatic approach to life-extension > therapies? It seems right. Well said. s. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 14:16:31 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:16:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics of the Impossible available on March 11 In-Reply-To: <1E83F1FF-7A6D-47E5-82CD-FCAB0E043ABF@mac.com> References: <1E83F1FF-7A6D-47E5-82CD-FCAB0E043ABF@mac.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802290616y1ca1dea8m507b811c0e9f5d@mail.gmail.com> Michio Kaku will be speaking at ASU sometime this fall regarding his new book. I can't wait! : ) http://beyond.asu.edu/events/publiclectures/scifact.html And Richard Dawkins will be sharing his insights at the University on March 6th. It should be very interesting... John On 2/28/08, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote: > > "As someone who has purchased or rated books by Michio Kaku, you might > like to know that *Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration > into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel*will be released on March 11, 2008. > > *Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of > Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel* > > Michio Kaku > *List Price:* > $26.95 > *Price:* > *$17.79* > *You Save:* > $9.16 (34%) > > *Release Date:* March 11, 2008 > > *From Publishers Weekly* > In this latest effort to popularize the sciences, City University of New > York professor and media star Kaku (*Hyperspace*) ponders topics that many > people regard as impossible, ranging from psychokinesis and telepathy to > time travel and teleportation. His Class I impossibilities include force > fields, telepathy and antiuniverses, which don't violate the known laws of > science and may become realities in the next century. Those in Class II > await realization farther in the future and include faster-than-light travel > and discovery of parallel universes. Kaku discusses only perpetual motion > machines and precognition in Class III, things that aren't possible > according to our current understanding of science. He explains how what many > consider to be flights of fancy are being made tangible by recent scientific > discoveries ranging from rudimentary advances in teleportation to the > creation of small quantities of antimatter and transmissions faster than the > speed of light. Science and science fiction buffs can easily follow Kaku's > explanations as he shows that in the wonderful worlds of science, impossible > things are happening every day. *(Mar. 11) *" > * > * > -- > Sergio M.L. Tarrero > Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 14:48:05 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:48:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> Message-ID: <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> Fabio wrote: Italy (like any other country) is unique. Part of its "uniqueness" is the presence of the Vatican and the power of catholic institutions. Is this an obstacle to the transhumanist project? Often it is (embryonic stem cells), sometimes it isn't (genetically modified crops). So, which is the best approach? I don't claim to know, but I see that all mainstream parties, on both the left and right, are always very cautious not to upset the "catholic vote", and I see that the most anti-catholic (in the political sense) parties are the small ones. I also see that Italians have a healty tendency to take the Vatican's pronouncements with a pinch of salt. How else to explain Italy's birthrates (among the lowest in the world), given the Vatican stance on contraception? Am I the only one to think that twenty years from now Italians will take the same pragmatic approach to life-extension therapies? >>> An interesting observation regarding Italian politics and the people behind it. In the roleplaying game "Transhuman Space" they have a somewhat more negative section about Italy in the year 2100, which ties in with what you wrote. On the other hand, Bruce Sterling's classic novel, "Holy Fire" had a Roman Catholic Pontiff who imbibed mind altering/enhancing super-nootropics and a new age of visions and revelations was born! I have always been fascinated by how Transhumanistic ideas/cryonics, etc., seem to find fertile ground in some nations/regions, but not others. I would have thought Japan would strongly embrace Transhumanism but that has not been the case as far as I know. It might find a place in rapidly growing and nationalistic China and yet such a philosophy might be seen as too controversial by the central government. Would Taiwan, home to a ferociously capitalistic people, be prone to Transhumanist ideas? I could envision Russia over time developing a fairly strong Transhumanist subculture. I think it would appeal to the Russian mindset (but might be combined with ultra-nationalistic memes). And so at this point I think only the United States, Canada and some European nations have mildly substantial Transhumanist presences. I'd like input from others regarding the "current state of the Transhumanist global community" and how to encourage things along. John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri Feb 29 15:23:59 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:23:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics In-Reply-To: <005201c87a8f$e9ea7d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200802281006.02410.kanzure@gmail.com> <005201c87a8f$e9ea7d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <402e01e70802290723id16c225r11d0052ecef7ec91@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Almost all the time, I stick with this idea: Temperature of a > gas is the mean kinetic energy of its molecules. Aren't there vibrational degrees of freedom that also contribute to kinetic energy, and isn't that why different materials have different specific heats? I.e., what matters is kinetic energy per degree of freedom, not kinetic energy per molecule? So you actually do have to think about a molecule (not just measure its kinetic energy per se) to determine what its temperature is (which direction heat will flow in, compared to another material), even if you know the total amount of heat - putting the same amount of heat into a kilo of water or a kilo of iron will yield different "temperatures". But the more important point: Suppose you've got an iron flywheel that's spinning very rapidly. That's definitely kinetic energy, so the average kinetic energy per molecule is high. Is it heat? That particular kinetic energy, of a spinning flywheel, doesn't look to you like heat, because you know how to extract most of it as useful work, and leave behind something colder (that is, with less mean kinetic energy per degree of freedom). If you know the positions and speeds of all the elements in a system, their motion stops looking like heat, and starts looking like a spinning flywheel - usable kinetic energy that can be extracted right out. -- Eliezer Yudkowsky Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 15:37:26 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:37:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20802290737r501e6105w8a62b0ebcc7c7bb2@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Damien B. > >Let's hope it is translated in full into English very soon! > > I think you'll be waiting for a very long time. I expressed my interest > last Fall on wta-talk in having more dual-language works be exchanged > between the Italian Transhumanists and the broader English-speaking WTA > community, and my impression from Riccardo's response to my suggestion > is that he is not interested in that much language exchange. That is, > that these transhumanist documents are for the Italian-speaking > community mostly. If I'm wrong, then maybe Giulio can correct me. > No, I do confirm that we are, and that Riccardo himself would much welcome any offer to develop a version in English (as well as for any other language). Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 29 15:26:18 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:26:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:48 AM, John Grigg wrote: > > I have always been fascinated by how Transhumanistic ideas/cryonics, etc., > seem to find fertile ground in some nations/regions, but not others. I > would have thought Japan would strongly embrace Transhumanism but that has > not been the case as far as I know. Generally speaking, the Japanese have embraced promotion of human values via increasingly effective technological means to an extent significantly **exceeding** popular acceptance in the US, Canada, and Europe. I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is the relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment (god-like powers, expanded hedonism, personal immortality) favored by many in the west. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 29 14:49:26 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:49:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics In-Reply-To: <007901c87aa4$763b1d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <007901c87aa4$763b1d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef wrote > > This one I found particularly gratifying, expanding on the inherent > > subjectivity of entropy and the ineluctable role of the observer in > > any description of "reality." Setting the stage for a rational > > metaethics of increasingly rational choice. > > > > > > Well, after examining the comments to Eliezer's post, it's easy to > see that he created a lot of confusion with > > "Is the water colder, because we know more about it? > Ignoring quantumness for the moment, the answer is: > Yes! Yes it is!" It's evident to me that Eliezer has recently (in the last several weeks) reached a new (to him) threshold in his epistemology. I was hopeful of this; now I'm glad. A perceived downside is that for a while, by many, he may appear to be speaking craziness as he adapts in his attempts to share a more profound model of that "reality." Eliezer isn't denying the coldness; he is trying to share a more encompassing understanding of the meaning of cold. Just as my frequent scare-quoting of the term "reality" is not to deny it, but to make clear that the map is never the territory, and further, that the actual territory can never be known. > But aside from what was evidently an overstatement, why do > you believe that the role of the observer is "ineluctable" in any > description of reality? Jaynes was a philosophical realist, and > I think that Eliezer is too (he was the last time I talked to him > in person). I deeply respect Jaynes and his thinking. Eliezer's conceptual integration of the fundamentally *epistemological* basis of entropy is fully supportive of what Jaynes worked so hard to convey. > But don't you believe that the system ITSELF > has certain properties and characteristics? Surely you haven't > abandoned realism entirely. Lee, the answers you get are subject to the questions you (are prepared to) ask. - Jef From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 16:20:47 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:20:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520802290820u56b947dfm92fd3668960b6@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM, estropico wrote: > What I actually said (and I'm not responsible for what others that > Campa might consider "extropians" might have said) is that > confrontation with the catholics is not necessarily the only available > tactic (tactic, not strategy). I also quoted an Italian author (Carlo > Pelanda) who in article wrote of the risk of a "war" between science > and religion that could backfire, undermining public support (and > funding) for the coming "biorevolution". The response to my comments > was a torrent of rather surreal accusations of clericalism and of > being "pro-Vatican"... I agree that, if the option is available, it is better to avoid the "risk of a "war" between science and religion that could backfire, undermining public support (and funding) for the coming "biorevolution". That is why I support most initiatives aimed at establishing a dialogue between science and religion, and believe atheists should not be fundamentalist and openly confrontational when discussing with believers. As always, please feel free to believe in your god and I feel free to believe in mine, or not to believe in any. But some issues are non negotiable. Of course I am talking of stem cell research and civil rights such as abortion and gay marriage, but also of the general principle that no religious order of cult should ever be allowed to interfere in public policy making. In Italy the xian church has claimed and still claims the right to make policy, and we are just against it. > Italy (like any other country) is unique. Part of its "uniqueness" is > the presence of the Vatican and the power of catholic institutions. Is > this an obstacle to the transhumanist project? Often it is (embryonic > stem cells), sometimes it isn't (genetically modified crops). So, > which is the best approach? I don't claim to know, but I see that all > mainstream parties, on both the left and right, are always very > cautious not to upset the "catholic vote", and I see that the most > anti-catholic (in the political sense) parties are the small ones. I > also see that Italians have a healty tendency to take the Vatican's > pronouncements with a pinch of salt. How else to explain Italy's > birthrates (among the lowest in the world), given the Vatican stance > on contraception? Am I the only one to think that twenty years from > now Italians will take the same pragmatic approach to life-extension > therapies? > > Cheers, > Fabio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 29 17:05:50 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:05:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics References: <200802281006.02410.kanzure@gmail.com><005201c87a8f$e9ea7d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70802290723id16c225r11d0052ecef7ec91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009001c87af5$60bc52b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> Almost all the time, I stick with this idea: Temperature of a >> gas is the mean kinetic energy of its molecules. > > Aren't there vibrational degrees of freedom that also contribute to > kinetic energy, and isn't that why different materials have different > specific heats? I believe that the kinetic energy of particles in a gas compose three of the possible seven degrees of freedom classically, each one understood to possess one kT. So when physicists write "the mean kinetic energy" of the particles, they're not talking about the internal degrees of freedom, rotation, vibration, etc. A diatomic molecule classically thus has 3 of motion (in the X, Y, and Z directions), 2 in the vibration as the two atoms bounce further then closer apart from one another, and 2 as they "decide" which way (as a barbell) to rotate. > I.e., what matters is kinetic energy per degree of freedom, not > kinetic energy per molecule? So you actually do have to think > about a molecule (not just measure its kinetic energy per se) to > determine what its temperature is (which direction heat will flow in, > compared to another material), There is the difference between the total amount of heat therein, as indicated by its heat capacity, and the temperature. That's why metal on a hot day can nearly burn your hands---it can transfer a lot of heat quickly to you. But its temperature is the same as the surrounding air. > even if you know the total amount of heat - putting the same > amount of heat into a kilo of water or a kilo of iron will yield > different "temperatures". Yes. > But the more important point: Suppose you've got an iron flywheel > that's spinning very rapidly. That's definitely kinetic energy, so the > average kinetic energy per molecule is high. Is it heat? If you had a flywheel spinning *fast* enough---so that its outermost part was traveling at the same speed as the mean molecular velocity in a gas---then maybe you could consider that heat. But a temperature gauge on the flywheel would, of course, not report it as such. We would lump than extra energy into the rotational kinetic energy. > That particular kinetic energy, of a spinning flywheel, doesn't look to you > like heat, because you know how to extract most of it as useful work, > and leave behind something colder (that is, with less mean kinetic > energy per degree of freedom). Yes, that "heat" is organized, and that does seem to me to fit into the idea you're explicating. > If you know the positions and speeds of all the elements in a system, > their motion stops looking like heat, and starts looking like a > spinning flywheel - usable kinetic energy that can be extracted right > out. Right, their "random chaotic movement" isn't then anymore either random or chaotic. So then a Maxwell Demon, as you wrote, would indeed be able to extract the energy. On the usual usage of terms, at that point the material would become "colder" as you got the energy out. The general points you make about entropy seem entirely unobjectionable, although, I confess, it was because for me, years ago, my friends and I, try as we might, could not ascribe an objective meaning to "entropy", in the sense of saying that particles in a box, for example, had to have a definite value of entropy. Thermodynamic entropy, dS = dQ/T, as you know, is about heat transfers, and seems clear and useful enough. There is a good story about Shannon asking Von Neumann what name to use for information, and Von Neumann suggested "entropy" since they were mathematically so analogous. I don't remember the details, but one possibility that this name choice engendered a lot of confusion. Still... the parallels are remarkable and deep. But energy at least is a clear and useful concept leading to wonderfully accurate predictions and uses in all walks of life, while "entropy", "information", "algorithmic information content", and the like, are very tricky. Lee From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 17:08:21 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:08:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <470a3c520802290820u56b947dfm92fd3668960b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520802290820u56b947dfm92fd3668960b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802290908k563ba55bk817d5419289a707a@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > But some issues are non negotiable. Of course I am talking of stem > cell research and civil rights such as abortion and gay marriage, but > also of the general principle that no religious order of cult should > ever be allowed to interfere in public policy making. In Italy the > xian church has claimed and still claims the right to make policy, and > we are just against it. Additionally, I do consider it a very bad idea and a great risk to align Italian transhumanism and extropism with themes and positions that, far from having anything to do with any flavour of libertarianism, are 100% in the area of neocon extremism, where the alliance with the few local (i.e., catholic) teocons and creationists is promoted together with the ideas of Western supremacy; military imperialism; strong-arm attitudes towards internal dissent, political opponents and freedom of speech; and clash of civilisations. I am referring to the ideas mostly represented in Italy by the staunchest Bush supporters in the postfascist party Alleanza Nazionale that Mr. Pelanda officially supports, in particular as a member of the Promoting Committee of the Fondazione Fare Futuro, the think tank established by one the leaders of the extremist wing of said party, Adolf Urso. Now, having been the victim myself of repeated reductio ad hitlerum attempts (regularly coming from the right of the Italian H+ movement!), it is not my intention to call for any obstracism of anybody based on his associations. But I would find any identification of the Italian H+ movement with such area - the real importance of which is almost entirely based on the transatlantic supports it still enjoys - indeed very limiting, taking also in account that at a popular level such ideas are very badly received by the vast majority of both conservative and progressive publics. Thus, I accept myself to be interviewed by the daily newspaper of Alleanza Nazionale and welcome the comments on my books by magazines of that area, but I think that the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti does very well in markinh its difference from those who may share the legacy - or rather the luggage - above. Stefano Vaj From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 17:26:29 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:26:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802290926h5c529480mcc8ee0fb5b590da6@mail.gmail.com> Jef Allbright wrote: Generally speaking, the Japanese have embraced promotion of human values via increasingly effective technological means to an extent significantly **exceeding** popular acceptance in the US, Canada, and Europe. I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is the relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment (god-like powers, expanded hedonism, personal immortality) favored by many in the west. >>> Child-like visions!! LOL ; ) But that is what keeps many a Transhumanist going! heehee I suppose every Extro and WTA list member should read Roger Zelazney's "Lord of Light" at least every five years to help "keep the faith." Keep in mind that Japan has a rapidly graying population and a very weak replacement birthrate and so the central government is forced to deal somehow with an extremely challenging situation that is staring them in the face and threatens their national and economic security. The Japanese tend toward at least moderate xenophobia and rather than allowing massive immigration into their nation to take up the slack they would prefer to invest billions into robotics and A.I. research and development. This is a very wise gamble, all things considered, and it may pay off very handsomely for them. But I've watched enough anime to know that when they start developing giant flying military robots that we better watch out! lol John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 29 17:26:12 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:26:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics References: <007901c87aa4$763b1d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <009901c87af8$e1e0e6f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > It's evident to me that Eliezer has recently (in the last several > weeks) reached a new (to him) threshold in his epistemology. > I was hopeful of this; now I'm glad. Yass, he ought to be up to your level in no time. > A perceived downside is that for a while, by many, he may > appear to be speaking craziness as he adapts in his attempts > to share a more profound model of that "reality." Or, on the other hand, it's possible that he might be *wrong* about a detail here or there. I'm sure you don't deny the possibility. "A more profound model of reality"? I don't know if that's the right way or not to characterize what he's doing, but I'm very doubful. Anyway, his essays certainly are great explication, though, even when just about basic science and math (e.g. making clear how phase space and configuration space work, and of course, his classic on Bayes' Theorem). > Eliezer isn't denying the coldness; he is trying to share a more > encompassing understanding of the meaning of cold. "Meaning of cold"? But Jef, "cold" and "coldness", do not need any explaining. The common day-to-day understanding meshes almost perfectly with laboratory (i.e. thermometer) readings. "Heat" and "hot" likewise. Entropy and information are the mind-benders. > Just as my frequent scare-quoting of the term "reality" is not to > deny it, but to make clear that the map is never the territory, > and further, that the actual territory can never be known. But EVERYONE knows that. True, I knew folks back in the sixties and seventies who spoke as if they didn't get it, and when they opened their mouths about epistemology total garbage came out. But! That cleared up remarkably in the 80s (it seemed to me), and everyone I've encountered since is what I call a "scientific materialist", even if they don't like the term. Everybody is a realist, except for a few philosophers. I'm pretty sure you are too, but that scare- quoting of "reality" gives me the shivers. >> But don't you believe that the system ITSELF has certain >> properties and characteristics? Surely you haven't >> abandoned realism entirely. > > Lee, the answers you get are subject to the questions you (are > prepared to) ask. :-) And I suppose that I'll have to be satisfied with that Zen-like answer. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Feb 29 17:37:21 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:37:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] An anomalous point References: <470a3c520802280321g1109b222j7e60f57f221c29ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a501c87afa$491959f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Giulio writes >> http://flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ > > Very interesting. > > So the US is an anomaly because it is both rich and religious. It is > also an anomaly because things get done. > > In Europe we don't take seriously things like religion, patriotism > etc. This is good. It does seem good for short term sanity, at least. But those things, one hundred fifty years ago, would have prevented, say, European civilization from becoming Muslim. You aren't worried at all about the demographic and long term religious tendencies? Because technological change is so rapid that it won't matter? > But here in Europe things do NOT get done. This is not so good. I don't understand this. If you control for population size, (the U.S. is and has been a fully integrated nation with "new" habits unencrusted by centuries of tradition), and economic size, then is the U.S. really more effective at "getting things done"? Like what? > I wonder what is the correlation. Why do religion and naive > patriotism correlate with results. The other posters in this thread have come up with good ideas, but the relationship between individualism and all these other variables and phenomena still seems very obscure at this point. Lee From jonkc at att.net Fri Feb 29 17:37:22 2008 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:37:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mindless Thought Experiments References: <200802281006.02410.kanzure@gmail.com><005201c87a8f$e9ea7d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70802290723id16c225r11d0052ecef7ec91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005001c87afa$52c1bba0$45ef4d0c@MyComputer> About a week ago I sent the following to Jaron Lanier, I did not receive a reply: ========= I read your article "Mindless Thought Experiments" at: http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html I have a few comments. > let's assume that software is a legitimate medium for > consciousness and move on. No, Let's not move on. Software is very important but it's inert unless there is hardware it can run on. > start searching through all the possible computers that > could exist up to a certain very large size until you find > one that treats the raindrop positions as a program that > is exactly equivalent to your brain. OK. >Yes, it can be done I know. > so is the rainstorm conscious? Well it certainly doesn't behave intelligently and I would concede it is conscious only when you show me how a stack of papers that contains the source code for a very good chess program can beat a grandmaster. Nobody is saying pure information can do anything, it must be incorporated into matter, but the important point is that the matter you use can be generic, any old matter will do. > You say the rainstorm isn't really doing computation > it's just sitting there as a passive program- so it > doesn't count? Fine, then we'll measure a larger > rainstorm and search for a new computer that treats > a larger collection of raindrops as implementing BOTH > the computer we found before that runs your brain as > raindrops AS WELL AS your brain in raindrops. So now in addition to a pile of paper consisting of the source code of a very good chess program there is in addition another pile of paper consisting of the blueprints of a very good computer; but I still don't think both those piles of paper together can beat you at a game of chess. Printing out more paper won't help. Sooner or later somebody is going to have to build something. > The thought experiment supply store can ship us an > even better sensor that can measure the motions, > not merely the instant positions, of all the raindrops > in a storm over a period of time. Sensor? How can pure information sense anything? And in fact I can't quite see how information could be stored or processed without matter and energy being involved somewhere down the line. Your rainstorm contains a trivial amount of information needed for an intelligence; you also need to specify exactly what sort of computer hardware this rain program will run on. And the distinction between hardware and software can become very fuzzy indeed if you consider hardware as atoms organized in a way specified by information. If you don't agree with this then you'd have to take seriously my claim to have a revolutionarily data compressing algorithm that can compress the entire Vista operating system into one bit; you just have to use the right computer. If the bit is a zero the computer produces gibberish, but if the bit is a 1 the computer runs Vista that is hardwired in. > You might object that the raindrops are not > influencing each other, so they are still passive, > as far as computing your brain is concerned. > Let's switch instead, then, to a large swarm of > asteroids hurdling through space. They all exert > gravitational pull on each other. Now we'll use a > sensor for asteroid swarm internal motion and > use it to get data that will be matched to an > appropriate computer to implement your brain. > Now you have a physical system whose internal > interactions perform the computation of your mind. A "mind" that fails the Turing Test, and fails it about as spectacularly as can be imagined. > A few DO take the bait and choose to believe > there are a myriad of consciousnesses everywhere. > This has got to be the least elegant position ever > taken on any subject in the history of science. I would say it is the second least elegant position in the history of science because all your arguments, to the affect they have any force at all, could just as easily be used to "prove" that consciousness does not exist anywhere in the universe. Well ok, I suppose you could still say that Jaron Lanier is conscious because you know that from direct experience and direct experience outranks the scientific method or even logic; but you'd have absolutely no reason to think any of your fellow human beings are conscious. > AI proponents usually seize on some specific stage > in my reducto ad absurdum to locate the point > where I've gone too far. I believe if you're going to attempt a reducto ad absurdum proof care must be taken to ensure that your conclusion is contradictory and not just odd. Einstein also came up with a thought experiment, he thought it proved that Quantum Mechanics must be wrong because otherwise things would be odd; not illogical, not contradictory, just odd. In the last few years this thought experiment (Bell's Inequality) was actually performed and now we know that things are indeed odd. > to the right alien, it might appear that people do > nothing, and asteroid swarms are acting consciously. That would be very odd indeed, but as we have no way of communicating with such an alien or it to us there is little more that can be said about the matter. Somewhere in the universe there may be a language where this Email, without changing a single character, expresses in perfect grammar the instructions on how to operate a new type of can opener; but as neither of us knows that language there is little danger of this conversation being diverted into a discussion of can opener technology. > In the following discussion, I'll let the terms "smart" > and "conscious" blur together, even though I > profoundly disagree that they are interchangeable. I've been asking people with ideas like yours this question for decades but I've never received a straight answer, not one: If intelligence is not always linked to consciousness then why on Earth did evolution produce it? After all, however important our inner life is to us it is invisible to natural selection; indeed the reason you think the Turing Test does not work is exactly because you believe behavior is not linked to consciousness. And yet we know with absolute positive 100% certainty that evolution did produce at least one being who was conscious. But why? How? However if consciousness is just what information feels like when it is being processed then all would be explained. If Turing was wrong then so was Darwin. I do not think Darwin was wrong. I really don't. It is also interesting that the parts of the brain that produce emotion (and presumably you think emotion has something to do with consciousness) are hundreds of millions of years old, but the parts of the brain that produce the sort of intelligence we are so proud of are only about one million years old. So if evolution found it easier to come up with consciousness than intelligence I don't see why we would find the opposite to be true; you could make a stronger case saying a computer may be conscious someday but it will never be intelligent; although I think it will be both. > AI has been one of the most funded, and least > bountiful, areas of scientific inquiry in the > second half of the twentieth century. It keeps > on failing and bouncing back with a different name Speaking of changing names, the reason AI seems to make so little progress is that as soon as a computer can do something it is decided that the thing in question does not really require intelligence after all. Fifty years ago everybody and I do mean everybody, thought that solving equations or playing a great game of Chess required intelligence. No more. Fifteen years ago everybody thought it would take a great deal of intelligence for a librarian to do what Google does. No more. Intelligence is whatever a computer can't do, YET. > the moral "equal rights" argument for the > machine's benefit. It is of academic interest only if we should treat an intelligent machine morally; it is much more than of academic interest if the machine should treat us morally. like it or not the future belongs to the machines not to us. > This is where AI crosses a boundary and > turns into a religion. Only if you think religion should have a monopoly on the deepest questions. I don't. > Hans Moravec is one researcher who > explicitly hopes for this eventuality. Me too. > If we can become machines we don't have to die, > but only if we believe in machine consciousness. And only if we are astronomically lucky. Still, given the choice between slim chance and no chance I'll pick slim chance any day. > Alan Turing proposed a test in which a computer > and a person are placed in isolation booths and > are only allowed to communicate via media that > conceal their identities, such as typed emails. And that is exactly what we are doing right now. I disagree with much in your article but I still think it was written by an intelligent conscious being. Do you think the same about me? Do you think that I, the writer of this Email, am conscious? I can't imagine why you would think such a ridiculous thing as you don't think the Turing Test is any good. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 29 17:57:49 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:57:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics In-Reply-To: <009901c87af8$e1e0e6f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <007901c87aa4$763b1d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <009901c87af8$e1e0e6f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > It's evident to me that Eliezer has recently (in the last several > > weeks) reached a new (to him) threshold in his epistemology. > > I was hopeful of this; now I'm glad. > > Yass, he ought to be up to your level in no time. He's gone past me in several relevant areas of analysis. I care most about certain areas of synthesis where I wasn't certain whether he'd escape the hold of reductionism. > Or, on the other hand, it's possible that he might be *wrong* > about a detail here or there. I'm sure you don't deny the > possibility. See my comment about synthesis. Reconsider your comment in terms of Maximum Entropy descriptions of "reality" and ask yourself whether Einstein had probable cause to worry that "details" wouldn't match his most comprehensive theories. > >> But don't you believe that the system ITSELF has certain > >> properties and characteristics? Surely you haven't > >> abandoned realism entirely. > > > > Lee, the answers you get are subject to the questions you (are > > prepared to) ask. > > :-) And I suppose that I'll have to be satisfied with that Zen-like > answer. My "Zen-like" response was intended as a direct and specific response to your question. To spell it out: The "properties and characteristics" one observes are subject to the nature of the experiment/question (and by extension, the nature of the experimenter/questioner.) [It worked also on at least two other levels.] - Jef From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 29 18:25:38 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:25:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists Message-ID: Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net : >I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is the >relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment Heh.. I rather like my child-like visions of individual attainment. :-) Amara http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Quotes/emotion "People who have lost their dreams no longer think that life is a grand adventure, as children see their lives, but instead they live something of a tired day-to-day existence, caught in duties and allegiances and baggage and they ask only very little of life. Dead dreams poison our psychological selves infecting every aspect of our lives. When our dreams are dead, no longer do we see the big picture." -- Amara Graps -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 18:55:36 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:55:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:48 AM, John Grigg wrote: > > > > I have always been fascinated by how Transhumanistic ideas/cryonics, etc., > > seem to find fertile ground in some nations/regions, but not others. I > > would have thought Japan would strongly embrace Transhumanism but that has > > not been the case as far as I know. > > Generally speaking, the Japanese have embraced promotion of human > values via increasingly effective technological means to an extent > significantly **exceeding** popular acceptance in the US, Canada, and > Europe. I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is the > relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment > (god-like powers, expanded hedonism, personal immortality) favored by > many in the west. According to various interesting polls, I believe it fair to say that the country the most transhumanist by far in terms of popular mentality is without any doubt India. Taking into account the cultural and religious legacy that Europe has to a large extent repressed during centuries of monotheist egemony, but that has always more or less been active in India, I must say that I am hardly surprised. Stefano Vaj From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Feb 29 19:10:21 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:10:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Jef Allbright > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:48 AM, John Grigg > > wrote: >>> >>> I have always been fascinated by how Transhumanistic ideas/ >>> cryonics, etc., >>> seem to find fertile ground in some nations/regions, but not >>> others. I >>> would have thought Japan would strongly embrace Transhumanism but >>> that has >>> not been the case as far as I know. >> >> Generally speaking, the Japanese have embraced promotion of human >> values via increasingly effective technological means to an extent >> significantly **exceeding** popular acceptance in the US, Canada, and >> Europe. I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is >> the >> relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment >> (god-like powers, expanded hedonism, personal immortality) favored by >> many in the west. > > According to various interesting polls, I believe it fair to say that > the country the most transhumanist by far in terms of popular > mentality is without any doubt India. I don't see how that could be. Perhaps among the young and technically trained. But that is a small segment of the population. Much of the country is still mired in poverty and very mystical and superstitious religion. Among the many Indian tech people I know not one has embraced transhumanism. Where are these polls? I missed them. > Taking into account the cultural > and religious legacy that Europe has to a large extent repressed > during centuries of monotheist egemony, but that has always more or > less been active in India, I must say that I am hardly surprised. What does this have to do with it? The notion of reincarnation, karma and the wheel of rebirth until sufficiently renouncing the material world is strong in both Buddhism and Hinduism. I don't see how that is very compatible. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 29 19:16:32 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:16:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net : > >I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is the > >relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment > >(god-like powers, expanded hedonism, personal immortality) ... > > Heh.. I rather like my child-like visions of individual attainment. :-) The Japanese like them too, with their extremely cute anime characters, Pokemon, etc., their super-futuristic toy robots and dressed-up motorcycles, their super-heroes and on and on. But the cultural difference is that these are more generally identified with child-like narrow self-interest, while greatness and wisdom are widely associated with identification (and corresponding action) within a context broader than the individual. > http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Quotes/emotion > > "People who have lost their dreams no longer think that life is a grand > adventure, as children see their lives, but instead they live something > of a tired day-to-day existence, caught in duties and allegiances and > baggage and they ask only very little of life. Dead dreams poison our > psychological selves infecting every aspect of our lives. When our > dreams are dead, no longer do we see the big picture." Wise words indeed. And I take comfort and joy from knowing that childish dreams of individual attainment do mature into dreams of ongoing growth in the direction of values coherent over increasing context, supporting further discovery of increasing possibilities... :] - Jef From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 19:17:17 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:17:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > According to various interesting polls, I believe it fair to say that > the country the most transhumanist by far in terms of popular > mentality is without any doubt India. Taking into account the cultural > and religious legacy that Europe has to a large extent repressed > during centuries of monotheist egemony, but that has always more or > less been active in India, I must say that I am hardly surprised. > >>> > India? Interesting. And so you believe this is in large part due to Hinduism, which is a polytheistic religion? Are the dieties of India "jealous gods?" Please explain further your view on this. I admit that India has been a popular background for Western writers who enjoy doing transhumanistically-bent science fiction. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 29 19:24:21 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:24:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [Bio, News] Alnylam says it has acheived RNAi first Message-ID: This may be very significant. - Jef Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc. said that it has established a significant first with results from a research trial that support its theory of creating drugs and treatments based on RNA interference, or RNAi. Specifically, the Cambridge biopharmaceutical company announced today that its Gemini trial has achieved "human proof of concept with an RNAi therapeutic, a first for the industry." Alnylam is seeking to develop novel technologies based on RNA interference, or RNAi, a naturally occurring mechanism within cells for selectively silencing and regulating specific genes; because many diseases are caused by the inappropriate activity of specific cells, the ability to silence genes selectively through RNAi is thought to have great potential. From estropico at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 19:24:06 2008 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:24:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90802291124m1d1ceb20xb848f054bd2369d9@mail.gmail.com> Just to clarify Stefano's indirect accusations of beign a neocon (or whatever!): yes, I have collected (on www.estropico.com) a number of articles by Carlo Pelanda, but only those that touch on transhumanist themes, and you won't find many other mainstream intellectuals in Italy that write such transhumanistic (in all but name) material. They are in a section of their own, called "exodestinies" (a Pelanda neologism meant to indicate our destiny outside of the boundaries of the body, the planet, a limited lifespan). Anyway, if the Italian transhumanist association can have a representative of the (borderline?) neofascist Nouvelle Droite (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite) as unelected "national secretary", I really don't see why www.estropico.com can't have some articles from a neocon alongside all sorts of other materials (including stuff from leftists such as Riccardo Campa and James Hughes). Cheers, Fabio From: "Stefano Vaj" > > Additionally, I do consider it a very bad idea and a great risk to > align Italian transhumanism and extropism with themes and positions > that, far from having anything to do with any flavour of > libertarianism, are 100% in the area of neocon extremism, where the > alliance with the few local (i.e., catholic) teocons and creationists > is promoted together with the ideas of Western supremacy; military > imperialism; strong-arm attitudes towards internal dissent, political > opponents and freedom of speech; and clash of civilisations. > > I am referring to the ideas mostly represented in Italy by the > staunchest Bush supporters in the postfascist party Alleanza Nazionale > that Mr. Pelanda officially supports, in particular as a member of the > Promoting Committee of the Fondazione Fare Futuro, the think tank > established by one the leaders of the extremist wing of said party, > Adolf Urso. > > Now, having been the victim myself of repeated reductio ad hitlerum > attempts (regularly coming from the right of the Italian H+ > movement!), it is not my intention to call for any obstracism of > anybody based on his associations. But I would find any identification > of the Italian H+ movement with such area - the real importance of > which is almost entirely based on the transatlantic supports it still > enjoys - indeed very limiting, taking also in account that at a > popular level such ideas are very badly received by the vast majority > of both conservative and progressive publics. > > Thus, I accept myself to be interviewed by the daily newspaper of > Alleanza Nazionale and welcome the comments on my books by magazines > of that area, but I think that the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti > does very well in markinh its difference from those who may share the > legacy - or rather the luggage - above. > > Stefano Vaj From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 29 19:47:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:47:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Dieties In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.co m> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080229134535.0253aa30@satx.rr.com> At 12:17 PM 2/29/2008 -0700, John G. wrote: >Are the dieties of India "jealous gods?" Mostly jealous of each other's chow; they are certainly *hungry* gods, those dieties. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 20:27:32 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:27:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dieties In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080229134535.0253aa30@satx.rr.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080229134535.0253aa30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670802291227t23b92c8ax1d2e92b31002fe4@mail.gmail.com> > > I wrote: > >Are the dieties of India "jealous gods?" > Damien Broderick replied: Mostly jealous of each other's chow; they are certainly *hungry* gods, those dieties. >>> I suppose I could try to deconstruct what you wrote. lol Would their "chow" be the praise mana/memetic power generated by their worshippers? Do these gods compete over worshippers so they can slake their hunger (and thereby not eventually "fade away into oblivion like so many past gods")? Or is it much more of a "friendly competition" among their mortal devotees? I am imagining a Neil Gaiman "American Gods" sort of scenario. : ) When I used the phrase "jealous gods" I was thinking along the lines of the Old Testament. The "I am a jealous God, you shall have no gods before me," statement from Exodus. But I was thinking that in the Hindu paradigm that it was acceptable or even laudable for mere mortals to ascend to divinity. Perhaps if Mormonism continues to be the second fastest growing religion in the Western world (after Islam), their "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may be," couplet will have a positive effect on the acceptability of radical transhuman/posthuman upgrading. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Feb 29 20:34:33 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:34:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75B80052-85D2-4640-9903-F40012908B4A@mac.com> On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Amara Graps wrote: >> Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net : >>> I suspect that what your perceive as non-Transhumanism is the >>> relative deemphasis of child-like visions of individual attainment >>> (god-like powers, expanded hedonism, personal immortality) ... >> >> Heh.. I rather like my child-like visions of individual >> attainment. :-) > > The Japanese like them too, with their extremely cute anime > characters, Pokemon, etc., their super-futuristic toy robots and > dressed-up motorcycles, their super-heroes and on and on. But the > cultural difference is that these are more generally identified with > child-like narrow self-interest, while greatness and wisdom are widely > associated with identification (and corresponding action) within a > context broader than the individual. I don't believe that true rational self-interest is at all narrow or child-like. Nor do I believe that the context has to be collective to be wise. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 29 20:47:59 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:47:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <75B80052-85D2-4640-9903-F40012908B4A@mac.com> References: <75B80052-85D2-4640-9903-F40012908B4A@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > But the cultural difference is that these are more generally > > identified with child-like narrow self-interest, while greatness > > and wisdom are widely associated with identification (and > > corresponding action) within a context broader than the individual. > > I don't believe that true rational self-interest is at all narrow or > child-like. Nor do I believe that the context has to be collective > to be wise. Cool. Neither do I. - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 21:54:40 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:54:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802291354k1c616efdn3402af387fe07cfd@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM, John Grigg wrote: > India? Interesting. And so you believe this is in large part due to > Hinduism, which is a polytheistic religion? Are the dieties of India > "jealous gods?" Please explain further your view on this. I admit that > India has been a popular background for Western writers who enjoy doing > transhumanistically-bent science fiction. In fact, buddhism seems hardly incompatible with transhumanism if one accepts that James Hughes qualifies as both a buddhist and a transhumanist. :-) But yes, my reference was more to the remnants of the indoeuropean culture in contemporary India, which may have little to do with the kind of devotional or mystical hinduism that betrays obvious muslim - if not christian - influences. Besides anedoctical evidence or personal inferences, and speaking of statistics, for instance, already in 1993, an international poll conducted by Daryl Macer, manager in Japan of the Eubios Ethics Institute, verified that the percentage of the general population in favour of the general availability of genetic engineering technology aimed at both preventing diseases and increasing physical and mental abilities inherited by their offspring ranged, if I am not mistaken, from 22% in Israel to 43% in the US to *83%* (!) in India. See Daryl Maceret al., "International Perceptions and Approval of Gene Therapy", in *Human Gene Therapy*n. 6, pp. 791-803. This may or may not be mentioned in Rifkin's *The Biotech Century*, I am not sure. But this general mentality is also well reflected at a political level. See for instance the well-known 2006 speech of Indian President Abdul Kalamon the occasion of the opening of the International Institute of Information Technology in Bhubaneswar, which is still available at http://pib.nic.in/release/rel_print_page1.asp?relid=22519. If anybody knows of a more transhumanist-friendly statement by a head of State, I would be curious to hear about it... Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 22:38:43 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:38:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Manifesto of Italian Transhumanists In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90802291124m1d1ceb20xb848f054bd2369d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802291124m1d1ceb20xb848f054bd2369d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802291438o2a253f8bse19329138709a4f3@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM, estropico wrote: > Anyway, if the Italian transhumanist association can have a > representative of the (borderline?) neofascist Nouvelle Droite > (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite) as unelected > "national secretary", I really don't see why www.estropico.com can't > have some articles from a neocon alongside all sorts of other > materials (including stuff from leftists such as Riccardo Campa and > James Hughes). > Yes, while having never been myself right-wing in any sense or fashion, as Lorenz, Dawkins, Eysenck, Dum?zil, Eliade, Crick did I wrote in the seventies on magazines edited by French intellectuals that a decade later were to accept, albeit with many qualifications, the definition of Nouvelle Droite. The same that I did on liberal or federalist newspapers, or any other publications interested in hosting my writings, including those of Fabio's dubious associations. On the other hand, be the Nouvelle Droite fascist or not, if I were a "representative" of the same, I would now preach the ideas of deep ecology gurus, the d?croissance (relinquishment?) as an antidote to prometheism, the joy of religious mysticism, and the heroic facts of Ned Ludd. One can check by himself at http://www.alaindebenoist.com(a few texts are translated in English). Of course, knowing what one speaks about is not required for trivial attempts to cast aspersion. All in all, it sounds a little different from publicly declaring oneself as an orphan of the Extropy Institute having now seen the light in specieism, the verb of the World Transhumanist Society of Simon Young, and in the writings of a Dr. Strangelove who preaches the appeasement with creationists since they can be good and obedient troops in the fight for the New World Order against Muslims, Chinese and other lowlifes. But I will not elaborate any further on those subjects, since my only interest was that the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti took a clear position on the merits of a number of possible misunderstandings and ambiguities, as it had the opportunity to do in the Manifesto drafted by Riccardo Campa and a few more of us, approved by its National Council, and now made public on the Web. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 23:06:46 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:06:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Dieties In-Reply-To: <2d6187670802291227t23b92c8ax1d2e92b31002fe4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90802290223m380491efh371e692566978a8d@mail.gmail.com> <000701c87ac2$c6cb1060$36961f97@archimede> <2d6187670802290648w6c218fbfxb4c267e918ae2dbd@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20802291055s1d21fdc0x28f2bce338c2493d@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670802291117l1a55addejd6e2043eb323e78e@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080229134535.0253aa30@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670802291227t23b92c8ax1d2e92b31002fe4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20802291506nd5a82a3gee6794bb6561098b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:27 PM, John Grigg wrote: > But I was thinking that in the Hindu paradigm that > it was acceptable or even laudable for mere mortals to ascend to divinity. Yes, this is exactly the point. Plus, the world is not created by a god in the image of whom the man was made. Rather, the world is made of the body of Purusha, the ancestral men, from whom gods, animals, plants and rocks are originated. Nothing in this prospective can be really "innatural", and Ganesh may well be a god while he is not even entirely human himself, having had his head replaced with that of an elephant. Many hindus may of course take the story as some kind of metaphor by now, by I seriously doubt that the idea of chimeras or of fiddling with human nature might ever generate the same recoil in horror or "yuck factor" that is so widespread in the west. Stefano Vaj From laziestdragon at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 16:23:51 2008 From: laziestdragon at gmail.com (Lazy Dragon) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:23:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The subjectivity of entropy, the role of the observer...==> Rational metaethics In-Reply-To: <402e01e70802290723id16c225r11d0052ecef7ec91@mail.gmail.com> References: <200802281006.02410.kanzure@gmail.com> <005201c87a8f$e9ea7d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <402e01e70802290723id16c225r11d0052ecef7ec91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > Almost all the time, I stick with this idea: Temperature of a > > gas is the mean kinetic energy of its molecules. > > Aren't there vibrational degrees of freedom that also contribute to > kinetic energy, and isn't that why different materials have different > specific heats? I.e., what matters is kinetic energy per degree of > freedom, not kinetic energy per molecule? So you actually do have to > think about a molecule (not just measure its kinetic energy per se) to > determine what its temperature is (which direction heat will flow in, > compared to another material), even if you know the total amount of > heat - putting the same amount of heat into a kilo of water or a kilo > of iron will yield different "temperatures". > > But the more important point: Suppose you've got an iron flywheel > that's spinning very rapidly. That's definitely kinetic energy, so the > average kinetic energy per molecule is high. Is it heat? That > particular kinetic energy, of a spinning flywheel, doesn't look to you > like heat, because you know how to extract most of it as useful work, > and leave behind something colder (that is, with less mean kinetic > energy per degree of freedom). > > If you know the positions and speeds of all the elements in a system, > their motion stops looking like heat, and starts looking like a > spinning flywheel - usable kinetic energy that can be extracted right > out. > Actually, I'm fairly certain that a spinning flywheel's kinetic energy to be contributes to its temperature. If chill a flywheel to 1 degree Kelvin, spin it up very fast, and then place it in a bath of liquid Helium you'll find that energy will flow from the flywheel to the surrounding bath rather than vice versa. Since heat transfer is always from the hot object to the cold object and since temperature is defined in terms of heat transfer this means that the spinning flywheel is really hotter than the stationary flywheel. However, because the amount that kinetic energy contributes to the temperature of an object is normally such a tiny proportion of its thermal energy we typically neglect it when doing calculations. Also, since even though temperature and heat aren't exactly the same thing we can say that temperature always increases as thermal energy increases. Since thermal energy is defined as the sum of the every particle's kinetic energy the fact that the momentums of all the different particles line up or are known doesn't have any effect on thermal energy. If increasing the velocity of an object increases its thermal energy, it must be that it also increases its temperature. If knowing the state of every atom in an object does not decrease its thermal energy, it cannot decrease its temperature. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kuromaku at hush.com Thu Feb 28 13:34:58 2008 From: kuromaku at hush.com (kuromaku at hush.com) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:34:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Mediocracy Message-ID: <20080228133459.0300711803C@mailserver5.hushmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Howdy, Extropians! I just thought I'd advertise one of the best anti-Hughes, anti- Carrico, anti-Vaj thinkers around that I'm aware of: namely Fabian Tassano. Hopefully some of you are already aware of his stuff but if not please see his Mediocracy blog at http://inversions-and- deceptions.blogspot.com/ which is quite thought-provoking. Tassano, the great man himself, starts introducing the idea with the words "There is a new model of society. Let us call it mediocracy, as in: the rule of the mediocre, the triumph of style over substance. In a mediocracy, real cultural progress is impossible because it requires conditions that are incompatible with a commitment to egalitarianism. There is no room for genuine cultural innovators, because one cannot permit any individual to think they are special. Nevertheless, mediocracy maintains a cultural elite, to validate its ersatz culture and to protect it from criticism. A mediocracy lives off the cultural capital accumulated in the past, perpetually recycling the old products, though with increasing mockery. The illusion of cultural fitness is maintained by having institutions with the same names as the old ones (?universities?, ?philosophy?, ?theatre?) and some resemblance to the originals." Tassano goes on a lot farther than most others which is why he is worth reading. And I'd say Mediocrats are basically the worst enemies of extropians ever as they hold so much power. - -- Enjoy my blog at http://psychogenesis.thinkertothinker.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkfGt+sACgkQPLPJsDxT1N7AqwP/Z7Ggp5cECSEamjrpDpaSLL3McUEK 1UAEaO5m22JulioFYAaiCb+fSoUtMFCZ6WO/UMu73wq4rgxqsfwn5zW/CmsDNLbSd1hx crQTq0z7HjfSr4xG1SOco1JPaHfMxevD5jXkctfjut5IQ8S96hT8jhCDto45ApDPm7Hx 3DDI5sU= =5Ci6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Live your dreams. Click here to find information on becoming a lawyer. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4fKhCHB4fSyr0migPw6d0NlraqxUF7aNh5OOqyu9911WTSSa/