[ExI] The Open Future Foudation

Antonio Marcos amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br
Fri Jan 25 22:47:12 UTC 2008


--- Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> escreveu:

> On Friday 25 January 2008, Antonio Marcos wrote:

> Actually
> > they even mentioned (the guy from sun
> microsystems)
> > calling the guy from apple, and the later saying
> "how
> > can i help" (will get more details tomorrow)..

Could not find much on that, but it was Bill Joy,
calling up Steve Jobs, and saying something about his
concern on disruptive 

technologies being widely available.. it sounded a
bit..err.. monopolist?.. to me.. which raised my
concern of these 

technologies being held back.

> Mark, that's exactly the path that I have been
> considering. On the 
> hplus2 mailing list I have been talking about what I
> call the Open 
> Future Foundation,

Hah! I knew this list was a good place to join. :)

> which may soon be hosting
> barcamps/unconferences but 
> with a twist -- they will also be open source, open
> access science 
> hackfests where we all bring equipment and projects
> to work on and have 
> at it.

Thats great!

> Plus there's lots of opportunity on the web
> to reformulate 
> hidden information into 'open tidbits'. 

hmmm.. what u mean?

> Openness is one of the main extropy principles.
> 
> See here:
> 
> On Sunday 13 January 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > On Monday 07 January 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > > On Sunday 06 January 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > > > The Open Future Foundation
> > > >
> > > >   For the increasingly open realization of
> meaningful futures
> > >
> > >   Open Futurists choose to be thoughtful,
> dedicated individuals
> > > that change their worlds. They help it to become
> more open, more
> > > free and more real -- true to its potentials.
> You too can become an
> > > open futurist.
> > >     To find out how, click here to begin opening
> the future.
> > >
> > > (I have yet to set this up. I would still like
> to hear opinions.)
> >
> > Here's my refined idea. The link will be to a
> download to copy and
> > imitate the website easily enough- a very simple
> template. The
> > template will include a way to organize and run an
> unconference from
> > nearly anywhere in the world, I am certain that
> there are interested
> > businesses that will want to be listed in a
> database so that they can
> > be located in the major cities and so on to
> provide the space, the
> > food, and so on. It benefits them too. Anyway, the
> basic structure is
> > an unconference like barcamp with heavy tech
> orientation, people show
> > up from the local community and meet each other,
> find their mutual
> > interests, and either out loud or on a wiki (so
> they bring a few
> > laptops or boxes on a network) create and edit a
> set of initiatives
> > that they want to pursue, whether it's biochemical
> SENS research or
> > providing community educational support, anything.
> >

Simply wonderful.

> > (The recent Slashdot article on the Pirate Party
> makes me wonder if
> > we should be calling 'em open pirates instead of
> open futurists.)

haha.. i dont know.. 'pirates' may have a negative
connotation, and i like The Open Future Foundation ..
imagine how many fun 

names for projects will OFFSpring out of that! ;)

> 
> Anyway, I hope you will help me out on my projects.

Probably!

> I think we have many 
> interested people, but there's still lots of work to
> be done to get 
> things rolling. :)
> 

Sure! Lets keep talking!

As I promised, here I briefly present some of the
concerns I have. After that, for those still
interested, I rant a bit and 

present some possible solutions:

  1) Stealing of research and patenting/selling

     Wouldnt it be a problem if current science
stablishment would use the data? Claim they were
already researching 

something (even though we could prove with forum
dates, for instance), or there be any law preventing
some research.

  2) Possible economy instability as we see in our
discussion of health care:

    money/resource gathering for members, and society
in general, if everything is open, but its based in a
closed/money     

model, wouldnt that ruin everyone?

    which leads/same to/as copyright issues we also
discussed.

  3) security and responsability:
  
  teaching everyone to make bombs, for example..
  controversial research and how that could affect the
entire project (religious fanatics closing the whole
thing, dunno)
  how to deal with irresponsible activity that could
harm the image of the movement.

    Maybe creating some hierarchy in the beginning,
based on trust? And limiting access to some data
before some kind of 

progress is show? Maybe requiring a number of projects
inside philosophy/ethics/law to allow access to other
areas.

  4) what then? monopolization of knowledge or
anything else?

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

I joined the academia quite enthusiastically, I was
finally at a intellectually stimulating environment,
with others willing 

to debate freely without prejudice. This lasted for
quite a while, but I always was very philosophically
inquiring and after 

a while I've become very disappointed by it.. actually
im quite disgusted at it.. arrogance, insecurity,
childish behaviors, 

and even sadism.. etc etc.. AND etc.

Truth, as mostly represented today in the form of
science, shouldn't be a means of surviving.. it
generates a CONFLICT OF 

INTEREST, to  say the very least! It reminds me of old
indigenous shaman-like figures (medicine man, i think
is the term 

coinined by english speakers), or old shao-lin monks
ranting on chi-development and how you must work on it
for years/decades 

before you have HOPE of achieving anything - reaching
their feet that is - which by then you will be old
enough to be 

willing to maintain the system and so they can proceed
to teach you the "secrets of true power".. obviously
to maintain the 

competitive advantage over the younger. The academia
talk a lot about being reputation-driven, and while I
still dont think 

its the best system(how long would it take today to
admit the earth was round/orbited around the sun - i
guess thats a good 

measure of how commited to truth a system is), its
still too much hierarquical, with peer review not
being very different 

from the previous examples, blocking too much and
actually becoming even a political weapon, even to the
level of national 

politics.
I dont think its the best system simply because having
done something heroic in the past shouldnt allow you
to do anything 

nasty in the future, you should be given ZERO credit
for this kind of action, no forgiven based on the
assumption that you 

all the sudden lost your freedom of choice to do bad
things. All forgiving should be based on the simple
fact that you're a 

senscient being(actually a feeling being.. i guess a
feeling-non-senscient-being is more important than a
senscient-non-feeling one(AI?)), otherwise it would
get to a unforgiving drain-like(unable to get out of)
situation, sorts of the prisoner 

dilemma, which is very inneficient. Not meaning you
dont have to pay for your actions or face the
consequences.

its actually related to many problems we are
discussing here: copyright, health innovations.. new
things will always be 

resisted by those who have advantage in the old status
(if one dont have values/scientific honesty that is)

"We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing
more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of
success, than an attempt 

to introduce a new order of things in any state. For
the innovator has for enemies all those who derived
advantages from the 

old order of things while those who expect to be
benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm
defenders."

Fiction is the only thing that last forever, so the
system must be more open to truth, and change.

====

Regarding the 2nd problem I mentioned above, and what
I think is a reasonable way that things might unfold:

Eventually everyone should be moved to, for short, Art
(I rather call Art, but may be Entertainment)...
acting, music, painting, sculpture, games.. an
activity that is a fun way of expressing oneself, it
could be pure science or exploration, but I guess
everyone is interested in some form of art, may be
even deleterious to intelligence not being.. the
important is, as i mentioned previously, not making
it(problem solving?) a survival activity, anything can
be called art after that.. Science, and probably
everything (art), should be in a system akin to the
medieval workshops, with apprentices and masters, but
not in a 'holier tha thou' manner, but as a more
experienced helper, and specially because is WILLING
to be there, not because having to be, being for a
paycheck or "reputation".. with freedom to go where
you feel most interested to. I would say a
project-based system would work, some 'apprentice'
would feel interested in some subject, he would come
up with a project he would like to be able to do, then
post it to more experienced people, which would
evaluate the requirements for that, if simpler
projects are needed, and if not they would meet/help
with the project.. but it would be the apprentice's
project(and a project can have many
apprentices/helpers as needed), not as today that
higher-hierarchy slaves lower-hierarchy away for their
own self-serving purposes.

===========

Regarding the other problems: (actually those problems
are all intertwined so.. its hard to classify)

It will be inevitable a split in the world around us,
the majority wont trade the mostly assured (even as
illusory as it may 

be) position they have or might have in the current
system. Eventually more and more people will 'flock'
(at least thats the 

idea).. so how would we prevent the movement being
corrupted, abused or parasited, or even blocked
altogether. I would 

suggest having only one requirement for members(at
least initially), which would be to have their
income(at least part, or at least publish something
regularly) based on some artistic activity. Which
connects to another idea i've being considering for
many years, to solve the problems in the music, movies
and games industry, and thats actually already being
done as its quite older, which are 'patrons'/medices
(dont know the term in english), the movement would
have a arts department and would  consider funding
artists(which could be viewed as atracting potential
members, if that requirement is stablished) and also
in a, again, opensource manner, with arts that may
require more than one person, opening opportunities in
a project(actors, 

painters, sculptors, gardening, whatever). The
members, if that requirement is set, would have a more
stable ground to 

artistic expression, would help fund their research(or
a research they support, if they are just artists) and
help the 

movement appear more legitimate (along with the ideas
you mentioned, that a non-profit organization often
tends to do.. help 

the community etc), as it wouldn't appear so
revolutionary or subversive as its working within the
capitalist system and helping further democracy. Which
leads the topic to opensource government, the movement
would be so pervasive, as it is so freeing(liberating
humanity from ancient self-imposed chains), that it
will eventually influence world's politics, and any
system we implement in the structure of the movement
will eventually make its way up, so good design is
important(support for system's self-improvement and
filtering of corruption), but lets leave some material
for future emails. (That includes legal system too,
actually all 3 powers and more.. probably
philosophical.. just being careful not to let
'religion' influence government as in the not so
distant past.. yesterday). This goes back to the
problem I mentioned in the start, about resistance
from the current status quo.


> - Bryan


Mark


      Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento!
http://br.mail.yahoo.com/



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list