[ExI] longevity-dividend-08- extropy-chat Digest, Vol 57, Issue 8

Morris Johnson mfj.eav at gmail.com
Wed Jun 11 23:46:57 UTC 2008


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Subject: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 57, Issue 8
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org


Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to
       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
       extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Technology- When it works  (A story) (Lee Corbin)
  2. Re: "death gives meaning to life" (Stefano Vaj)
  3. Re: "death gives meaning to life" (Antonio Marcos)
  4. Re: "Death gives meaning to life?" (Thomas)
  5. tommy emmanuel (spike)
  6. Re: Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars (hkhenson)
  7. Re: Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars (Lee Corbin)
  8. Re: dark matter (and -- shhhh! -- the F**** p-dox)
     (Damien Sullivan)
  9. Re: Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars (hkhenson)
 10. Re: "death gives meaning to life" (Stefano Vaj)
 11. Re: "Death gives meaning to life?" (Stefano Vaj)
 12. Re: Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars (Stefano Vaj)
 13. Re: "Death gives meaning to life?" (Lee Corbin)
 14. Re: "Death gives meaning to life?" (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
 15. Re: "Death gives meaning to life?" (Antonio Marcos)
 16. Re: dark matter (and -- shhhh! -- the F**** p-dox) (Dagon Gmail)
 17. Re: "Death gives meaning to life?" (Lee Corbin)
 18. Re: "death gives meaning to life" (Lee Corbin)
 19. Re: tommy emmanuel (Lee Corbin)
 20. Re: Tommy Emmanuel (Damien Broderick)
 21. 08-Longevity Dividend: Health and Disability (Morris Johnson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:55:25 -0700
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Technology- When it works  (A story)
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <00cf01c8cb0a$2b06b330$6401a8c0 at homeef7b612677>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
       reply-type=original

MB writes

> Sorta disgusting how easily one can get pregnant when young
> and unmarried and unable to support even oneself... only to be
> sharply constrained in the later efforts when
> one is in a position to have a family.

Not so surprising, actually.  Funny thing is, there have been
*traditions* and instincts going back many thousands of
years concerning when to start families and have children.

But of course, all the twentieth century people were far too
rational, far too intelligent, and far too creative to listen to
old fuddy-duddy traditions and "animal" instincts. Instead,
they opted to have their cake and eat it too: plenty of sex
with no cost, thanks to the pill.

Hayek spells it out plainly:  while we must investigate
changing our traditions when they no longer seem to be
appropriate, we should do so very cautiously and above all,
we should try to change only one thing at a time.  But the
"revolutionary" meme set born in the French Revolution just
doesn't see it that way, and so the price is paid.

Give parents, teachers, churches, and traditions as much
extra leeway you possibly can. Their traditions did *not* arise
just by chance, and are *not* just old-fashioned fuddy-duddy
nonsense. They are the product of survival evolution, both
cultural and genetic.

When in doubt, conform. I've made a lot of mistakes in
my life due to plain stubborness, and to how "illogical"
I found so many customs and traditions to be when I
was younger.  Of course we must be individuals, and
of course we must question authority. But people should
learn to do so only very cautiously and tentatively.

Lee



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:44:38 +0200
From: "Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <580930c20806101044x4a51995ey3497936bedb7b3ed at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:30 AM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If true then death must be the ONLY thing that gives life meaning,
> the one and only thing we should concern ourselves with is death,
> everything else is trivial. And that's about as depressing a
> philosophy as I can imagine!

Whatever. While one may well like arguing that death does *not* give
meaning to life in one sense or another, all the related arguments are
obviously overkill.

In fact, why would death stop allegedly giving meaning to life if life
is 40 years long rather than 20? Or 400? Or 40,000?

Whatever weight the idea might carry with it, it would only have a
relevance if one were faced with a literally *eternal* prospective,
"eternal" as in "continued subjectivity beyond the entropic death of
the universe, whatever may happen in the meantime and afterwards".

While the subject may have some philosophical appeal to some of us, it
has, strictly speaking, very little to do with any practical choice
about longevist measures. And by far the best approach, IMHO, is to
ridicule those who should like to make such a great fuss upon the
relatively trivial, and time-honoured, policy of attempting to extend
one's life expectancy all other things being equal.

Stefano Vaj


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Antonio Marcos <amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <277344.68316.qm at web50301.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>In fact, why would death stop allegedly giving meaning to life if life
>is 40 years long rather than 20? Or 400? Or 40,000?

exactly, and since every atom will most likely collapse eventually (as you
seem to also point to in your email) you can always say you're NOT immortal
=] so the alleged "meaning" would still stay there (mostly :) )

[]
Marcos.

--- Em ter, 10/6/08, Stefano Vaj
<stefano.vaj at gmail.com<lt%3Bstefano.vaj at gmail.com>>
escreveu:
De: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com <lt%3Bstefano.vaj at gmail.com>>
Assunto: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
Para: "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org<lt%3Bextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
Data: Ter?a-feira, 10 de Junho de 2008, 14:44

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:30 AM, John K Clark
<jonkc at bellsouth.net<lt%3Bjonkc at bellsouth.net>>
wrote:
> If true then death must be the ONLY thing that gives life meaning,
> the one and only thing we should concern ourselves with is death,
> everything else is trivial. And that's about as depressing a
> philosophy as I can imagine!

Whatever. While one may well like arguing that death does *not* give
meaning to life in one sense or another, all the related arguments are
obviously overkill.

In fact, why would death stop allegedly giving meaning to life if life
is 40 years long rather than 20? Or 400? Or 40,000?

Whatever weight the idea might carry with it, it would only have a
relevance if one were faced with a literally *eternal* prospective,
"eternal" as in "continued subjectivity beyond the entropic
death of
the universe, whatever may happen in the meantime and afterwards".

While the subject may have some philosophical appeal to some of us, it
has, strictly speaking, very little to do with any practical choice
about longevist measures. And by far the best approach, IMHO, is to
ridicule those who should like to make such a great fuss upon the
relatively trivial, and time-honoured, policy of attempting to extend
one's life expectancy all other things being equal.

Stefano Vaj
_______________________________________________
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080610/5ef3332b/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:05:56 -0700
From: Thomas <thomas at thomasoliver.net>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Message-ID: <F1BCFF9C-4DC2-462D-A469-17E8579697AD at thomasoliver.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> Date: June 9, 2008 11:20:50 PM MST
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
> Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
>
> At 10:51 PM 6/9/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
>
>> I also agree with you strongly that we really cannot
>> charge the author of this wicked phrase with claiming
>> that death gives the only meaning to life, or even
>> that death gives the primary meaning to life.
>
> No, in my experience the way the phrase is trotted out usually
> means exactly that--as one can see from the ancillary claptrap. "If
> there were no death, people would lose interest in everything, grow
> terminally [!!] bored, drift into idle pleasure-seeking, stop
> caring about each other, lose their righteous fear of God's
> punishment," blah blah. It might be true, but we have no basis for
> asserting it, except by analogy with brainless leeches who inherit
> great wealth and ruin themselves; that has some force, but fails to
> take account of other experiences with great wealth, such as Bill
> Gates's, say.
>
> But it's also true that a suppressed premise generally goes along
> the lines of "interfering with the divine plan for humans,"
> something which is intrinsically, deontologically naughty but also
> prudentially wrong since the true deep meaning of life is an
> afterlife that can only be attained by dying. The meaning of a
> pupa's existence is the butterfly imago. If that were true, and
> demonstrably so, my attitude would be very different (as it was
> when I was young and more gullible, poor pupa). But note: the
> status of the saved supernatural imago is then purportedly
> *immortal* (in the major faiths, anyway) and hence, one must
> suppose, ex hypothesi eternally *meaningless*. Oh woe! Wouldn't it
> rot your boots!
>
> Damien Broderick

Yes, metamorphosis serves as a poor analogy for death since it
involves self generated change, a quality of life, not death.  I
think the death anti-value gets used by predators to survive.  If one
survives as a killer, then the meaning of life becomes linked to
death.  It occurs to me that replication began as a device for
accommodating death where the individual's indefinite survival seemed
untenable.  Then, when cells began sticking together it became a
device for growth and increased individual organism survival.

It seems to me that an extropian organism, interested in personal
survival might do well to learn to fuel itself without resorting to
death (predation).   Years ago ASU developed cell-like machines to
photosynthesize ATP.  Then one could distance oneself from the
society of predators who rely on death genes and death memes
(sacrifice).  Humans seem to pose the biggest threat to humans and
transhumans.

A clean, predator free environment might permit one to forego
reproduction (the need for an "after life") and focus effort on auto
evolution and life extension.  As I see it, the probability of death
would fall.  The value of life would soar and its meaning would
expand as one achieved ever greater beauty and happiness.  The
increasingly remote possibility of death might remain providing the
zero reference point for the immense value and deep meaning of life.

-- Thomas Oliver
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080610/f97cc4da/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:28:21 -0700
From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
Subject: [ExI] tommy emmanuel
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <200806110455.m5B4t2km026499 at andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Please pardon my off-topic, but god is with us, he plays a guitar, and ooooh
man this god can play, whooooo.  I have never seen the like of this.  Does
this cat rage or what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ75Ent60ik

I am astounded at the things the human mind can do.

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080610/4fb25298/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:29:45 -0700
From: hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars
To: Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>,     ExI chat list
       <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1213162341_7679 at s7.cableone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 08:37 PM 6/9/2008, Lee wrote:
>Keith wrote
> >
> > Overall, nCO2 + 3n+1H2 --> H(CH2)nH + nH2O
> > That's where oil came from in the first place.
>
>What I read was that no one has ever succeeded in
>producing one drop of oil by any process that nature
>could have used to produce the vast amounts of
>"fossil fuels" we have found.

You are misinformed.

>Do you have some explanation of how nature would
>have gone about using the above equation, or whether
>it's true that so far no one has produced oil in a way
>that is thought to be how nature did it?

You are probably aware of shale oil.  We produce oil from it the same
way nature did other oil deposits, heat it.

If that particular deposit of natural hydrocarbons were to be buried
deep in the earth where it gets hot, say under a deposit of sand
capped with a layer of limestone, then it would turn into an oil
deposit, a really vast oil deposit.  No mystery.

Keith



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:50:50 -0700
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <00f101c8cb87$9901e1c0$6401a8c0 at homeef7b612677>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
       reply-type=response

Keith writes

>>What I read was that no one has ever succeeded in
>>producing one drop of oil by any process that nature
>>could have used to produce the vast amounts of
>>"fossil fuels" we have found.
>
> You are misinformed.

Judging from what you write below, you may have
mistaken my meaning.

>>Do you have some explanation of how nature would
>>have gone about using the above equation, or whether
>>it's true that so far no one has produced oil in a way
>>that is thought to be how nature did it?
>
> You are probably aware of shale oil.  We produce oil from it the same way
nature did other oil deposits, heat it.

But did shale oil come from "dinosaurs"  :-)   or from living
matter? It's customary for everyone to call these "fossil fuels"
isn't it?

What is at stake here is the abiotic theory of oil.  Hmm, now I see
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html
which appears to present both sides of the debate.

< Dave McGowan argues for the abiotic theory, which holds that oil is
generated by natural processes in the earth's magma, and he
also argues pointedly that the "fossil" theory has never been proven. The
following is long and detailed, but a must-read: >

Lee

P.S. Here is McGowan's take (Yes, Damien, I *am* biased)
 The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is
not controversial nor presently a matter of academic
debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been
over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The
modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former
U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration
and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas
fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and
developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce
from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin,
Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia
cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90
petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the
crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the
11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets
basin have already been noted. There are presently deep
drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian
Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas
reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)

 It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for
quite some time now, two competing theories concerning
the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil
fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's
surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by
natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed
by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific
inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the
eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil
fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of
generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has
a difficult time explaining any such documented
phenomena.

 So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to
embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel'
theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings
are based on.

 I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never
did come across any of that "hard science" documenting
'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I
found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for
granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is
never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It
is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite
obviously is not.

 So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this?
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW
Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation
that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that
oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are
really groundless."
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)

 Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do
you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss
a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by
hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some
speculation"?

The following is a response by McGowan to a generally hostile email from a
Ruppert supporter...




------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:14:39 -0700
From: Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: [ExI] dark matter (and -- shhhh! -- the F**** p-dox)
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <20080611061439.GA6796 at ofb.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 03:21:13PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Here's the deal.
>
> The talk about dark matter uses terms like "non-baryonic", and
> otherwise asserts that dark matter is distinctly different from
> regular matter.  But I have yet to find any evidence for the
> it-ain't-regular-matter presumption.  The entire case, as far as I
> have been able to determine, comes from the fact that the "matter" in
> question is "dark".  That, unlike "regular" matter, it can't be seen;

No, the case is also based on the inferred distribution of the matter,
and resulting lack of normal electromagnetic interactions; also on Big
Bang models of nucleosynthesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter

-xx- Damien X-)


------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:01:51 -0700
From: hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1213171467_6078 at s2.cableone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:50 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote:

snip

>What is at stake here is the abiotic theory of oil.  Hmm, now I see
>http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html
>which appears to present both sides of the debate.

The theory doesn't matter in the least.  Whether the oil was cooked
out of organic deposits from living things (as all indications point
to for the western shale deposits) or it came from some deep dark
crevice in the earth, the important thing is that we are close to or
at the limit of how fast we can pump it.

Keith




------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:04:16 +0200
From: "Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
To: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br, "ExI chat list"
       <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <580930c20806110204o6da39d34ycd5a8f116ea7aed3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Antonio Marcos <amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br>
wrote:

> >In fact, why would death stop allegedly giving meaning to life if life
> >is 40 years long rather than 20? Or 400? Or 40,000?
>
> exactly, and since every atom will most likely collapse eventually (as you
> seem to also point to in your email) you can always say you're NOT
immortal
> =] so the alleged "meaning" would still stay there (mostly :))
>

This is my point. In other terms, I consider mostly pointless to engage
emphatically metaphysical objections on their turf, whenever there is no
need for it, including when they are very debatable in nature.

Either those who fancy themselves as the "advocates of the dignity of death"
are actually suicidal (i.e., "the sooner, the better"), or they lack a real
argument against transhumanism even with those who may share their views.

That many actual transhumanists are far from sharing them is an entirely
different issue.

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080611/e7bc610b/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:29:13 +0200
From: "Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <580930c20806110229p36d0067eh3413add4200c0611 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Thomas <thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
> A clean, predator free environment might permit one to forego reproduction
> (the need for an "after life") and focus effort on auto evolution and life
> extension.  As I see it, the probability of death would fall.  The value
of
> life would soar and its meaning would expand as one achieved ever greater
> beauty and happiness.

Mmhhh. Actually, what I am mostly interested in is a progressively
growing, and tendentially undefined, *lifespan*. In other terms, the
ineluttability of the fact that as a cat roughly lives 15 years
irrespective of how healthy his life may be and good his veterinarian,
a human being may last 90 or 100 years, but no more than that, and
with severe, unavoidable functional impairments for a substantial
chunk of this duration.

Then, "probability of death" may depend on factors that remain
entirely within the scope of human self-determination, and I sincerely
doubt that its reduction to zero would be an absolute, unconditional
individual and societal goal. I would be reluctant, say, to forbid
sport, including its extreme version, just because the price for the
challenge and the adrenalyne rush might involve a diminished life
expectancy for its practitioners. And what about exploration,
experiments, expansion in different and possibly hostile environments,
etc. etc.? Nicely, the words for all those activities start with an
"ex", the same of "extropy"... :-)

Stefano Vaj


------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:41:57 +0200
From: "Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <580930c20806110241r2586b45bie61c2ced6e322588 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> At 10:50 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote:
> The theory doesn't matter in the least.  Whether the oil was cooked
> out of organic deposits from living things (as all indications point
> to for the western shale deposits) or it came from some deep dark
> crevice in the earth, the important thing is that we are close to or
> at the limit of how fast we can pump it.

If I may step in, there is nothing especially mysterious AFAIK in oil
and gas, whatever the origin of the "natural" deposit of the same may
be. We can well enough syntesise both since at least II World War (I
understand that Germany did it quite extensively), for whatever use of
them we may think of, and whenever they may continue making sense as
fuels or energy storage compound.

The problem is that we need energy to do that, and of course such
energy cannot be taken from... burning some other oil or gas, or even
some alternative fossil fuel that is also limited in nature (say,
coal).

Thus, we have to profit more extensively and directly from the very
process that has originally produced "natural" oil and gas, namely
nuclear fusion, be it in artificial reactors or by going to space and
getting it from "natural" reactors, i.e., stars. Then you can have all
the oil and gas you like, but without waiting for the geological ages
natural production involves. Not that you would need much, once the
energy is already there.

Stefano Vaj


------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:56:46 -0700
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <012e01c8cbc3$4a5a6b00$6401a8c0 at homeef7b612677>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
       reply-type=original

Stefano writes

> Thomas  wrote:
>
>> A clean, predator free environment might permit one to forego
reproduction
>> (the need for an "after life") and focus effort on auto evolution and
life
>> extension.

Why would one wish to forego reproduction? Besides, this is an
obviously very non-ESS  (that is, non Evolutionarily Stable Strategy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

As we are uploaded (probably), or replaced by mind children,
or expand into space to escape the on-going Singularity in the
solar system, I could not in good conscience recommend to
any group of which I was a part a non-ESS.

> Actually, what I am mostly interested in is a progressively
> growing, and tendentially undefined, *lifespan*.

Absolutely. Ignoring the ultimately silly "death gives meaning to life"
crowd, you've stated the most important desirable characteristic
of our future lives.

> Then, "probability of death" may depend on factors that remain
> entirely within the scope of human self-determination, and I sincerely
> doubt that its reduction to zero would be an absolute, unconditional
> individual and societal goal.

Not at all. Huge numbers of science fiction writers, e.g. Egan, Broderick,
Brin, and so on all the way back to Algis Budry's "Rogue Moon" in 1960,
it's been understood that one will of course have "backups" throughout
any region of space in exact analogy to off-site storage of important
computer data. This is taken entirely for granted, for example, in Greg
Egan's recent short story "Glory".

> I would be reluctant, say, to forbid sport, including its extreme version,

You mean, you would be reluctant to get together with your neighbors
and elect a powerful government that would interfere with individual's
decisions concerning things like suicide.  Well, I'm glad to hear that.

> just because the price for the
> challenge and the adrenalyne rush might involve a diminished life
> expectancy for its practitioners. And what about exploration,
> experiments, expansion in different and possibly hostile environments,
> etc. etc.? Nicely, the words for all those activities start with an
> "ex", the same of "extropy"... :-)

Further, if one eventually somehow incorporates the idea that one
may live around Sol and at the "same time" live around Betelgeuse,
then nothing stops one from contemplating having some versions
of oneself decide to take great risks, though probably with nearby
backups.

I do not want to enter into another identity debate, but it would be
comforting if the readers of this list at least acknowledged the
intellectual possibility that accidental death can be made arbitrarily
improbable.

Lee



------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:54:11 +0200
From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <470a3c520806110654h43dbe00cm6c0c6ede7dc9bff0 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Thomas <thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
> From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> Date: June 9, 2008 11:20:50 PM MST
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
> Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
> At 10:51 PM 6/9/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
>
> I also agree with you strongly that we really cannot
> charge the author of this wicked phrase with claiming
> that death gives the only meaning to life, or even
> that death gives the primary meaning to life.

This "wicked phrase" is an evident nonsense, and the fact that more
than enough people say it only shows that more than enough people and
more than enough stupid, or clueless victims of religious propaganda.

"Death gives meaning to life" is an evident nonsense because dead
people cannot experience meaning. A similar sentence, "unhappiness
gives meaning to happiness", is understood, by stupid or brainwashed
people, in its literal meaning. But smart a##holes  use it as "_your_
unhappiness gives meaning to _my_ happiness", which is the only
logically consistent meaning of these nonsensical statements.


------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Antonio Marcos <amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <903782.84239.qm at web50309.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> which is the only logically consistent meaning of these nonsensical
statements.

You can also think as " the possibility of unhappiness gives meaning to my
happiness" and "after Im unahppy, happiness is more happy".

Regards,
Mark.

--- Em qua, 11/6/08, Giu1i0 Pri5c0
<pgptag at gmail.com<lt%3Bpgptag at gmail.com>>
escreveu:
De: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com <lt%3Bpgptag at gmail.com>>
Assunto: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
Para: "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org<lt%3Bextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
Data: Quarta-feira, 11 de Junho de 2008, 10:54

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Thomas
<thomas at thomasoliver.net<lt%3Bthomas at thomasoliver.net>>
wrote:
> From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com<lt%3Bthespike at satx.rr.com>
>
> Date: June 9, 2008 11:20:50 PM MST
> To: ExI chat list
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org<lt%3Bextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
> Reply-To: ExI chat list
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org<lt%3Bextropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
>
> At 10:51 PM 6/9/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
>
> I also agree with you strongly that we really cannot
> charge the author of this wicked phrase with claiming
> that death gives the only meaning to life, or even
> that death gives the primary meaning to life.

This "wicked phrase" is an evident nonsense, and the fact that more
than enough people say it only shows that more than enough people and
more than enough stupid, or clueless victims of religious propaganda.

"Death gives meaning to life" is an evident nonsense because dead
people cannot experience meaning. A similar sentence, "unhappiness
gives meaning to happiness", is understood, by stupid or brainwashed
people, in its literal meaning. But smart a##holes  use it as "_your_
unhappiness gives meaning to _my_ happiness", which is the only
logically consistent meaning of these nonsensical statements.
_______________________________________________
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080611/0a4f5d3b/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:10:19 +0200
From: "Dagon Gmail" <dagonweb at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] dark matter (and -- shhhh! -- the F**** p-dox)
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <bf3acbfc0806111210i32a70e0fobbde5afc75aefdfd at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

So in the early universe there was a lot more matter, then all that
turned sour, changed into dark matter nanoprobium, which then scatters
diffusely into some very fleeting medium (which squares with the odd
fact that heavier colliding galaxies seem to quickly strip the dark
matter envelopes of their less massive dance partners - the
nanoprobium migrates towards the area with more radiation to feed off)

...yet despite the clear abundance and pervasiveness of dark matter
"nanoprobium" it is inert towards earth's primordial civilization - it
doesn't contact earth, it doesn't suggest a course of action nor does
it attempt to hinder or progress or attack us. If we move into the
nanoprobium stage will there be welcome committee's? I mean there
isn't even a hint, unless you dive headfirst into religious sect
allegories.


On 6/11/08, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 03:21:13PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Here's the deal.
>>
>> The talk about dark matter uses terms like "non-baryonic", and
>> otherwise asserts that dark matter is distinctly different from
>> regular matter.  But I have yet to find any evidence for the
>> it-ain't-regular-matter presumption.  The entire case, as far as I
>> have been able to determine, comes from the fact that the "matter" in
>> question is "dark".  That, unlike "regular" matter, it can't be seen;
>
> No, the case is also based on the inferred distribution of the matter,
> and resulting lack of normal electromagnetic interactions; also on Big
> Bang models of nucleosynthesis.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:45:48 -0700
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "Death gives meaning to life?"
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <014c01c8cc15$5cf3f310$6401a8c0 at homeef7b612677>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
       reply-type=original

Hi Giulio,

Yes, I know that it's pretty frustrating to ever have to
talk to these types of people, or to read what they write.

But one's case is always weakened by overstatement.
I'm actually surprised at this from you, of all people.

> This "wicked phrase" is an evident nonsense, and the fact that more
> than enough people say it only shows that more than enough people and
> more than enough stupid, or clueless victims of religious propaganda.

First, those people are not stupid.

Second, they could make an equally vacuous argument saying
that *we* were the ones who were victims of Darwinian brainwashing
and were underestimating the wisdom of tradition.

Third, quite a number of people who are *not* religious
believe that "death gives meaning to life". I've read articles
by them in the magazine "Free Inquiry".

> "Death gives meaning to life" is an evident nonsense because dead
> people cannot experience meaning.

That is not what they *meant* at all!  They (generally) do
not claim that dead people have experiences---almost all
of them are talking about the way that the possibility or
certainty of death gives life more meaning *while* we
are alive. So, yes, it's nonsense, but certainly not for the
"reasons" you put forth.

I can't understand why several people here have suddenly
started sounding a good deal less than rational all of a sudden.
I wonder if it's an aspect of mob psychology. We all want
to refute that utterly wrongheaded statement, but some of
us wish to do so without name-calling and instead by resort
to careful argument.

Best regards,
Lee



------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:52:36 -0700
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] "death gives meaning to life"
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <015c01c8cc16$118959a0$6401a8c0 at homeef7b612677>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
       reply-type=original

Damien wrote

> Lee wrote:
>
>> I also agree with you strongly that we really cannot
>> charge the author of this wicked phrase with claiming
>> that death gives the only meaning to life, or even
>> that death gives the primary meaning to life.
>
> No, in my experience the way the phrase is trotted out usually
> means exactly that--as one can see from the ancillary claptrap.

I understand, and I do find your empirical claim quite credible.

But we can't be in the business of refuting ideas and concepts
because of their "ancillary claptrap".

And thanks for your subsequent accurate analysis (below).

Lee

> [The (usually religious) often say]
> "If there were no death, people would lose interest in everything, grow
> terminally [!!] bored, drift into idle pleasure-seeking, stop caring
> about each other, lose their righteous fear of God's punishment,"
> blah blah. It might be true, but we have no basis for asserting it,
> except by analogy with brainless leeches who inherit great wealth and
> ruin themselves; that has some force, but fails to take account of
> other experiences with great wealth, such as Bill Gates's, say.
>
> But it's also true that a suppressed premise generally goes along the
> lines of "interfering with the divine plan for humans," something
> which is intrinsically, deontologically naughty but also prudentially
> wrong since the true deep meaning of life is an afterlife that can
> only be attained by dying. The meaning of a pupa's existence is the
> butterfly imago. If that were true, and demonstrably so, my attitude
> would be very different (as it was when I was young and more
> gullible, poor pupa). But note: the status of the saved supernatural
> imago is then purportedly *immortal* (in the major faiths, anyway)
> and hence, one must suppose, ex hypothesi eternally *meaningless*...


------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:57:48 -0700
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] tommy emmanuel
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <015f01c8cc16$c5d274f0$6401a8c0 at homeef7b612677>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
       reply-type=original

Spike writes

> Please pardon my off-topic, but god is with us,
> he plays a guitar, and ooooh man this god can
> play, whooooo.  I have never seen the like of
> this.  Does this cat rage or what?

Technically speaking, this cat rages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ75Ent60ik

> I am astounded at the things the human mind can do.

Especially when it's driven and solely focused on
achieving a particular aim.  But never underestimate
the genes. Also, *never* underestimate the environment.

Yet most of all, never underestimate passion.

Lee



------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:40 -0500
From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Tommy Emmanuel
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080611180758.0244b9e8 at satx.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Another fine Australian!  :)



------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:24:42 -0700
From: "Morris Johnson" <mfj.eav at gmail.com>
Subject: [ExI] 08-Longevity Dividend: Health and Disability
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
       <61c8738e0806111624r1c174fc1yd0c567599c4b15db at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Health Canada and the FDA  argue that  aging is not a disease but a natural,
unstoppable, inevitable process ; I would argue the middle ground,  that
aging is a progressive biological disability worthy of more than
palliation".   "Oh dad you are one sick puppy?everybody  since the
dawn of  civilization
until the 20th century  who ever  claimed there was a cure for aging has one
thing in common, they are dead.  "Putting  Humpty Dumpty back together again
" won't cure aging"   Well kids, for over a decade I have been mentored by
fellow members of The *World Transhumanist Association* ,  an international
nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of
technology to expand human capacities (
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/ ) .  WTA supports the
development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy
*better minds, better bodies* and *better lives*. In other words, WTA wants
people to be *better than well.  From what I have learned I think there is
good reason to be optimistic about the future.
http://www.wfs.org/MArch-April08/WF2008_preliminary.pdf*

 Idiot-Savants show the  computational feats a mind can accomplish when its
structures are organized in novel ways. (
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/05/07/miraculous.memory/index.html
).
Breaking  the communications barrier for autistic brains will bring
happiness and purpose to imprisoned personalities.  Every technology
designed to make life indistinguishable from normal for the disabled can be
adapted to enhance the abilities of the able bodied.  For example scientists
pushing themselves harder to be smarter are now  major consumers of ritalan
a drug popularized for hyperactive kids.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2006/07/07/heinbaugh.blind.reader.affl
,  http://www.knfbreader.com/  document the dividend digital technology is
now able to provide to blind persons.

Disabled persons at this stage of technology might resemble movie cyborgs
because the mechanical and electronic devices are clunky; but they do work.
Raymond Kurzweil's "universal language translator" device and software  and
( http://www.physorg.com/news130152277.html )  a baseball cap wired to allow
EEG to control household electronics devices ,  for physically disabled
individuals, for home care for the elderly, medical monitoring, and exercise
training are disjoint technologies that are breaking new ground  (
http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2008/matsuoka)  .     Oscar
Pisorius (
http://womensbioethics.blogspot.com/2008/05/bionic-athletes-stepping-out-of-debate.html
)  made able bodied athletes feel disadvantaged,  like he did before his new
legs.  (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/cascio20080504/ ).

 One may think of disability as a critical catastrophic fault supported by
long creeping degenerative processes.
http://www.gsexperience.com/gseblog.html  and
http://www.gsexperience.com/archive/index.html  describe a potential
mechanism for a systemic disease (spalting)  which may develop in humans who
survive well beyond what we consider old and pose monumental new health
challenges.   Fortunately large scale Anti-Aging Research funders are
popping up in every country. Example ( http://www.bg-rf.org.uk/  ) The
Biogerontology Research Foundation (BGRF) understands that the current
scientific understanding of the ageing process is not yet sufficiently
exploited to produce effective commercial  medical interventions.  BGRF
funded research is building on the body of knowledge about how ageing
happens, and develop biotechnological interventions to prevent or remediate
the molecular and cellular deficits which accumulate with age and which
underlie the ill-health of old age. Addressing ageing damage at this most
fundamental level  provides an important opportunity to produce the
effective, lasting treatments for the diseases and disabilities of ageing
that are required to improve quality of life in the elderly.  BDRF addresses
both the symptoms of
age-related diseases and the mechanisms of those diseases.  USA Lawmakers
 may
07, 2008 introduced legislation designed to speed the development of new,
safer therapies for brain and nervous system disorders and injuries, which
affect an estimated 100 million Americans and costs an estimated $1.3
trillion annually to treat.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=legislation-introduced-to    According
to http://www.Chronicdiseaseimpact.com<http://www.chronicdiseaseimpact.com/
>forward
planning to eliminate future disability can have a significant
payback.  The difference in 2050 USA GDP for eliminating disability at all
ages is projected to be 5.668 Trillion (17.6% of 2050 GDP) per annum.

 Biomarkers may soon predict disabling diseases like alzheimers before even
the sufferer is aware of it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/20783/?nlid=1079&a=f    Raymond
Kurzweil

(  http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1  )views the body as a
complex software program coded as DNA..  It's the millions of feedback loops
from all the subroutines and derivative epigenetic material that make us
what we are as much as the mere 100K "Kernel" of "source code " within our
genes   Ray believes that the convergence of nano-cognitive
biological-information (NCBI) technology into a new "singularity" technology
and its commercialization is about 10-20 years away.

 Feb 21, 1963 John F. Kennedy said "It is not enough for a great nation to
have added new years to life.  Our objective must also be to add new life to
those years".   To put myself at risk of being partisan , we need to repeat
the pledge to "put a man on the moon before the end of the decade" in the
form of a new pledge " to end physical and mental disability for the average
global citizen before 2025".   Governments around the world must put
pro-life ahead of pro-death and lead by consorting with technologists and
futurists and not by fashioning "Garbage in , garbage out" health policy
created and implemented by permission from "Idiot-Savant" pollsters and
"spin doctors".  Don't  laugh that's how it works.


Harrison Ford at the end of Indiana Jones saga (4) says "A prize greater
than a city of Gold is knowledge".   As we prevent disability we enhance the
wisdom of  old age to become a true asset.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/health/research/20brai.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

<
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/health/research/20brai.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
.
You may send your feedback attention "Pharmer Mo" at
extropian.pharmer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080611/dd98ebb4/attachment.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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 57, Issue 8
*******************************************



-- 
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080611/76b37baa/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list