[ExI] Inevitability of the Singularity (was Re: To Max, re Natasha and Extropy (Kevin Haskell)

[Kelly Anderson]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
>> > This is not the best example, really. Actually it is a half-example, at
>> > best. US spent a lot on WW2 and I don't deny it. On the other hand, US
>> > gained much more than they spent.
>>
>> I know families of dead soldiers and veterans who have suffered years
>> of PTSD who would likely disagree with that statement, even though
>> from a purely economic viewpoint, you make an interesting argument.
>> The post WWII rise in the power of America probably also came from the
>> fact that our industrial capacity wasn't blown to hell... just a
>> thought.
>
> PTSD is nasty thing, especially when one is in a society unprepared to
> understand it (I think US is not). Next time I drink, I will drink one for
> those guys. Probably would not help much, however.

The US is better prepared for PTSD now than they were in Vietnam, and
were better then than in WWII. Nobody was ready for it in WWI... There
are now somewhat effecive treatments...

The original point was that WWII was good for America. I would recast
that and say that WWII was "less bad" for America than for her allies.
And, it was "less bad" for the allies than for the axis power nations.
The Marshal Plan moderated that impact to some extent, at least to the
point where we didn't get all out WWIII... and if forced to point out
government programs that worked, I would honestly have to say these
worked (though that doesn't rule out that they MIGHT have been more
efficiently handled in some other way):
1) Fighting WWII
2) The Marshal Plan
3) The Post WWII GI Bill (if you weren't black)
4) The Interstate Highway System
5) The Space Program

These government programs are among the most successful ever in US
history.  And they did come as a direct result of WWII (and the cold
war).

>> > Literally tons of German know-how (and
>> > some from other countries) had been transported to US, as well as
>> > thousands of scientists, engineers and other specialists (Operation
>> > Paperclip).
>>
>> Indeed, this did mitigate the cost somewhat. I understand that there
>> are European nations that still owe the US money that we "loaned" them
>> to fight WWII... at least that's what my high school history teacher
>> drummed into my head. Of course, if the US defaults on its loans now,
>> it will make that look like a minor accounting incident.
>
> Land Lease, very helpful indeed. From what they write here,
>
> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_Lease ]

Interesting article.

> a lot of congressmen opposed it. Maybe there is a connection to allegation
> that some US corporations have been doing their business with Nazis but on
> the other hand, this old dirty stuff gets boring sooner or later.

I guess, but there are still living survivors... so a few more years,
maybe it will be less interesting. I only bring stuff up when I think
actions in the past might be indicative of results in the future. If
LBJ did X and it resulted in Y, and now BHO is doing X, I might point
out that Y might be an expected outcome. So for me, history is most
useful as a predictive tool.

> BTW, pity that as far as I can tell, Land Lease wasn't sent to Poland, too
> - we had our own government in exile, residing in London, army, navy etc.
> We even managed to evacuate gold reserves via Romania, but from what I
> learned they have been confiscated by our British ally - I wonder why,
> especially because this had put us on pension,  but again this is a bit
> boring, at least on this particular day.

The difficulty for Poland seems to me to have been that they were
always in the way of greater powers who wanted to fight each other. So
Poland all too often became the battleground of a fight they had no
real part in.

>> > Last but not least, a great number of
>> > folks running away from Hitler (and later, even years after the war, from
>> > living in communism, however good this could have been), mostly educated
> [...]
>>
>> Gee, you don't think some of those people were attracted by the
>> freedom and opportunity offered in the United States at the time? This
>> is a very interesting spin...
>
> Ehem, I have kind of allergy for some words, like freedoom or emocracy.
> Perhaps they are so often repeated that they start to sound unnaturally
> and like they were to be recognised and reassured, over and over, until
> they are empty and without meaning.
>
> Opportunity, this I like.

OK. Let me testify then, that I believe freedom creates more opportunity. ;-)

Yes, the words get tired. They do get overused, and at times abused.
Calling Afghanistan "free" is pretty funny. Same with Iraq.

> I cannot say what drove those other people, never asked them. I guess they
> wanted opportunity.

I have talked to some of them. Many wanted to escape political systems
where they saw a limited future. Most saw the USA as the beacon of the
better life. Not so much economically, but as the land of opportunity.

>> Perhaps communism could be good, if it were real communism, and not
>> dictatorship dressed up.
>
> It is rather hard for me to deliberate on virtues and demerits of
> communism. I don't remember having any clashes with it, even if I have
> been told of those who had. I think I owe a lot to people who surrounded
> me. As I grown up, however, I have learned this and that. I wonder, for
> example, if "real communism" is possible on big scale. I guess not. Then
> again, it would be cool to see model of this and negative proof with some
> graphs.

It is hard to graph the human spirit. (Of course, I mean by this the
way humans react in the face of adversity and in the face of
opportunity, not some ethereal spirit.)

>> There have been, here and there, small
>> examples of communist type communities that worked. The Mormons, for
>> example, early on had a thing called the "United Order", where all
>> property was held in common by a group of people. It failed utterly
>> every place it was tried except one, Orderville, UT.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville,_Ut
>>
>> So this is evidence that people who are all poor, who are a small
>> group, who are desperate, who have strong common belief systems, can
>> live something like communism successfully. I would assume some of the
>> Israeli kibitz communities worked too. The Wikipedia article doesn't
>> mention that disassembling the united order in Orderville just about
>> tore the community into bits. It was real ugly disassembling things at
>> the end of the experiment from what locals have told me.
>
> The article sums up what I wanted to say: "The extreme poverty of these
> settlers likely contributed significantly to their devotion to the
> principles of the United Order."

Yes, and they also had only three industries, the biggest being the
mill. It was easy for them to work together when they all had common
goals. Once you get big enough that you need two mills, and they have
to compete with each other, then this sort of thing starts to break
down, IMHO. Even worse, if you have a Catholic mill and a Mormon mill
in the same "in common" system... then differences start coming out in
potentially culture shattering ways. A lot of the US "race relations"
problems are of this nature.

> When one has close to nothing, one is willing to share with others
> similarly ill-fated individuals.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes (you'll never catch me in a
fox hole, thank you very much ;-), extreme stress causes people to
join together in ways that otherwise would be difficult to imagine.
Sometimes the stress is manufactured, as in this case. Brigham Young
sent people to these godforsaken places and "called" them to figure
out how to make the place profitable to "the Kingdom". If they failed,
which many did, I imagine that they saw it as a lack of faith.

> Perhaps it is also a matter of matching right methodology to a project. A
> team can be trained or changed (including leader - this is easy in
> programming, where every team member is accountable). Also, I sometimes
> read a book, but rememmber to not pray to it. The book's author is not
> authority on my project, he may be only advisor.

Programming methodology is at least as complex as politics. :-(

>> > Now, to make it all clear - I don't blame US for being US. However I think
>> > there is nasty tendency to constantly rewrite and reinterpret history
>> > along ideallistic-idyllic lines. I mean, do whatever you do, just make an
>> > effort and stick to the facts (this can be also called honesty - but
>> > of course I don't accuse you [Kelly] of not being honest). On the other
>> > hand, if US folk en masse chooses living in their own dream about the
>> > world, well, not quite my problem.
>>
>> I understand very clearly that the winners write the history that is
>> read by most. So there MUST be a kernel of truth in what you are
>> saying here. What I would like you to reflect upon though is just HOW
>> the US BECAME the winner in this case... I would submit that it was
>> through application of the tenants of freedom. I could be wrong about
>> that, but I honestly don't think so.
>
> First, losers have their history, too.

But that isn't the history taught in schools, by the indoctrination machine.

> However I think that those
> histories don't really differ so much (if done by historians).

You haven't read enough alternative histories then. I read a history
of the US called something like "A people's history of the United
States" written from a far left perspective. Only mentioned Benjamin
Franklin ONE TIME. And that mention was only something about how he
was mean to Indians or some such damn thing. That's an alternative
history.

> What I was
> addressing is that there is "cinematic/movie history", in which facts are
> dropped, rearranged and painted different colors as needed to make a
> fable "more interesting". From my point of view, these acts make a fable
> less interesting. Well I don't really care if some Kate or Laura finds
> herself love. One could argue, that those, say, movies are just love
> stories in historic costume. So they are not important. OTOH as I see it,
> such stories with their defecated version of history are going to reign so
> called public awareness. On the face of it, they deal with unfortunate
> love, but in the depth they can smuggle points of view.

Oliver Stone is the master of such twisted history. He did do a good
job with the World Trade Center, I have to admit. Perhaps, he figured
too many people would remember the real history for him to twist it
too much... ;-)  Or maybe he did it straight to give more credibility
to his other movies, who knows?

> IMHO such twisted (hi)stories are doing harm. If nothing else, they help
> to lure people into mantraps and meat grinders. They make it so much
> easier to sell different kinds of shit to the gullible folk.

Agreed.

> Of course, as I mentioned above, whoever wants to buy shit is going to
> have it.

I'm not worried as much about what people buy as who they elect. Elect
shitheads, and you're going to have trouble.

> But let's keep in mind that humans tend to err. So maybe I erred.

I'm sure I have. Many times.

>> > Overally, what US gained during WW2 has kept them running for at least
>> > fifty years. Just my holy opinion.
>>
>> The rise of the US in world power started right around 1898 with the
>> Spanish American war and big industrial projects like the Panama
>> Canal. We avoided most of the damage from WWI and WWII (other than a
>> RELATIVELY small loss of life when compared to our allies), and had
>> our production capacity increased at the expense of Europe. I don't
>> think there is a counterargument to this point.
>
> Yep. As I lurk into history of various countries, I can see how, during
> last 150 years, they all first started to rise (some slower, some faster),
> few dropped out after WW1, some more after WW2 and from my point of view
> only States stayed in a game after that. Soviet Union & friends tried
> hard, but they--we have missed the idea of looking for new ideas. Even
> more, proponents of new ideas have been prosecuted until official
> recognition of those ideas (like, genetics, and before WW2 theory of
> relativity, if I am right, and maybe some more). It was like if race
> runners had their legs broken first (legally) and later, after official
> recognition of racing, healed and sent to olympic games.
>
> Pitiful attitude.

Revisionist history is always ugly when caught.

>> Now, I also believe that Europe is not doing itself any favors in its
>> rush to socialism over the past few decades, but this is another force
>> entirely. The work laws in France, for example, are a joke. The tax
>> rates in much of Europe are catastrophically high.
>
> I don't feel too well qualified to discuss European issues. I am still
> learning about them. I've found it easier to study States first. Strange,
> isn't it - it is rather hard to look oneself in the eyes, especially
> without good mirror.
>
> But if I was ever asked to talk bullshit about this, well I think that
> whoever says Europe is undergoing a crisis is right. But they later
> disagree about a reason for this. I suspect the reason is lack of faith -
> I don't mean religious faith. They don't dare to mention faith in their
> debates. Too bad. Without it, future cannot be done. All that is left is
> just shifting resources back and forth.

I define faith as the motive power to engage in activity. You have
faith that your employer will give you a paycheck at the end of two
weeks, so you continue to go to work. You have faith in a political
candidate, so you work for his campaign. You have faith first, act
second, get the reward third. If you don't get the reward, then your
faith changes.

> BTW, from what I have read, neither China nor Russia have faith, too. It
> seems that Chinese top tovarischi recognised a problem (or part of it) and
> they try to go back to old style philosophies, like Confucianism. Russians
> seem to be stuck a little.
>
> I suspect Greeks and Romans had faith. I also suspect we have come a bit
> too far away from the roots.
>
> Oh, I mean, how to say it, maybe it's faith in underlying order of things.
> Or some other bullshit. It's nothing esotheric, however.
>
> But I must err, since otherwise some wiser guy would have got his Nobel
> for saying so.

I think you are right. Chinese are driven these days by chasing the
almighty dollar (or yuan) and that is a kind of empty thing all by
itself. It is important, but I think there is something vital missing.
Not religion, but some more essential appreciation of the human
condition.

>> At least you can envision a future with cinemas... :-)
>
> Now the puzzle is, am I an optimist or a pessimist?

Depends on whether the movies are good or bad. Whether they are all
propaganda, or some of them are educational and uplifting. Hitler's
Germany had a lot of movies, but some are probably illegal to own in
Germany now, not sure about that...

Movies are a tool, like computers and hammers, that can be used for
good or bad ends.

> [...]
>> > Yes, let's hope they do something positive. Even if at the same time they
>> > evade taxes (don't know if they do), if this ends malaria I can accept it.
>>
>> If you had your choice between eradicating malaria AND eradicating
>> polio AND giving fresh water to every man woman and child on earth AND
>> giving a laptop to every urchin all over the world, OR reducing the
>> global temperature by 0.002 degrees (an estimate I pulled out of my
>> ass, but it is some number along those lines) for the same amount of
>> money... Which would you choose?
>
> At first I thought you want me to choose between malaria, polio, water,
> laptop and glob-temp. And I thought 'wow, that is so cool question'. Nope
> :-). Well, why would I care about 0.002 degrees? Of course I would give
> all the cool stuff to people in need. As of 2 degrees - over how long, 200
> years? If so, frak it.

The pessimists are now saying 4 degrees Celsius change over the next
100 years. The more we learn about climate, the more we seem to
discover that it can change in the blink of an eye. That part is truly
frightening... but perhaps there will be enough civilization left to
try and recover. But I believe we should solve the easier problems
first. Polio, Malaria, Clean Water. Then, once we've proven that we
can do those things with excellence, THEN I think we're ready to
attack global warming.

The other happy thing is that the development of alternative energy
sources is happily a good thing for other reasons.

> Glaciers are moving back since 18000 years. I
> understand, temps are going up during this period, too. I think most of
> Antropocentric GW talk is marketing, selling houses in Spain, or in
> tundra. GW is not antropocentric, I'm afraid. It is something else,
> probably.

I think it is probably human caused. The science is fairly definitive
in that direction.

> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period ]
>
> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period ]
>
> However, I would like to not give them laptops. They are hard to maintain,
> they break, they can get stolen. I would build ruggedized kiosks, for a
> price close to 2-3 laptops (I guesstimate). Use reinforced concrete, old
> cpus (Pentium M, 1GHz or so), simple displays. Mouse optional. Keyboard -
> ruggedized, probably specially designed for this one adventure - like, it
> could be made of wood, wires and steel springs, with simple connector to
> the kiosk. Such keyboards can be easily repaired or build from locally
> available stuff.

That's an interesting thought. I saw some stuff like that for India.
Seemed to work.

> Give every child a pendrive, connect kiosks to the internet. No porn
> and no ads. Just wikipedia, usenet, free books, lectures, this kind of
> stuff. Games - I think some simple games will do.
>
> I have heard of something similar having been done in India once, wonder
> how they fare?

The people take care of them from the TED talk I watched. The point of
the talk was how children teach themselves about computers, which was
also interesting.

> Kiosks could be put inside communes/villages (if we are talking 3rd
> world), perhaps with participation of local schools and churches. So that
> children can meet there together and maybe learn from each other.

Thanks for the nice chat Tomasz all of the Poles I have talked to have
been genuine seekers of the truth. It's a great national attribute if
my sampling is accurate. Then again, there are a LOT of Catholics
there... :-)

-Kelly