From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb  1 03:03:12 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 04:03:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbGnptTzUPAm21j+5a+oR3RzGycLvXvDkB-UhkaOv0XpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3949139077-14429@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace?<foozler83 at gmail.com>?, 31/1/2014 2:52 PM:
Agreed - but it's all theoretically possible now.? My view of engineers and other tech people is that is they know it can be done they will eventually find a way.? I don't have to tell this crowd that? human beings are tinkers, endlessly worrying at something until they get what they want.?



As a society, we seem to take a dim view of people tinkering with each other's organs. Maybe wrongly - I do think medicine would advance far faster if people were allowed to experiment more. But we better gather all the data to learn from the mistakes.
Getting cells to do cool things in the lab is one thing. Getting them to do it in animals - living, breathing, idiosyncratic animals that are moral patients - is another thing. Getting the data and figuring out how to do it better is tricky. And getting this to work safely enough in humans even worse. There is a reason we can move forward so quickly in software and inorganic making, while medicine is stickier.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140201/843c57b4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  1 07:18:03 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:18:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] most daring ceo?
Message-ID: <04bd01cf1f1d$bfc512b0$3f4f3810$@att.net>

 

 

OCTOBER 2013
Leading the charge in the DNA revolution, Anne Wojcicki, our CEO and
co-founder, is named the "most daring CEO in America".

 

 

Here's what I don't get.  Suppose you start a company and it succeeds
wildly, and is worth, say ten miiilllllion bucks!  Oh my, aren't you proud,
and you take such good care of your 10 millllllion dollar company that you
formed.  

 

OK now suppose you are Mrs. Google, or even the ex-Mrs. Google and you have
a couple billion clams from a generous ex.  Don't you think that gigabuck or
two would have some impact on your attitude towards your 10 megabuck
company?  

 

For instance, suppose the government is giving you a big hassle about
practicing medicine when you aren't practicing medicine at all.  You are
reporting the results of surveys freely given by your clients as
intentionally open crowd sourced science, matching results with others who
took the survey whose DNA markers match yours.  That isn't practicing
medicine.  The FDA has no say in what you do with survey results.  So you
feel justified in telling the government to go to hell.  Sure that's daring,
but having the billion dollars from another source would have to contribute
to that daring, ja?

 

If Anne Wojcicki were not independently wealthy, sure I would call her
daring.

 

spike  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140131/0774149e/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb  1 12:08:56 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 12:08:56 +0000
Subject: [ExI] most daring ceo?
In-Reply-To: <04bd01cf1f1d$bfc512b0$3f4f3810$@att.net>
References: <04bd01cf1f1d$bfc512b0$3f4f3810$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgRM-wBLAWBBzXPx5TDYjPAVviqadBfAMUFtjg2cDzJ6g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM, spike wrote:
> OCTOBER 2013
> Leading the charge in the DNA revolution, Anne Wojcicki, our CEO and
> co-founder, is named the "most daring CEO in America".
>
> For instance, suppose the government is giving you a big hassle about
> practicing medicine when you aren't practicing medicine at all.  You are
> reporting the results of surveys freely given by your clients as
> intentionally open crowd sourced science, matching results with others who
> took the survey whose DNA markers match yours.  That isn't practicing
> medicine.  The FDA has no say in what you do with survey results.  So you
> feel justified in telling the government to go to hell.  Sure that's daring,
> but having the billion dollars from another source would have to contribute
> to that daring, ja?
>
> If Anne Wojcicki were not independently wealthy, sure I would call her
> daring.
>



The Oct 2013 article is just a PR piece for 23andMe which doesn't even
mention the FDA or whether the tests provided worthwhile health
information. I don't see anybody else calling her a 'daring' CEO.

23andMe are now selling their spit kit as providing mainly genealogy
data. They still provide their DNA test results but without any health
recommendations. So customers now have to take the results to a doctor
and ask them whether having gene XYZ has much significance. And given
the present state of knowledge, every doctor probably has a different
opinion. (Which, of course, is why the FDA is concerned).

>From Wojcicki's POV though, it doesn't much matter. Her objective for
the company is to collect over 25 million test DNA results and do 'big
data' health analysis to find correlations to enable disease
prevention.
Selling the tests for genealogy only, saves 23and Me money as they no
longer provide the health reports and they still collect the data they
want for their database collection. So long as the tests keep selling
and the data collection continues, I doubt if she is much worried.


BillK


From tara at taramayastales.com  Sat Feb  1 18:52:56 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:52:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaMRWcAaPwe1EG7FLD6+aLZdwJaNevXE8VFpzT-BAPvPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbBr3kSkBFNBYpBD_n=8M-EWmZDTTXmLLKUrwM2-jhGLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D0D4330DA50CB7-24FC-4E9@webmail-d132.sysops.aol.com>
 <CAO+xQEaMRWcAaPwe1EG7FLD6+aLZdwJaNevXE8VFpzT-BAPvPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53DF703B-BAEE-42E8-866C-11AE8A4E6B3C@taramayastales.com>

You might want to consider if you are creating a race of Mary Sues.

http://www.springhole.net/writing/marysuerace.htm


Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:44 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Keep in mind that all humans have the same genes except for outward appearance.  All 'evil' types are long gone.  There is a movement towards reducing the population to two people, like Eden because of a massive guilt complex.  It is felt that humans have spoiled the planet (in fact cleanup is still underway with billions of robots in the oceans etc. cleaning up chemicals).  So they want to redesign man so that this will never happen again.  They are so fervent that it is almost like a religion.
> 
> All work towards this goal.  In their past when someone wasn't 'with the program' their genes were cast out of the mix.  In fact, including a person's genes in the mix is the ultimate reward, though now all are the same.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140201/87af51a3/attachment.html>

From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Sat Feb  1 19:21:16 2014
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 14:21:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] [Exl] Stem cell breakthrough
Message-ID: <CAMdUVLwBZ9X9mjeGz4D8-Yi2SRNtpT+FWpaJE7SyDeNXKOyWgw@mail.gmail.com>

In a PBS interview with one of the lead researchers for this study, he
describes the process as serial delivery of stem cells. I get the
impression that this too is a novel approach.

"If you look at any vital organs, your heart, your lungs, your liver, your
kidneys, you only need about 20 percent function in any of those organs to
survive. So when people go into kidney failure or lung failure, it's
because they are down to less than 20 percent function. They may be down to
10 percent.

So rather than building an entire new kidney or entire new lung, which is a
noble cause, and I think will be achieved some day, why not start with
delivering cells to those injured tissues, those diseased tissues, and see
if you can boost the function back up over 25 percent? And now you can live
a normal, healthy life.

So, I think the first applications will be not growing new tissue, but
boosting existing tissue function."

From:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/researchers-make-stem-cell-discovery-by-studying-tissue-stress-and-repair/

-Henry


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 19:17, *William Flynn Wallace* <foozler83 at
gmail.com> wrote:

>What stem cells will eventually do is to replace defective cells in our
>organs so we can keep them and not have to replace them.  We will have an
>all new heart that was created inside our own body, not grown in a lab. As
>for cancers, we will create bacteria and viruses in the lab that will go
>everywhere our blood goes and kill cancer cells.  (That is, until we can
>redesign the immune system to do this automatically.)  bill


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com
<http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat>> wrote:

>* You could replace organs if you knew how to make them, which may rule out
*>* replacing the brain...at first, anyway.
*>>* And then there are issues which do not narrow down to single organ
*>* replacement, such as cancer or most diseases.
*>>* But the big issue is going to be making it affordable.  Health care
*>* already has major problems there.
*>* On Jan 30, 2014 3:10 AM, "Henry Rivera" <hrivera at
alumni.virginia.edu
<http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat>>
*>* wrote:
*>>>* Have you heard about
this?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25917270
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25917270>
*>>>>* If we are able to mass produce stem cells, and there is no religious
*>>* opposition about embryos at play, shouldn't we be able to replace/refresh
*>>* all our organs including our skin indefinitely? Is this the soon-to-come
*>>* viable route to longevity if not immortality?! Someone here has thought
*>>* about this before, I'm sure. School me please. Thanks in advance.
*>>* -Henry
*>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140201/4cc8b5f0/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun Feb  2 01:11:01 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 19:11:01 -0600
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <53DF703B-BAEE-42E8-866C-11AE8A4E6B3C@taramayastales.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbBr3kSkBFNBYpBD_n=8M-EWmZDTTXmLLKUrwM2-jhGLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D0D4330DA50CB7-24FC-4E9@webmail-d132.sysops.aol.com>
 <CAO+xQEaMRWcAaPwe1EG7FLD6+aLZdwJaNevXE8VFpzT-BAPvPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53DF703B-BAEE-42E8-866C-11AE8A4E6B3C@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the Mary Sue link.  A lot like my characters except mine don't
make babies nor carry them.  It does question whether having a world filled
with nothing but geniuses is dull.  No underclasses to make non-PC jokes
about.  But that's one of the points of my book - let's make everyone
perfect and see what happens.   bill


On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

> You might want to consider if you are creating a race of Mary Sues.
>
> http://www.springhole.net/writing/marysuerace.htm
>
>
> Tara Maya
> Blog <http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/>  |  Twitter<https://twitter.com/taramayastales>  |
>  Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unfinished-Song-Epic-Fantasy/310271375658211?ref=hl>  |
>  Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Tara-Maya/e/B004HAI038/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1349796143&sr=8-2-ent>  |
>  Goodreads <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2951879.Tara_Maya>
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:44 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that all humans have the same genes except for outward
> appearance.  All 'evil' types are long gone.  There is a movement towards
> reducing the population to two people, like Eden because of a massive guilt
> complex.  It is felt that humans have spoiled the planet (in fact cleanup
> is still underway with billions of robots in the oceans etc. cleaning up
> chemicals).  So they want to redesign man so that this will never happen
> again.  They are so fervent that it is almost like a religion.
>
> All work towards this goal.  In their past when someone wasn't 'with the
> program' their genes were cast out of the mix.  In fact, including a
> person's genes in the mix is the ultimate reward, though now all are the
> same.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140201/566b809e/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Sun Feb  2 17:46:55 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 09:46:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbBr3kSkBFNBYpBD_n=8M-EWmZDTTXmLLKUrwM2-jhGLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D0D4330DA50CB7-24FC-4E9@webmail-d132.sysops.aol.com>
 <CAO+xQEaMRWcAaPwe1EG7FLD6+aLZdwJaNevXE8VFpzT-BAPvPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53DF703B-BAEE-42E8-866C-11AE8A4E6B3C@taramayastales.com>
 <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11BF9C41-F8CC-4550-B025-39348502BCE3@taramayastales.com>



On Feb 1, 2014, at 5:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But that's one of the points of my book - let's make everyone perfect and see what happens.   bill


Ah, well if that's the premise, then you're justified in having perfect people. Maybe you could even name one of them Mary or Marty Sue as a wink to the reader. If you like those kinds of internal jokes.  :)

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Feb 1, 2014, at 5:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But that's one of the points of my book - let's make everyone perfect and see what happens.   bill
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:
> You might want to consider if you are creating a race of Mary Sues.
> 
> http://www.springhole.net/writing/marysuerace.htm
> 
> 
> Tara Maya
> Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:44 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Keep in mind that all humans have the same genes except for outward appearance.  All 'evil' types are long gone.  There is a movement towards reducing the population to two people, like Eden because of a massive guilt complex.  It is felt that humans have spoiled the planet (in fact cleanup is still underway with billions of robots in the oceans etc. cleaning up chemicals).  So they want to redesign man so that this will never happen again.  They are so fervent that it is almost like a religion.
>> 
>> All work towards this goal.  In their past when someone wasn't 'with the program' their genes were cast out of the mix.  In fact, including a person's genes in the mix is the ultimate reward, though now all are the same.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140202/b57224d4/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun Feb  2 18:53:59 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 13:53:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <3852325592-5687@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAO+xQEYqMczq5zV9FCD1N_wv1jyiwyn1DmTsZkPPPkVSt0eJQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3852325592-5687@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3C5mpsKcKH7QN2Wk8y9j=osVJo5LupW0tnHYv2XqpJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> the stretch between "awesome in the lab" to "in a clinic near you" is
> very long.
>

Boy is that ever true! We know astronomically more biology than we did in
1960, but medicine has advanced only very very slightly in all that time.
The biggest "recent" advance in medicine, antibiotics,  happened over 50
years ago, and improved sanitation and anesthesia over a century ago. After
that it's mostly been a few slight tweaks here and there. Very
disappointing.

John K Clark

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25917270>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140202/d1bf2c05/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Sun Feb  2 19:10:08 2014
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:10:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3C5mpsKcKH7QN2Wk8y9j=osVJo5LupW0tnHYv2XqpJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEYqMczq5zV9FCD1N_wv1jyiwyn1DmTsZkPPPkVSt0eJQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3852325592-5687@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAJPayv3C5mpsKcKH7QN2Wk8y9j=osVJo5LupW0tnHYv2XqpJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52EE9810.2080604@canonizer.com>


I've been diabetic for over 30 years now.  The entire time, more now 
than ever, I constantly hear: "They'll probably have a cure for diabetes 
in about 5 years.

On 2/2/2014 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>     > the stretch between "awesome in the lab" to "in a clinic near
>     you" is very long.
>
>
> Boy is that ever true! We know astronomically more biology than we did 
> in 1960, but medicine has advanced only very very slightly in all that 
> time. The biggest "recent" advance in medicine, antibiotics,  happened 
> over 50 years ago, and improved sanitation and anesthesia over a 
> century ago. After that it's mostly been a few slight tweaks here and 
> there. Very disappointing.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140202/3151b87d/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb  3 01:43:43 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 02:43:43 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <52EE9810.2080604@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <4116502742-12204@secure.ericade.net>

Again, while progress is annoyingly slow it is *also* fast. Ulcers went from chronic to easily curable in a jiffy. When my dad got MS there was not much anybody can do; today a close relative is getting immune treatments and things look very good. Same thing with preventing HIV turning into AIDS. IVF went from outrageous to standard in a decade. Same thing for heart transplants.?
Predictions in medicine for when we will have a cure for X are likely bad unless we have figured out the cause of X and found a worthwhile method in the lab. The reason is that there is not much expertise to be found for predicting cures: there is no good feedback making the proclaimer learn from their mistakes and successes, there is no underlying theory to guide them, and the problem is not decomposable into any manageable chunks that can be analysed. Plus of course a fair deal of optimism bias. Looking at a group is unlikely to give much extra information. (See the Armstrong-Sotala AI prediction papers for more on this applied to AI).

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University


Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> , 2/2/2014 8:12 PM:
                   
       I've been diabetic for over 30 years now.? The entire time, more       now than ever, I constantly hear: "They'll probably have a cure       for diabetes in about 5 years.
       
       On 2/2/2014 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
                 
         On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Anders           Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>           wrote:
                        
                            > the stretch between "awesome in the lab" to "in                 a clinic near you" is very long.                           
                          Boy is that ever true! We know astronomically more               biology than we did in 1960, but medicine has advanced               only very very slightly in all that time. The biggest               "recent" advance in medicine, antibiotics,? happened over               50 years ago, and improved sanitation and anesthesia over               a century ago. After that it's mostly been a few slight               tweaks here and there. Very disappointing. ? 
               
                          John K Clark
                          
                          
                                   
                       
              
       _______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
          
    

_______________________________________________ 
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/4a554100/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb  3 01:59:44 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 02:59:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace?<foozler83 at gmail.com>?, 2/2/2014 2:15 AM:
?It does question whether having a world filled with nothing but geniuses is dull. ?
I think we can apply Nick Bostrom's reversal test to this: would a world with no geniuses be less dull? The answer is pretty clearly no.
Maybe the lack of difference is the issue, but I don't think so. Compare the discussions, games or parties you get from a very smart crowd versus a dull crowd. If we just look at what bright or dull people do with their social interactions I think it is clear that the brights at least do not tend to be boring on average. Yes, some of them are snobs or bores (after all, social skill is not strongly correlated with intelligence), but intellectual flexibility goes a long way to make you interesting. It also allows you to expand your interests in numerous ways, while the dullard has few avenues to entertainment and tends to be parochial in their interests.
If we also assumed the geniuses were social geniuses the dullness would be even less plausible. Imagine a world where everybody were a potentially scintillating conversationalist: you would not cut it by just doing Oscar Wilde bon mots, you would need to develop your own totally different style. Might be exceedingly hard to write or imagine, but since good conversationalism is all about figuring out how to be interesting in a given context, we should almost by definition expect it to lead to interesting parties even when all participants are great at it. Bad conversationalists are interesting only in the right (narrow) circumstances and cannot adapt.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/6de5916f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Feb  3 02:28:40 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:28:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg

 

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 2/2/2014 2:15 AM:

 It does question whether having a world filled with nothing but geniuses is dull.  

 

I think we can apply Nick Bostrom's reversal test to this: would a world with no geniuses be less dull? The answer is pretty clearly no?Maybe the lack of difference is the issue, but I don't think so. Compare the discussions, games or parties you get from a very smart crowd versus a dull crowd?social skill is not strongly correlated with intelligence? Bad conversationalists are interesting only in the right (narrow) circumstances and cannot adapt.  Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University?

 

 

Excellent observations, Anders.  I went to a dinner party last night hosted by Robin Hanson.  It was the most fun a person could have with their clothes on.  I loooove Robin?s friends!  A great time was had by all.  The party lasted over three hours, and even then, only broke up because Robin and his bride had an engagement the next day.

 

I have heard it said that intelligence correlates negatively with social skills, but I would dispute that notion.  It might be a factor of how one defines social skills.  When brights get with their own, the range and depth of conversation is astonishing.

 

It is possible that the Mensa crowd actually has more total areas of interest and expertise, but fewer that intersect with more mainstream people.  So from the point of view of the mainstreamer, the Mensan is dull and disengaged.

 

For instance, last night at Robin?s party, I sat next to a young mathematician.  I showed him the Mrs. Claus problem.  If one has zero tools for solving the Mrs. Claus problem, one is unlikely to take any interest in it.  This case remains a singular example of a case where I was able to do the calculus, but the algebra reduced me to the shameful numerical solution.  Oh the mortifying indignity, the disgraceful humiliation!  The young mathematician and I had a most animated discussion.  Such fun!

 

On the other hand, I couldn?t tell you who was playing in today?s annual football championship bowl.  Perhaps I am dull and disengaged in mainstream stuff.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140202/eea1ac6e/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 16:07:13 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:07:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
 <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiQ2h3sH54i-ee+w4LM4XR8Yn_akstLEF8N4-jtVA00Pw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:28 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> On the other hand, I couldn?t tell you who was playing in today?s annual
> football championship bowl.  Perhaps I am dull and disengaged in mainstream
> stuff.

### So there was a football championship bowl yesterday? Ah, this is
why some people had funny markings painted on their faces!

This is why I love ExI - you learn all kinds of cool stuff here.

Rafal



From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  3 20:37:19 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:37:19 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1391169602.27441.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1391169602.27441.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52EFFDFF.8010009@yahoo.com>

Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

 > if you need surgery to connect them to the body you are going to do 
risky cutting and anaesthesia
...
 > Bodies are messy, complex environments that rarely are modular enough 
to allow magic bullets or neat replacement

So what's the solution to that?  Keep the messy, non-modular, 
ridiculously complex design, and figure out better and better ways to 
cut it, stitch it, numb it etc., or do a redesign of the whole damn 
thing, to make replacement and repair something that is part of the plan?

I'm convinced that a lot of the complexity of our bodies is not only 
unnecessary, but dangerous.  It's no wonder that we start falling apart 
after a few decades, and that when things do go wrong, we can't fix them 
without doing more damage to an already damaged body.  Most current 
medical practice seems to be the equivalent of thumping a malfunctioning 
tv in the hope that it will make things better, and the more advanced 
techniques might involve poking a screwdriver in a handy hole and 
wiggling it about.  The more adventurous researchers seem to have 
ambitions to develop methods to repair dodgy microchips, or re-solder 
circuit boards.  Nobody seems to be thinking of figuring out how to 
rebuild the thing so that faulty parts can be easily and quickly removed 
and replaced.  The sooner we stop thinking of the body as something 
magical and sacred, and start regarding it as what it is - a complex 
machine - the better, imo.

Stem cells will have their place, no doubt, and should be useful when we 
learn to build organs and tissues to order, but they aren't magic 
bullets.  There are no magic bullets.

Ben Zaiboc


From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 21:02:23 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:02:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiQ2h3sH54i-ee+w4LM4XR8Yn_akstLEF8N4-jtVA00Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
 <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiQ2h3sH54i-ee+w4LM4XR8Yn_akstLEF8N4-jtVA00Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSXGMcdV84EPq9W8Z43A8v9xzGy1R877Pa_xVK6saGeOg@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 3, 2014 8:09 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> ### So there was a football championship bowl yesterday? Ah, this is
> why some people had funny markings painted on their faces!

I only found out when sine contacts I was to meet with pointed it out.  But
apparently this year's game was of low quality, by the standards of those
who follow it, as one of the teams performed quite poorly.

> This is why I love ExI - you learn all kinds of cool stuff here.

Agreed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/dc986306/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 21:08:44 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:08:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <52EFFDFF.8010009@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1391169602.27441.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52EFFDFF.8010009@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSYfkEYB0wgFzCMbxViVv42sGMenXXfj+zHKSmwNdZwrg@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 3, 2014 12:53 PM, "Ben" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm convinced that a lot of the complexity of our bodies is not only
unnecessary, but dangerous.  It's no wonder that we start falling apart
after a few decades, and that when things do go wrong, we can't fix them
without doing more damage to an already damaged body.  Most current medical
practice seems to be the equivalent of thumping a malfunctioning tv in the
hope that it will make things better, and the more advanced techniques
might involve poking a screwdriver in a handy hole and wiggling it about.
 The more adventurous researchers seem to have ambitions to develop methods
to repair dodgy microchips, or re-solder circuit boards.  Nobody seems to
be thinking of figuring out how to rebuild the thing so that faulty parts
can be easily and quickly removed and replaced.  The sooner we stop
thinking of the body as something magical and sacred, and start regarding
it as what it is - a complex machine - the better, imo.

Problem is, try to actually design and build the modular architecture you
are talking about, of equal range of functions as the human body, and have
it running for many years without high maintenance.  It is not as easy as
you imagine.

And then there is the problem of moving people from their current bodies to
this new architecture.

Replacing organs individually looks to be a lot more achievable.  If done
for all or most organs, in theory it even yields the same end result.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/5913e5c5/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 21:27:50 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:27:50 -0600
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSXGMcdV84EPq9W8Z43A8v9xzGy1R877Pa_xVK6saGeOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net> <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiQ2h3sH54i-ee+w4LM4XR8Yn_akstLEF8N4-jtVA00Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSXGMcdV84EPq9W8Z43A8v9xzGy1R877Pa_xVK6saGeOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbNMi76067QwmzgeL793nUw2BvhmHbcOH_+6otD+zgtSg@mail.gmail.com>

Somewhat embarrassed here. The psychologist here just missed out on
including social intelligence in my book, if you can believe that.  The far
future babies get training early on in recognition of facial and body
language emotions, but somehow the social part just didn't get included.

Of course, any genetic part of social IQ is included in the genome.

And, as you say 'of course' that geniuses will be far, far from dull to
each other.  No one can know everything (except the Big Computer) and so
conversation can be as lively as Earth ever saw.  New tech, new music, new
ideas about the genomes of all the plants and animals.....endlessly
interesting.  I wish I could really go there.  bill


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 3, 2014 8:09 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ### So there was a football championship bowl yesterday? Ah, this is
> > why some people had funny markings painted on their faces!
>
> I only found out when sine contacts I was to meet with pointed it out.
> But apparently this year's game was of low quality, by the standards of
> those who follow it, as one of the teams performed quite poorly.
>
> > This is why I love ExI - you learn all kinds of cool stuff here.
>
> Agreed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/2a59e92b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 21:30:48 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:30:48 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSYfkEYB0wgFzCMbxViVv42sGMenXXfj+zHKSmwNdZwrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1391169602.27441.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52EFFDFF.8010009@yahoo.com>
 <CALAdGNSYfkEYB0wgFzCMbxViVv42sGMenXXfj+zHKSmwNdZwrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEao20Y4+K8T+p78bghjyXeTMxc+-GZ4s98ti-Gks9yabg@mail.gmail.com>

If, as I have suggested, stem cells can be put into our bodies and start to
replace our cells with new cells, not tired old copies of the old ones,
then there is no need for moving a person to the new 'architechture'.
Everything is replaced in situ.  bill


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 3, 2014 12:53 PM, "Ben" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm convinced that a lot of the complexity of our bodies is not only
> unnecessary, but dangerous.  It's no wonder that we start falling apart
> after a few decades, and that when things do go wrong, we can't fix them
> without doing more damage to an already damaged body.  Most current medical
> practice seems to be the equivalent of thumping a malfunctioning tv in the
> hope that it will make things better, and the more advanced techniques
> might involve poking a screwdriver in a handy hole and wiggling it about.
>  The more adventurous researchers seem to have ambitions to develop methods
> to repair dodgy microchips, or re-solder circuit boards.  Nobody seems to
> be thinking of figuring out how to rebuild the thing so that faulty parts
> can be easily and quickly removed and replaced.  The sooner we stop
> thinking of the body as something magical and sacred, and start regarding
> it as what it is - a complex machine - the better, imo.
>
> Problem is, try to actually design and build the modular architecture you
> are talking about, of equal range of functions as the human body, and have
> it running for many years without high maintenance.  It is not as easy as
> you imagine.
>
> And then there is the problem of moving people from their current bodies
> to this new architecture.
>
> Replacing organs individually looks to be a lot more achievable.  If done
> for all or most organs, in theory it even yields the same end result.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/ffcb5f27/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  4 00:16:46 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:16:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Man prints 3D printer with 3D printer
Message-ID: <083172EF-A39A-44AB-B964-B0C64CE718B3@yahoo.com>

http://thelapine.ca/man-with-3-d-printer-prints-3-d-printer-that-prints-3-d-printer-that-prints-3-d-printer/

Regards,

Dan
 Three of my Kindle "books" will be free until midnight PST: 
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Dan%20Ust&page=1&rh=n%3A133140011%2Cp_27%3ADan%20Ust
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/2527eaa8/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 00:33:39 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:33:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Man prints 3D printer with 3D printer
In-Reply-To: <083172EF-A39A-44AB-B964-B0C64CE718B3@yahoo.com>
References: <083172EF-A39A-44AB-B964-B0C64CE718B3@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSTYrnWKs3yodxZKt8KL-zHH1AJYxfjfm7QRisszzC8yg@mail.gmail.com>

Unfortunately, that appears to be a parody site.
On Feb 3, 2014 4:31 PM, "Dan Ust" <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> http://thelapine.ca/man-with-3-d-printer-prints-3-d-printer-that-prints-3-d-printer-that-prints-3-d-printer/
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>  Three of my Kindle "books" will be free until midnight PST:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Dan%20Ust&page=1&rh=n%3A133140011%2Cp_27%3ADan%20Ust
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/cabe242c/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 01:29:11 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 18:29:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Man prints 3D printer with 3D printer
In-Reply-To: <083172EF-A39A-44AB-B964-B0C64CE718B3@yahoo.com>
References: <083172EF-A39A-44AB-B964-B0C64CE718B3@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY19zkadAP1F7JW9Ab-577UOdRbFv2QJ9=Y_KZyXwZcLg@mail.gmail.com>

Funny, but it is true that most 3D printers have PARTS that are printed on
other 3D printers.

-Kelly


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Dan Ust <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> http://thelapine.ca/man-with-3-d-printer-prints-3-d-printer-that-prints-3-d-printer-that-prints-3-d-printer/
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>  Three of my Kindle "books" will be free until midnight PST:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Dan%20Ust&page=1&rh=n%3A133140011%2Cp_27%3ADan%20Ust
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/8940881d/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 06:22:58 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:22:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3C5mpsKcKH7QN2Wk8y9j=osVJo5LupW0tnHYv2XqpJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEYqMczq5zV9FCD1N_wv1jyiwyn1DmTsZkPPPkVSt0eJQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3852325592-5687@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAJPayv3C5mpsKcKH7QN2Wk8y9j=osVJo5LupW0tnHYv2XqpJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwa2beEgFx58dPqmqpnbcGr0x73Ep=hWossF8ZL41SBXTQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> > the stretch between "awesome in the lab" to "in a clinic near you" is
>> very long.
>>
>
> Boy is that ever true! We know astronomically more biology than we did in
> 1960, but medicine has advanced only very very slightly in all that time.
> The biggest "recent" advance in medicine, antibiotics,  happened over 50
> years ago, and improved sanitation and anesthesia over a century ago. After
> that it's mostly been a few slight tweaks here and there. Very
> disappointing.
>

I wonder how much of this is the science, and how much can be blamed on the
bureaucracy, or the expense of anticipating bureaucracy to be traversed?

If the government ever does get full control of health care, will that mean
that since they can't be sued for messing up that we may see more daring
medicine? Or will it mean ever slower delivery of new medical
breakthroughs? Only time will tell, but I'll bet on freedom every time.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/791dc6c0/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 06:40:48 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:40:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
 <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwaDaQdOm4sYbo6FXV1ET9VToHzOJ_ptn3EyDjw6GKzuxA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:28 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> It does question whether having a world filled with nothing but geniuses
> is dull.
>

I think dull has little to do with intelligence. It does have something to
do with creativity which is peripherally related.

I think we can apply Nick Bostrom's reversal test to this: would a world
> with no geniuses be less dull? The answer is pretty clearly no...Maybe the
> lack of difference is the issue, but I don't think so. Compare the
> discussions, games or parties you get from a very smart crowd versus a dull
> crowd...social skill is not strongly correlated with intelligence... Bad
> conversationalists are interesting only in the right (narrow) circumstances
> and cannot adapt.  Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute
> Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University...
>

Certainly there are types of activities, games and parties that go better
with intelligent people, but adventurous people are even more interesting.
The yahoos on youtube jumping off of their parent's roof onto a trampoline,
doing a double front flip, then dunking a basketball in a floating hoop
prior to splashing into the pool are not especially dull. Even more
entertaining when they smash their not so intelligent heads on the
basketball rim in the outtake reel.

I can't see Anders doing that sort of thing. Does that make him dull by
some measure?


> Excellent observations, Anders.  I went to a dinner party last night
> hosted by Robin Hanson.  It was the most fun a person could have with their
> clothes on.
>

And there's another thing. Why the heck would you WANT to leave your
clothes on? Much fun can be had without them I hear.


> I loooove Robin's friends!  A great time was had by all.  The party lasted
> over three hours, and even then, only broke up because Robin and his bride
> had an engagement the next day.
>

A three hour party. That's just the warm up, isn't it?


> I have heard it said that intelligence correlates negatively with social
> skills, but I would dispute that notion.  It might be a factor of how one
> defines social skills.  When brights get with their own, the range and
> depth of conversation is astonishing.
>

If stimulating conversation were the only form of entertainment, then yes.
But then every movie would look like "Vanya on 42nd Street" which put me to
sleep a record 4 times before I could finish it.


> It is possible that the Mensa crowd actually has more total areas of
> interest and expertise, but fewer that intersect with more mainstream
> people.  So from the point of view of the mainstreamer, the Mensan is dull
> and disengaged.
>

Yes. Because the mainstream finds joy in schadenfreude, especially when the
sufferer is one of the Mensa crowd. Most mainstreamers would be happy to
string up the Mensa crowd right after the lawyers and politicians. Little
do they realize how much they owe to the masters of intellect.


> For instance, last night at Robin's party, I sat next to a young
> mathematician.  I showed him the Mrs. Claus problem.  If one has zero tools
> for solving the Mrs. Claus problem, one is unlikely to take any interest in
> it.  This case remains a singular example of a case where I was able to do
> the calculus, but the algebra reduced me to the shameful numerical
> solution.  Oh the mortifying indignity, the disgraceful humiliation!  The
> young mathematician and I had a most animated discussion.  Such fun!
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I couldn't tell you who was playing in today's annual
> football championship bowl.  Perhaps I am dull and disengaged in mainstream
> stuff.
>

I usually don't know who's playing until the game starts, if I watch it at
all. I do like the shiny commercials, and I am amused by the increasing use
of graphics, great directional microphones and really high quality image
processing. But then I'm not as smart as Spike. I certainly would not find
calculus to be an interesting dinner time conversation starter.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/0e48651d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb  4 07:17:06 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:17:06 -0800
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwaDaQdOm4sYbo6FXV1ET9VToHzOJ_ptn3EyDjw6GKzuxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
 <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwaDaQdOm4sYbo6FXV1ET9VToHzOJ_ptn3EyDjw6GKzuxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <027f01cf2179$1d1c7f40$57557dc0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
.

 

>. I do like the shiny commercials, and I am amused by the increasing use of
graphics, great directional microphones and really high quality image
processing.

 

Isn't it cool?  You have that air time worth all that money, such creative
effort goes into that 30 second video.  Note how much content goes into it.
Astonishing!  This development goes to something I have been watching for
decades: how video games and internet have trained our minds to take in data
at a much higher rate than before.

 

Test: if we could get video of Superbowl ads from 40 years ago and compare
them to today, we would find it striking how slow was the pace they spent
that expensive time four decades ago.  We can deal with info at twice the
pace today.  This is so cool, and at the same time a source of vague worry.
The whole notion merits further thought.

 

>.But then I'm not as smart as Spike.

 

You are far too modest sir.

 

>. I certainly would not find calculus to be an interesting dinner time
conversation starter.  -Kelly

 

Kelly it was a really cool interesting calculus problem.  I learned so much.
I stumped two college math professors, and posed it to a third who isn't
busted yet.  I managed to do the calculus, then get hopelessly tangled up in
the algebra!  But the computer came to my rescue: I found a numerical
solution using a Monte Carlo technique.  Never did get a closed form
solution.

 

Aside: it was really a conversation opener, but rather a continuer.   My
pleasant young interlocutor said he was a professor of mathematics.

 

Here's the form I posed the problem to my former college roommate and a
mutual friend, both of which are math professors:

 

Mrs Claus comes home early and catches Santa in the act!  Rather than slay
the cheating skunk on the spot, thus depriving children all over the world
of Christmas joy, she extracts her revenge by grabbing up all their clothes
and stomping out of the igloo with every stitch of cloth in the entire icy
abode.  She tosses the clothing into the sleigh and departs northward with
the traditional ".on Dancer, on Prancer." etc.  

 

Knowing "Saint" Nick and his sleazy little vixen cannot flee in their
current state of undress (fatal within minutes in this frigid setting) she
calls the elves on her cell phone, inviting them over for a little surprise.


 

She sets off due north, but cannot continue on this course for there is a
toy factory in the way, so she turns right pi/2 and maintains an easterly
heading.

 

If Mrs. Claus travels 4 km north, then 3 km east, what is the maximum
distance she can be from the igloo?

 

If you manage that one, what is the general optimized equation, in terms of
S km from start after travelling N km north and E km east?

 

By numerical methods I have discovered a remarkable answer, but I still
can't explain it.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140203/8300bc3c/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 07:37:20 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 00:37:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <027f01cf2179$1d1c7f40$57557dc0$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEZsv5bt1L-++u5EYa=L1f+WjpzhKZAoVChKQunaqi6V=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4117464625-2362@secure.ericade.net>
 <012a01cf2087$a75f05d0$f61d1170$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwaDaQdOm4sYbo6FXV1ET9VToHzOJ_ptn3EyDjw6GKzuxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <027f01cf2179$1d1c7f40$57557dc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYsWnavbXueSVSpmVQ+zuS6men2QPCmNHS3dEa-92rsiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:17 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:
> extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Kelly Anderson
> *...*
>
>
>
> >... I do like the shiny commercials, and I am amused by the increasing use
> of graphics, great directional microphones and really high quality image
> processing...
>
>
>
> Isn't it cool?  You have that air time worth all that money, such creative
> effort goes into that 30 second video.  Note how much content goes into
> it.  Astonishing!  This development goes to something I have been watching
> for decades: how video games and internet have trained our minds to take in
> data at a much higher rate than before.
>

Yes, I totally agree.


> Test: if we could get video of Superbowl ads from 40 years ago and compare
> them to today, we would find it striking how slow was the pace they spent
> that expensive time four decades ago.  We can deal with info at twice the
> pace today.  This is so cool, and at the same time a source of vague
> worry.  The whole notion merits further thought.
>

I wonder if it is related to the attention span thing I was wondering about
the other day.


> >...But then I'm not as smart as Spike...
>
>
>
> You are far too modest sir.
>

Not at all.


> >... I certainly would not find calculus to be an interesting dinner time
> conversation starter.  -Kelly
>
>
>
> Kelly it was a really cool interesting calculus problem.  I learned so
> much.  I stumped two college math professors, and posed it to a third who
> isn't busted yet.  I managed to do the calculus, then get hopelessly
> tangled up in the algebra!  But the computer came to my rescue: I found a
> numerical solution using a Monte Carlo technique.  Never did get a closed
> form solution.
>
>
>
> Aside: it was really a conversation opener, but rather a continuer.   My
> pleasant young interlocutor said he was a professor of mathematics.
>

It's always nice to be able to bust the balls of a math professor with a
mathematics problem. I can see the entertainment value in that. I just
don't know enough math to know what a hard problem it would be.


> Here's the form I posed the problem to my former college roommate and a
> mutual friend, both of which are math professors:
>
>
>
> Mrs Claus comes home early and catches Santa in the act!  Rather than slay
> the cheating skunk on the spot, thus depriving children all over the world
> of Christmas joy, she extracts her revenge by grabbing up all their clothes
> and stomping out of the igloo with every stitch of cloth in the entire icy
> abode.  She tosses the clothing into the sleigh and departs northward with
> the traditional "...on Dancer, on Prancer..." etc.
>
>
>
> Knowing "Saint" Nick and his sleazy little vixen cannot flee in their
> current state of undress (fatal within minutes in this frigid setting) she
> calls the elves on her cell phone, inviting them over for a little
> surprise.
>
>
>
> She sets off due north, but cannot continue on this course for there is a
> toy factory in the way, so she turns right pi/2 and maintains an easterly
> heading.
>
>
>
> If Mrs. Claus travels 4 km north, then 3 km east, what is the maximum
> distance she can be from the igloo?
>
>
>
> If you manage that one, what is the general optimized equation, in terms
> of S km from start after travelling N km north and E km east?
>
>
>
> By numerical methods I have discovered a remarkable answer, but I still
> can't explain it.
>
>
Knowing the right answer isn't always as interesting as knowing the right
way to find such an answer.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140204/09c95742/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  4 11:41:08 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 03:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <mailman.143.1391499448.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1391514068.19299.YahooMailBasic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>wrote:

>Problem is, try to actually design and build the modular architecture you
>are talking about, of equal range of functions as the human body, and have
>it running for many years without high maintenance.  It is not as easy as
>you imagine.
>
>And then there is the problem of moving people from their current bodies to
>this new architecture.
>
>Replacing organs individually looks to be a lot more achievable.  If done
>for all or most organs, in theory it even yields the same end result.


I don't imagine it will be easy, far from it, I'm well aware that it'll be very difficult.  What I am claiming is that it will be worthwhile.  The 'running for many years without high maintenance' is the heart of the matter.  The whole point is to make this 'high maintenance' possible, easy, and in the end, not-so-high.

Transitioning from current bodies to a new one will be another challenge.  Significant, but worth it.

Replacing organs individually is exactly what I want to achieve (organs, tissues, whole systems, as well as getting various other advantages), and this would be a lot easier if we didn't have to hack the body up in order to do it, then leave it to heal (provided you're in a fit state to survive the process).  The end result would be far from the same.  It would be like the difference between Uncle Tom's Cabin and a modern trailer home, or a massive program written in Basic and the same program written in Java.  They do the same job, but one is a lot better at it than the other.

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

>If, as I have suggested, stem cells can be put into our bodies and start to
>replace our cells with new cells, not tired old copies of the old ones,
>then there is no need for moving a person to the new 'architechture'.
>Everything is replaced in situ.

This won't solve problems like accumulations of things like lipofuscins, and it won't mean you recover any quicker from a broken arm (or suffer any less while it's healing).  And it doesn't represent an upgrade path.  Simply shoring up the same tired old kludge will probably work, for a while, but it's not good enough.  Not by a long way.  This is supposed to be the Extropians list, not the Let's-Keep-Things-The-Same, Nature-Knows-Best list.

This is probably one of the very few places I could say this, but stem-cell therapy strikes me as a conservative, limited and temporary solution to the problem of ageing bodies.  They are a useful component, yes, but not a complete solution in themselves.

Ben Zaiboc



From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  4 11:46:48 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 03:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <mailman.143.1391499448.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1391514408.10764.YahooMailBasic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Spike claimed:

"... so she turns right pi/2 ..."

Spike, NOBODY turns right pi/2  :D


"If Mrs. Claus travels 4 km north, then 3 km east, what is the maximum
distance she can be from the igloo?"

5km, because east is 90 deg. from north, and the ground is flat over such short distances, and if she started out less than 4km from the north pole, she'd get stuck there, according to those directions, because once you get to it, you can't go any farther north.

Ha!  Take that, maths-boy!

Ben Zaiboc



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb  4 17:23:03 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 09:23:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] mrs claus problem, was:  RE:  far future
Message-ID: <036201cf21cd$c39ea4c0$4adbee40$@att.net>

 

>. On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc



Spike claimed:  "... so she turns right pi/2 ..."

 

>.Spike, NOBODY turns right pi/2  :D

 

I do, nearly every day.

 

>>."If Mrs. Claus travels 4 km north, then 3 km east, what is the maximum
distance she can be from the igloo?"

 

>.5km, because east is 90 deg. from north, and the ground is flat over such
short distances, and if she started out less than 4km from the north pole,
she'd get stuck there, according to those directions, because once you get
to it, you can't go any farther north.

 

On the contrary, sir.  Read on please.

 

>.Ha!  Take that, maths-boy!  Ben Zaiboc

 

If the term "that" represents "the derivative of the distance function" I
did so.  I took the derivative, set it equal to zero, solved for theta.
Rather attempted to.  Note the figure below, with Mrs. Claus' path in red:

 

_______________________________________________

 

 



 

The challenge is to find theta such that the distance from start is
maximized given a path length of 7 (or the more general N+E).  I can get up
to about 6.274 km, with a theta of about 2.01695.  (This is about 115.56
degrees, for the degree fans among us.  Note that degrees are in short
supply in the north pole region, even in our current era of global warming,
and even if you can find some, most of them are negative.) 

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140204/64ddf8b7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 19883 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140204/64ddf8b7/attachment.obj>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 17:43:55 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:43:55 -0600
Subject: [ExI] far future
In-Reply-To: <1391514408.10764.YahooMailBasic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.143.1391499448.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1391514408.10764.YahooMailBasic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZaCmcm7Eh6P-yWXRRcE_9ZwegGm7NRsCKkw2e3DwXK4g@mail.gmail.com>

Anders is right.  Selecting for a more introverted personality pays several
dividends:  I (introverts) can focus longer, are less distracted (see
research on IRP - involuntary rest pauses - sometimes called brain
hiccups), and just generally are more serious people, in addition to being
smarter.  Extroverts (E) are the opposite.  Furthermore they tend to be the
ones jumping off things. NoDarwin's Awards for Is.  Extreme Es are out of
my far future gene pool.

Remember Time Bandits?  The scene with Napoleon:  "I just love seeing
little people running around and hitting one another."  This gene cluster
is gone.  Along with the one that gives us people who like Grand Theft
Auto.   bill




On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Spike claimed:
>
> "... so she turns right pi/2 ..."
>
> Spike, NOBODY turns right pi/2  :D
>
>
> "If Mrs. Claus travels 4 km north, then 3 km east, what is the maximum
> distance she can be from the igloo?"
>
> 5km, because east is 90 deg. from north, and the ground is flat over such
> short distances, and if she started out less than 4km from the north pole,
> she'd get stuck there, according to those directions, because once you get
> to it, you can't go any farther north.
>
> Ha!  Take that, maths-boy!
>
> Ben Zaiboc
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140204/9294e05a/attachment.html>

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Tue Feb  4 18:04:54 2014
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:04:54 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Man prints 3D printer with 3D printer
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwY19zkadAP1F7JW9Ab-577UOdRbFv2QJ9=Y_KZyXwZcLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <083172EF-A39A-44AB-B964-B0C64CE718B3@yahoo.com>
 <CAPy8RwY19zkadAP1F7JW9Ab-577UOdRbFv2QJ9=Y_KZyXwZcLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1402041749250.6929@tau.ceti.pl>

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> Funny, but it is true that most 3D printers have PARTS that are printed on
> other 3D printers.
> 
> -Kelly

But it doesn't really matter. I can print 99.99% of it on a printer, and 
still need to _buy_ a cpu and other electronics, because a printer without 
steering elements is just a - perhaps costly - decoration. And I guess I 
need some electric engines to actually move some parts, heads or plates. 
Looks like many people neglect importance of those elements, instead 
raving about how cool it is to 3d print of dumb bear figure, empty inside 
and totally passive.

For me, right now, 3d printing appeals to imagination, a lot, but it is 
just somewhat interesting. If I wanted a screw, I'd rather cnc-mill it 
from a piece of metal which parameters I could somehow control. 
Otherwise, there is a risk my screw will become a dust in certain not very 
stressing conditions. Now, I don't have a cnc and neither I have a place 
for it. But having a choice, I guess cnc is more practical and will remain 
so for quite few years.

I admit printing guns and pizzas sounds cool, even though I am not sure 
who would want to do this. But there is something fishy in this idea 
(fishy, like, guys who won't touch a hammer feeling sensations about 
think-do magic machine touching the hammer for them, so they don't even 
need to bother what hammer is). I'd like to see a printer which can do 
some non-trivial stuff. The easy nontrivial is block of core memory. AFAIK 
there is no printer capable of doing this... So maybe just one flip-flop 
circuit? No? The harder is electric engine, with good enough inner 
surfaces to work efficiently and smoothly. Ball bearings? Lol. Even 
printing buildings may be not so cool as it sounds. Depends of material. I 
like reinforced concrete - cheap and strong. I might also like fiberglass 
(not cool near supernova). But 3d printed? Only as strong as a glue, it 
seems.

I will change my mind when I see a bicycle, fully 3d printed and at least 
as good (comfortable, durable, but not necesarilly 1 to 1 replica) as my 
old one. But to convince me, something like adder/shifter and/or memory 
would be better :-). It may even be a size of my table, but not 
electromechanical, just electronic.

I freted about 3d printing myself, for a while, before I realised majority 
of things around me is complicated stuff built from many elements and 
materials of many properties (even something as simple as soil for my 
flowers). 3d printing has very very long way to go before I start freting 
again.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 23:51:53 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:51:53 +0000
Subject: [ExI] BBC Easter Island documentary
Message-ID: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>

I've just watched a 90 mins documentary reviewing the latest data on
Easter Island.

It claims that the Easter Island population was flourishing when first
contacted by the Dutch in 1722. But 50 years later, in 1774, Captain
Cook found some statues toppled and the population dying. Later slave
traders and smallpox almost completely destroyed the population.

It is a long video, but worth the time spent.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03srmm6/Easter_Island_Mysteries_of_a_Lost_World/>


BillK


From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 00:18:03 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:18:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <1391514068.19299.YahooMailBasic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.143.1391499448.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <1391514068.19299.YahooMailBasic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNR-Lhpg0o+UWK9mt2k3uYT5mwm6teDuCZC+cZObyRx8MA@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 4, 2014 3:56 AM, "Ben Zaiboc" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >Problem is, try to actually design and build the modular architecture you
> >are talking about, of equal range of functions as the human body, and
have
> >it running for many years without high maintenance.  It is not as easy as
> >you imagine.
> >
> >And then there is the problem of moving people from their current bodies
to
> >this new architecture.
> >
> >Replacing organs individually looks to be a lot more achievable.  If done
> >for all or most organs, in theory it even yields the same end result.
>
> I don't imagine it will be easy, far from it, I'm well aware that it'll
be very difficult.  What I am claiming is that it will be worthwhile.

There would be benefit, true.  What is being questioned is whether there
would be more benefits for the same cost than could be had by upgrading the
current infrastructure, organ by organ.

Besides, if we are redoing the entire body plan, why stick with an organic
body?  There are stronger things that can be made to self-heal.

> And it doesn't represent an upgrade path.

Actually it does.

> This is supposed to be the Extropians list, not the
Let's-Keep-Things-The-Same, Nature-Knows-Best list.

And this is the Extropians list.  But even here, we compare alternatives
and promote that which works best.

> This is probably one of the very few places I could say this, but
stem-cell therapy strikes me as a conservative, limited and temporary
solution to the problem of ageing bodies.  They are a useful component,
yes, but not a complete solution in themselves.

True.  But we have to start somewhere...and even if the redesign you
propose turns out to be the best solution, the path to it likely leads
through this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140204/3132cf81/attachment.html>

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Thu Feb  6 04:03:34 2014
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 23:03:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Source code for DARPA projects
Message-ID: <201402060502.s1651fCI024711@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

http://www.darpa.mil/OpenCatalog/index.html

DARPA launches a one-stop catalog to the source code for projects 
they've funded. Definitely one to bookmark and explore.


-- David.



From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 06:23:37 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:23:37 -0800
Subject: [ExI] lasers
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB5M0oYYZnd9OkTy3RwBh9q=vhA3crwwuXDWd8dVWdo9dg@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/january/140128-mst-lockheed-martin-demonstrates-weapons-grade-high-power-fiber-laser.html

Related, I have a 5 Mbyte power point file that I used to give a talk
on high throughput laser propulsion at the EUEC in Phoenix Tuesday.

If more than a few want so see it, I will figure out somewhere to post
it.  Or perhaps try to put it on Google drive.

Keith


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 15:50:09 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:50:09 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion talk at Utility conference
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7ajNfWh68bQ5asmtGhAB0-2XVGYpfgdM1ZhtPW4KneBA@mail.gmail.com>

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsWDlYQmJfNjVMaHJZRE5PS2xSclA3TFNmcGF3/edit?usp=sharing


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Feb  6 16:18:31 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:18:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion talk at Utility conference
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7ajNfWh68bQ5asmtGhAB0-2XVGYpfgdM1ZhtPW4KneBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7ajNfWh68bQ5asmtGhAB0-2XVGYpfgdM1ZhtPW4KneBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <032f01cf2357$14765520$3d62ff60$@att.net>


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsWDlYQmJfNjVMaHJZRE5PS2xSclA3TFN
mcGF3/edit?usp=sharing

_______________________________________________


Keith this is just wicked cool man, thanks!  spike





From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 06:29:41 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:29:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy0Kwy0cuoBpQeCc4-FaP6OH02SOQ6GLuTVaXt=S--7VSQ@mail.gmail.com>

There is a very talented young man by the name of Anders Sandberg, who
wrote a fascinating "food for thought" piece about an alternative shape for
the Earth, and how that would affect things...


http://io9.com/what-would-the-earth-be-like-if-it-was-the-shape-of-a-d-1515700296


John  ; )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140206/c2b9d07f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb  7 06:41:23 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:41:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <CAGSKFy0Kwy0cuoBpQeCc4-FaP6OH02SOQ6GLuTVaXt=S--7VSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGSKFy0Kwy0cuoBpQeCc4-FaP6OH02SOQ6GLuTVaXt=S--7VSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05bf01cf23cf$9ef543f0$dcdfcbd0$@att.net>

 

 

>. On Behalf Of John Grigg
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9

 

>.There is a very talented young man by the name of Anders Sandberg, who
wrote a fascinating "food for thought" piece about an alternative shape for
the Earth, and how that would affect things...


http://io9.com/what-would-the-earth-be-like-if-it-was-the-shape-of-a-d-15157
00296



 

Definitely a cool article.

 

In your sidebar you have that story about a power substation being attacked
by apparent terrorists.  That station is only a short drive south of here.
What I find interesting is that they kept it quiet at the time.  The story
leaked out a little at a time.  Puzzling.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140206/60238f54/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Feb  7 09:44:37 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:44:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <CAGSKFy0Kwy0cuoBpQeCc4-FaP6OH02SOQ6GLuTVaXt=S--7VSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <196426603-21825@secure.ericade.net>

John Grigg?<possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>?, 7/2/2014 7:34 AM:
There is a very talented young man by the name of Anders Sandberg, who wrote a fascinating "food for thought" piece about an alternative shape for the Earth, and how that would affect things...

http://io9.com/what-would-the-earth-be-like-if-it-was-the-shape-of-a-d-1515700296
Thanks for noticing. It was very fun to write and research. Unfortunately I failed at finding climate simulation code that could run in my toroidal geometry.?
Currently I am making a math paper (besides the things I *should* work on, of course) about the statistics of mistyping numbers. Here is a hint: if you randomly change a digit in a number, does it become larger, smaller or stay roughly the same?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/273bcb8c/attachment.html>

From test at ssec.wisc.edu  Fri Feb  7 13:56:30 2014
From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:56:30 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1391774401.22962.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1391774401.22962.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1402070749500.26359@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>

> From: Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Anders on io9
> . . .
> Currently I am making a math paper (besides the things I *should* work on, of course) about the statistics of mistyping numbers. Here is a hint: if you randomly change a digit in a number, does it become larger, smaller or stay roughly the same?

I think it becomes larger. Since randomly chosen
numbers scale geometrically small leading digits
are more likely. Random errors in small digits are
likely to make them larger.


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb  7 17:01:51 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:01:51 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <196426603-21825@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAGSKFy0Kwy0cuoBpQeCc4-FaP6OH02SOQ6GLuTVaXt=S--7VSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <196426603-21825@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <00b701cf2426$4c200dc0$e4602940$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] Anders on io9

 

>?Currently I am making a math paper (besides the things I *should* work on, of course) about the statistics of mistyping numbers. Here is a hint: if you randomly change a digit in a number, does it become larger, smaller or stay roughly the same?

 

 

Anders Sandberg?

 

Anders it depends on how you interpret the question.  I wrote a sim based on the way you worded the hint, rather than the way your original question implies.  My sim takes random numbers between 0 and 999 inclusive, replaces exactly one of the digits with a random number.  I ran the sim 6 299 370 times with the following results: 

 

-          The number was unchanged 629 887 times or 9.9992 percent of the time, so I might need to throw those out (you meant to mistype a digit but accidentally type it correctly about 10% of the time)

-          The number went down 2487 times more often than it went up.  Went up 2833498 times, went down 2835985 times, the rest stayed the same

-          Stated in percentages, up 49.978%, down 50.028%, ignoring the 10% no changes, which is a no-change

 

 

The intent of the question (not the hint but the original question) seems to imply a reference to the elevated occurrence of striking adjacent keys, assuming you use the top row above the qwerty rather than the 10 key.  If you do that, the number will go down more often.  Reasoning: the above sim, based on the hint, would suggest a no-net-change, but with the adjacent keys assumption, about 10% of the time you lose a digit by replacing a 1 with ` about 5% of the time and a 0 with - about 5% of the time.  

 

Losing a digit divides the number by 10 if the trailing zero goes to - and drops the number by half if the leading 1 goes to ` .  (Follow me?)   By intuition, your number goes to 10% of its value about 10% of the time, and goes to half its value 5% of the time.  So your expected value goes to about 93% with the assumptions implied by the original question (see how I got 93%?  (Thank you Thomas Bayes, may your hallowed memory live forever in Geekdom Hall.))

 

My code is available on request, but it is pretty simple-minded stuff.  You must agree to refrain from ridiculing my humble coding skills, and to avoid holding me in excessive disdain for my egregious persistence in using excel macros for everything, oy vey.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/f129d94d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb  7 17:29:34 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:29:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] house saves lives
Message-ID: <00f301cf242a$2bf1ffa0$83d5fee0$@att.net>

 

Perhaps most of us here have viewed what is perhaps the best medical
detective TV ever made, House:

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60037-4/fu
lltext

 

House is terrific drama, a bit far-fetched perhaps, but I like it.

 

A long time ago, back before ER became just another silly soap opera, they
really had a lot of content in their shows from a medical science
perspective.  I have a bunch of friends who went to medical school together,
who would have ER parties every week for years.  That show, at least in its
early seasons, taught a lot of young medics about the more obscure
conditions.  House is even better, but it deals with even more obscure
stuff.

 

It occurred to me in those days that in general, a good technically accurate
medical drama, such as House and ER, could be a means of educating the
unwashed masses as well as the washed doctors.  But it could also cause
waves of incorrect self-diagnoses.  It would be interesting to see if we
could find correlations between the show and diagnoses.  Example, right
after Chen and Malucci killed a Marfan patient in 1999, see if more doctors
recognized the obscure Marfan Syndrome.  (That episode really got to me: I
am tall and skinny, so I could be mistaken for a drug addict (I don't touch
dope)  The real problem might be a Marfan-ish tendency.  If I were to be
taken to the ER unconscious, I could be slain by being Chen-Malucci-ed to
death, oy.  (I looooved season 8, before Malucci was fired.  (He was my
favorite incompetent doctor.)))

 

We need a medical system which can be data mined for this kind of
information.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/8f8d97a9/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 17:46:51 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:46:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <00b701cf2426$4c200dc0$e4602940$@att.net>
References: <CAGSKFy0Kwy0cuoBpQeCc4-FaP6OH02SOQ6GLuTVaXt=S--7VSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <196426603-21825@secure.ericade.net>
 <00b701cf2426$4c200dc0$e4602940$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbLGcwgeV=313kcdGH_imVKqnWjYHiCMJ8YQwhhXdXvQXw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> *>...* *On Behalf Of *Anders Sandberg
> >...Currently I am making a math paper (besides the things I *should* work
> on, of course) about the statistics of mistyping numbers. Here is a hint:
> if you randomly change a digit in a number, does it become larger, smaller
> or stay roughly the same?
>
>
>
> Anders it depends on how you interpret the question.  I wrote a sim based
> on the way you worded the hint, rather than the way your original question
> implies.  My sim takes random numbers between 0 and 999 inclusive, replaces
> exactly one of the digits with a random number.  I ran the sim 6 299 370
> times with the following results:
>
>
>
"roughly" the same can be taken to mean many different things.

I like Bill Hibbard's rationale:  many numbers that have recently rolled
over to the "1" of the next larger power of ten would be more likely to
miskey upwardly.  However, the environment of the miskey is critical to
modeling this test.  Spike imagined the miskey on the keys above the
letters.  A different pattern exists in those intensely using keypads.
Another kind of "random change" is introduced with a sensor (either analog
or digital data stream).  So what domain are we guessing in?

Is "roughly" within 5% of the original number?  As in Q: "How far is it to
the convenience store?" A: "roughly 5 miles"  (makes little difference if
the actual distance is over/under by a small margin) ... or is it some
amount of significant digits, or within an order of magnitude?  Again the
question should be asked "what domain (and scale) of measurements do these
numbers represent?"

Or was this question entirely within the realm of pure Math?  In that case
the answer will be determined entirely by how you define the set of numbers
and the nature of your "random" error/mutation.  (but that's the beauty of
pure Math, isn't it?)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/23fd1c00/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 18:06:25 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:06:25 -0600
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaqLMJV9y12fGSFik5rSMXb6wmCk=hHcsFj4w8O9dpXvw@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting article.  Will America and technology ruin the world?

bill

Click here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/as-technology-gets-better-will-society-get-worse.html?utm_source=tny<http://www.newyorker.com/services/referral?messageKey=95105b4458409f8b63c42cb0ee4057ae>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/6f81e934/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Feb  7 21:38:04 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:38:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbLGcwgeV=313kcdGH_imVKqnWjYHiCMJ8YQwhhXdXvQXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <239140606-22353@secure.ericade.net>

I like a smart audience; you have more or less deduced what I found.
Generic numbers have the Benford distribution of leading digits (and a related one for subsequent ones): the probability of a leading digit x is log10(1+1/x). Why this is so is a rather deep pure math thing (scale and base invariance), well worth pondering:?http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=rgp_rsr But in any case, this means that if you replace a digit with a uniformly distributed digit the expectation increases (btw, Benford's law has a very cute expectation - try deriving it in an arbitrary base b). The same is true for transpositions (but weaker). Deletions and additions work differently, but if they are equally likely the x10 effect of additions dominate the x0.1 effect of deletions.
In practice much depends both on likely typos, what errors are detected directly, and of course what kind of dataset you use. Spike, try running some real world data like?http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mcneil/data.html (perhaps turned into integers) and compare to the random numbers. So the finding of bias is not true for every error, error distribution or datasets. It is just pretty likely.
Another cute fact: generic non-round numbers found on the Internet has roughly an exponential distribution of the number of digits.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/6df1d9a2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  8 01:35:53 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:35:53 -0800
Subject: [ExI] moral guidance please:  was  Anders on io9
Message-ID: <03c201cf246e$1bf8b3c0$53ea1b40$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg



>?I like a smart audience?  Anders

 

 

Me too, and I like an ethically advanced audience.  I need some guidance on a sin I haven?t committed yet, but oh my, the temptation is overwhelming me.

 

A few months ago I posted a question about what I should do when a cousin on 23andMe contacted me and asked me about some family history information which she was seeking.  She didn?t know who her father was, but with only a name, Facebook, classmates.com, Spokeo, and her genetic profile, I was able to figure it out very easily in less than an hour.  But then I didn?t know what to do, recognizing I had the potential to do harm just by telling what I found.  So I kinda punted on it.  I don?t know how that ever worked out, for I didn?t keep in contact, intentionally.  But I did figure out one of my mother?s uncles was failing to keep his pants zipped while he was in boot camp in the early days of WW2.  Two decades later, his illegitimate son grew up and fathered a son who grew up and is the undocumented father of this young lady.  I didn?t out her father, but I explained how the young lady could find the info herself.  I still don?t know if I did the right thing.

 

OK then.

 

You have heard of Candid Camera from the old days, and the more modern, edgier version of the same idea, Punk?d.  They play some pretty cruel gags, ja?  Hilarious, but they are mean bahstids at times.

 

I thought of a gag that would be so funny, I crack me up.  But it is on the ragged edge of the old ethical cliff.  Here?s the nefarious plan:

 

I get a female volunteer who is not on 23andMe and has no interest in that, nor any plans to ever study it.  I get a spit kit, register it anonymously, collect a sample from her.  Once she has spit into the tube, the volunteer is done, and I am ready to perpetrate my hilariously evil deed.

 

Eight to ten weeks later, I get a list of 1000 of her genetically closest cousins who have also done 23andMe.  They don?t know who she is, since the kit was registered anonymously.  To each of the 1000 cousins, I send the following post in 23mail:

 

Dear cousin,

 

Perhaps you can help me.  My name is Prudence Prufrock Throckmorton, daughter of Purity Prufrock Throckmorton and Percival Poindexter Throckmorton VI, who is the son of Sir Percival Poindexter Throckmorton V.  Our lineage is well documented for centuries, all the way back to the barbarian savages.  

 

I am most puzzled by my 23andMe results.  About half the cousins I find there are easy to explain using my extensive professionally-researched pedigree.  I am finding all the Prufrock relatives easily.  But the Throckmorton cousins appear to be missing, all of them.  About half of the cousins, including you, are completely mysterious to me, with no apparent connection to the family.  Even more mysterious, most of the unexplainable cousins are from the USA, rather than right here around Kensington&Chelsea, where all my family resided for generations.  

 

Perhaps you can help solve this puzzling mystery.  I am so very much at a loss for any explanation, mystified.  

 

Yours,

 

Prudence

 

If we were to write one that is that over-the-top, so cluelessly blue-blood-ish, many if not most of the participants would likely realize they are being had.  But some might fall for it.  If so, we could classify the responses: 

 

-          Some genuinely nice cousins who want to help but don?t want to tell Prudence that her she needs to have a little chat with her mother.

-          On the other end of the spectrum some who almost seem to delight in inflicting harm, making comments such as ?Perhaps your mother?s nickname should be Impurity.?

-          Those who get it and have a sense of humor, responding with:  Good one, cuz, you are a riot, wish I had thought of it heeeeeheheheheheheeeeee? 

-          Punters, who would say things like ?Well, this is a new technology? Doesn?t always work right?Perhaps the guy who handled the sample in Mountain View California sneezed right when he opened the test tube and two different DNA strands were mixed? etc.?

-          Rope givers, which is almost what I was with the young lady who contacted me.  I didn?t give her the information on her father, but I gave her the techniques to dig out the information on her own if she really wanted it.  I wouldn?t hang her myself, but I would give her the rope to hang herself if she really wanted to do it.

-          The truly clueless crowd who would have no idea, but wish her well

-          The conspiracy crowd, who might suggest it was all part of a government plot to blackmail her family into cooperation

-          There might be phonies who try to schmooze up to someone who apparently has a ton of pounds, perhaps hoping for gifts and favors, etc.

-          There might be male respondents who schmooze up for the usual reason.  We could perhaps enhance that effect, baiting the hook with a photo of that drop-dead gorgeous Obama-Care website woman on the profile page.  Hell even I might fall for that one, just in case it is genuine, and I?m not even a lonely heart.  (Note to women: testosterone makes us stupid.)

 

What other categories could we think of?  Although the cousins have no way of finding out who the volunteer spitter is, the volunteer could figure out who most of the respondents are, so she could find out who are the nice cousins, who are the mean bahstids, who are the punters, the rope-givers, the clueless, the schmoozers, the hornies, etc.

 

And if we intend to let the victims in on the gag afterwards, would that be a sin?  And if so, would it be funny enough to be worth satan getting my soul?  I laugh just thinking of how wickedly funny it could be.  I consider myself heat tolerant enough to endure an eternity of hell for it.

 

Ethical hipsters, guidance please?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/bd592569/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Sat Feb  8 02:35:03 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:35:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaqLMJV9y12fGSFik5rSMXb6wmCk=hHcsFj4w8O9dpXvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaqLMJV9y12fGSFik5rSMXb6wmCk=hHcsFj4w8O9dpXvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9D7182B8-7AF4-4F7F-AAC7-3304C11D41DE@taramayastales.com>

Selective pressure now favors will power and forethought. 

Example #1: In the past, people only exercised when they were hungry. There was no selective to pressure to exercise when you had plenty to eat. Now, however, bounty poses as much a threat to health as scarcity, which requires more forethought, will power and intelligence to the matter of exercise than in the past. 

Example #2: In the past, people had a limited set of memes to absorb and pass on. They generally accepted whatever was passed to them by their elders, and taught the same to their children. In the present, the extreme competition of memes, and constant generation of new memes, means that people must be much more selective about which memes they accept and pass on.

Example #3: In the past, people pursued pleasure and ended up with children as a result. Now, people who place their own pleasure above the annoyance of caring for helpless humans can easily avoid breeding, thus sprang the rest of us passing on their selfish anti-child inclinations. At the same time, people who reproduce excessively can't invest in educating their offspring as well as those who choose to have children, but only those they plan for and can afford.

Example #4: In the past, people did not need to be literate to be social. Now literary is a key component of sociality. Likewise, good math skills, such as the ability to balance a household budget and keep good credit, is also becoming important to high social standing.

Those are just a few that come to mind. The pressure of civilization (just an earlier term for "technology") has been relentlessly pushing humans toward worse bodies but better brains for millennia now. And the evidence is that genes adapt much faster than people have given them credit. 


Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting article.  Will America and technology ruin the world?
> 
> bill
> 
> Click here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/as-technology-gets-better-will-society-get-worse.html?utm_source=tny
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/9a11a336/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 03:30:18 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:30:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] H+ Magazine Article on Mike Perry
In-Reply-To: <000301cf1a4b$607da4b0$2178ee10$@natasha.cc>
References: <000301cf1a4b$607da4b0$2178ee10$@natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgwoQRU7WqonwWiFBzA5ynRbTY_ik67et2UEWEqR68qYQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:02 PM, <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> Mike Perry is a composer with an amazing talent. Please read my brief
> interview with him!
>
>
>
>
> http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/01/24/the-forever-and-ever-new-melodies-of-r-michael-perry/
>
>
>

### Can we get some samples to listen to?

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/18374b85/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 03:41:43 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:41:43 -0800
Subject: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <03c201cf246e$1bf8b3c0$53ea1b40$@att.net>
References: <03c201cf246e$1bf8b3c0$53ea1b40$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNT6xp-TOmtyy34JmOyV+UtK3a6AxrhJRpZkeaKmUzdMow@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Ethical hipsters, guidance please?
>

Don't.  Straight-up no.  You'd be having laughs - *just* laughs - at the
expense - and it is an expense, in stress and hassle if nothing else - of
someone with whom you have no prior involvement.

There are better ways to get laughs: more enduring (and therefore more
quantity in the long run), and less effort at the same time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/399db62e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  8 04:47:09 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:47:09 -0800
Subject: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNT6xp-TOmtyy34JmOyV+UtK3a6AxrhJRpZkeaKmUzdMow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <03c201cf246e$1bf8b3c0$53ea1b40$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNT6xp-TOmtyy34JmOyV+UtK3a6AxrhJRpZkeaKmUzdMow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04a001cf2488$d42943a0$7c7bcae0$@att.net>

 

 

 

Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9

 

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

Ethics hipsters, guidance please?

>
Don't.  Straight-up no.  You'd be having laughs - *just* laughs - at the
expense - and it is an expense, in stress and hassle if nothing else - of
someone with whom you have no prior involvement


 

Thanks Adrian.  As I recall you were on the strictly puritan end of the
spectrum last time something like this came up.  Other opinions?

>
There are better ways to get laughs: more enduring (and therefore more
quantity in the long run), and less effort at the same time


 

Indeed?  What are they?  I would go for an alternative.

 

I thought if I played up the whole blue-bloody angle, it might put a fun
spin on it while giving sufficient hints that it is a joke.  There are
plenty of people in this old world who resent the upper crust for no other
reason than they are born rich and privileged.  I thought it might work out
if I put plenty of those kinds of hints in the letter, that if they thought
about it they could figure out one of their cousins was pulling a fast one
on them just for fun.  Prudence?  Purity??  Noooobody hangs those tags on
their daughters now.

 

Actually I think you are right Adrian, for the following.  A few years ago,
some guy rigged up Eliza and sent her into a teen chat room.  Most of the
teens long post-dated Eliza, who came and went before any of them were born,
so they came in as unsuspecting na?ve victims.  

 

Under the usual assumption of privacy, some of the stuff these teens spilled
to that simple-minded program, oh my. They blathered away openly about stuff
that couldn?t be pried out of most of us with torture devices; sexual
deviancy, drug use, crimes, maniacal commentary, etc.   Some of them were
hinting at contemplating suicide, all manner of improprieties, eeesh.  The
guy recorded everything.

 

OK then, here?s this interesting sociological experiment, a Turing test in a
way, and this guy has all this data, having recorded all of this vile tripe.
If it had been me, I might have described some of the shocking stuff that
was posted, and how most of them fell for the Eliza trick, how the average
time to figuring out it was a computer program was over 12 minutes, average
number of posts 15, etc.  

 

But this yahoo who perpetrated the Eliza gag did something that haunts me to
this day: he posted everything.  On a website, he left it there for I don?t
know how long.  Didn?t even hide the identities, he just slammed it all on
the table.  That I wouldn?t do in a hundred years, not in a thousand.  That
was evil.  I felt guilty even reading part of the material.  It was
interesting to see some of the comments they made at the end of their
sessions as the teens figured out they had been had.  But posting all that
stuff was wrong.

 

What would bother me about the ImPurity Prufrock Throckmorton caper is that
the identities of the mean bahstids could be more easily deduced by me than
could the identity of the DNA-contributing volunteer would be for them.
Reasoning: I have a thousand data points, they have only one.  I might be
able to figure out who wrote what, if I work at it, but they wouldn?t be
able to find the ID of the spitter.  After they thought it over, they would
realize what happened, and would be annoyed.

 

Parting shot on all this: I have contacted about 120 of my DNA relatives and
I will have to say it has been mostly a disappointment.  My DNA relatives
were not nearly as bright as I had imagined them to be; on the contrary.
They seemed to be unable to reason thru such things as creating genetic
triangulation algorithms, or invent creative ideas on how to deduce
identities of their own DNA relatives.  All this with one shining exception,
one very bright cousin, who was interesting, smart as a whip, well educated,
open minded, creative, wise, kind, all the good stuff.

 

Today, I find in my LinkedIn box a notice about a guy who I might want to
link, based on a mutual friend.  The person being recommended was that
cousin!  There was no reference to 23andMe, no mention or knowledge by
LinkedIn of that mutual interest in genetics, no reference to or knowledge
of our being cousins; only a recommendation based on our mutual friend.  So
I accepted and invited my own fourth cousin to LinkIn.  The mutual friend
was


 


Eugen Leitl.

 

Pretty cool, ja?

 

{8-]

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/4c3135fd/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 07:24:13 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:24:13 -0800
Subject: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <04a001cf2488$d42943a0$7c7bcae0$@att.net>
References: <03c201cf246e$1bf8b3c0$53ea1b40$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNT6xp-TOmtyy34JmOyV+UtK3a6AxrhJRpZkeaKmUzdMow@mail.gmail.com>
 <04a001cf2488$d42943a0$7c7bcae0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRxLyogdEJkSW9mhGg3Y7M3T+W_Cwpq9JuL+XbMyG4Oyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 8:47 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Parting shot on all this: I have contacted about 120 of my DNA relatives
> and I will have to say it has been mostly a disappointment.  My DNA
> relatives were not nearly as bright as I had imagined them to be; on the
> contrary.  They seemed to be unable to reason thru such things as creating
> genetic triangulation algorithms, or invent creative ideas on how to deduce
> identities of their own DNA relatives.  All this with one shining
> exception, one very bright cousin, who was interesting, smart as a whip,
> well educated, open minded, creative, wise, kind, all the good stuff.
>

Genetic kinship seems to be FAR less useful in finding fellow spirits as
social or memetic kinship.

At least, that is how it is these days.  Things were Different(TM) just
over 20 years ago, and moreso 20 years before that, so the ancient wisdom
about seeking one's blood brothers may well have been true...in ancient
times.  It just doesn't seem to apply today.

(True, I am more likely to find a closer companion on the far side of the
US than, say, in southwest Asia - but that again is due to memetic
kinship.  If that person were, as a child, brought to and raised in the US,
my odds of bonding with them would raise to the average for any random US
citizen, without any genetic links being added.  And indeed, this exact
scenario has happened more than once, resulting in an acquaintance I would
not otherwise have made.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140207/405faa91/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  8 11:19:39 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:19:39 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1391601601.13460.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1391601601.13460.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52F612CB.4080802@yahoo.com>

Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

 >On Feb 4, 2014 3:56 AM, "Ben Zaiboc" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

 >> I don't imagine it will be easy, far from it, I'm well aware that it'll
 >be very difficult.  What I am claiming is that it will be worthwhile.
 >
 >There would be benefit, true.  What is being questioned is whether there
 >would be more benefits for the same cost than could be had by 
upgrading the
 >current infrastructure, organ by organ.

I don't know about costs, and doubt that can be predicted at the moment, 
but there is no question that there would be more benefits. Many more 
benefits, just from the ideas that I'm currently kicking around, and 
doubtless many more beyond that.

 >Besides, if we are redoing the entire body plan, why stick with an organic
 >body?  There are stronger things that can be made to self-heal.

Indeed.  A big part of the idea is that there are parts of our bodies 
that don't actually need to be biological, and that it would be 
beneficial to combine biological with non-biological technology to 
create a body that's easier to maintain, diagnose problems with, repair, 
upgrade etc., as well as having a lot more control over. Not to mention 
realising the ideal of 'morphological freedom'.  It would be just as 
easy to build a centaur body as a standard human one, for instance.

I believe that we're on the brink of being able to create hybrid systems 
like this, and that it's worth developing plans now for how to use that 
capability when it's available.


 >> And it doesn't represent an upgrade path.
 >
 >Actually it does.

OK, I'm listening.  If there is an upgrade path from our original bodies 
using stem-cell therapy, I haven't thought of it.  What did you have in 
mind?

My main problem with stem-cell therapy is that if it works ok, all it 
does is to re-invigorate the same old Heath-Robinson design, which will 
then continue on the same old decay path.  You get to stay alive longer, 
but that's all.  If you're prone to back problems, that won't change.  
If you have a tendency to put on excess weight, you'll still have the 
same tendency.  Etc.
I'm after something much more radical and interesting.

Ben Zaiboc


From atymes at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 21:41:15 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:41:15 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Stem cell breakthrough
In-Reply-To: <52F612CB.4080802@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1391601601.13460.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52F612CB.4080802@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQ_5GAcgkNCLjKMCc7SAwJoE3P1wYr7LabQn23ctPgRBg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> OK, I'm listening.  If there is an upgrade path from our original bodies
> using stem-cell therapy, I haven't thought of it.  What did you have in
> mind?
>
> My main problem with stem-cell therapy is that if it works ok, all it does
> is to re-invigorate the same old Heath-Robinson design, which will then
> continue on the same old decay path.  You get to stay alive longer, but
> that's all.  If you're prone to back problems, that won't change.  If you
> have a tendency to put on excess weight, you'll still have the same
> tendency.  Etc.
> I'm after something much more radical and interesting.
>

True, you continue down the same decay path - except you can constantly be
restored to an optimal state on it.  Gain weight when you're 30?  Keep
being reset to 20 and don't wait a full decade before the next reset.

Further, link this to gene therapy.  If genes can be identified such that
removing them results in babies who are less likely to become obese, this
becomes a suitable vector for introducing said genes to adults, slowly
replacing all their cells.

That said, I was talking about organ-by-organ replacement as an upgrade
path (as an alternative to whole-body-at-once redesign), not specifically
stem cells.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140208/79bbda4f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb  9 01:37:57 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 02:37:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <04a001cf2488$d42943a0$7c7bcae0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <339839100-4991@secure.ericade.net>

spike <spike66 at att.net> , 8/2/2014 6:05 AM:


??

?

Behalf Of Adrian Tymes


?

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

Ethics hipsters, guidance please?

>?Don't.? Straight-up no.? You'd be having laughs - *just* laughs - at the expense - and it is an expense, in stress and hassle if nothing else - of someone with whom you have no prior involvement?

?

Thanks Adrian.? As I recall you were on the strictly puritan end of the spectrum last time something like this came up.? Other opinions?
I think Adrian is roughly right. Pure Schadenfreude is not nice. However, the nobility angle does seem to improve things: if greedy or malicious people get their comeuppance because of their own base behaviour, it is just and far more enjoyable to laugh at. This is why I think the joke needs a second stage: if it was just fooling some people that there was an idiot to laugh at, then there is not much fun. But if some actually try to exploit it... then I think there is potential to reel them in into hilarity. Just consider those amusing cases where people have trolled Nigeria-scammers: turning the tables is fun.
I think the full joke would be more like an alternate reality game: reeling in those too greedy, stupid or malicious to see the joke into an ever crazier world of uptight British blue-bloods and their antics. Have them receive an email from Cumbert Winterbottom esq., the lawyer representing good old Adalbert Throckmorton, asking if they could witness in the upcoming court case... soon followed by an amendment, that Certain People Who Must Not Be Named have demanded that it go all the way to the Star Chamber. Meanwhile the nephew James K. Throckmorton-Cunningham, never the sharpest knife in the drawer, is apparently trying to get his buddies in the hunting team together to restore family honour... but don't worry, he is unlikely to cross the Atlantic. Or at least he is going to be distracted by his jet-set friends and end up in Aruba. Oh, he *does* have a townhouse in <nearby big town>... don't worry.


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/ec5b36fd/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb  9 01:42:59 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 02:42:59 +0100
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <9D7182B8-7AF4-4F7F-AAC7-3304C11D41DE@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>


Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> , 8/2/2014 4:04 AM:
Selective pressure now favors will power and forethought.?
Example #1: In the past, people only exercised when they were hungry.?There was no selective to pressure to exercise when you had plenty to eat. Now, however, bounty poses as much a threat to health as scarcity, which requires more forethought, will power and intelligence to the matter of exercise than in the past.?

Selection for what? Slim gym-rats with nouveaux cuisine tastes might be desirable and healthy, but they do not get much more kids. So it is not genetic selection we are talking about. We might be doing memetic selection by imitating them, but again the focus is on social standing rather than good health outcomes.
Yes, I agree that there are memetic and genetic pressures. But they might not point in neat, consistent directions. And the inheritance/copying of genes/memes is also both slow and somewhat random.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/e993cefd/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb  9 01:57:17 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 02:57:17 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Push for peak performance
Message-ID: <340844852-4991@secure.ericade.net>

Apropos various health advice and ideas that crop up on this list, here are some ideas from a very cool researcher:http://www.schweizermonat.ch/artikel/push-for-peak-performancehttp://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4621
I think we can all relate to his mindset and zest for life, whether we agree on his approach. Professionally he has some rather awesome research on critical phenomena, social networks, financial crashes, singularities, and other fun things: see http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+didier+sornette/0/1/0/all/0/1 for a *long* list of publications.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/e218f515/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb  9 02:06:46 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:06:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9
In-Reply-To: <339839100-4991@secure.ericade.net>
References: <04a001cf2488$d42943a0$7c7bcae0$@att.net>
 <339839100-4991@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <082c01cf253b$96da49a0$c48edce0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:38 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9

 

spike <spike66 at att.net> , 8/2/2014 6:05 AM:

  

 

Behalf Of Adrian Tymes

 

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

Ethics hipsters, guidance please?

>>>?Don't.  Straight-up no.  You'd be having laughs - *just* laughs - at the expense - and it is an expense, in stress and hassle if nothing else - of someone with whom you have no prior involvement? 

 

 

>>?Thanks Adrian.  As I recall you were on the strictly puritan end of the spectrum last time something like this came up.  Other opinions?

 

>?I think Adrian is roughly right?

 

Ja I concluded likewise.  Decided to refrain from the Purity Prufrock caper.

 

>? This is why I think the joke needs a second stage: if it was just fooling some people that there was an idiot to laugh at, then there is not much fun. But if some actually try to exploit it... then I think there is potential to reel them in into hilarity? Anders Sandberg?

 

It seems no one has attempted a huge gag with DNA, and the whole system desperately needs some levity.  

 

A gentler variation on a theme would be to create a phony public profile, perhaps with the Purity Prufrock letter as I proposed in nearly that form.  You wouldn?t actively send anyone any 23mail but rather, you would just show up to your 1000 cousins as one who appears to be a half-wit blue-blood British noble with a sporty mother.  Then it would be a similar comedy-trap, but less responsibility on my part: I didn?t send them anything.  If anyone chooses to respond to a public profile, that isn?t much different from commenting on someone else?s website.  The respondent makes the effort, chooses to go to someone?s public profile on their own time, without any specific invitation (but no prohibition either) and collects bogus info.  Well, hell that practically defines the internet.  Nothing here is quite what it appears.  

 

If I were to do something like that, my conscience would be clear.  I doubt many would respond however.  It?s too passive.  I doubt we would get a dozen replies; wouldn?t be worth the 99 bucks.

 

A variation would be to put a knock-out drop dead gorgeous fashion model photo on one?s public profile.  I am quite confident that plenty of people do that anyway, or some variation on that theme: post pictures of themselves from when they were smokin? hot curvy 19 instead of as flabby 47.  You can take 30 yr old photos and make them look like they were made recently, by changing backgrounds for instance, using Photoshop.  Never believe anything you read online.

 

Still another way to experiment would be to post the Purity Prufrock letter in one of the 23andMe public forums.  That wouldn?t even cost anything if you are already in 23andMe, and you wouldn?t be targeting anyone?s DNA relatives.  As written, I think it would be clear enough it was a gag, but you might reel in a few fish with that.  I wouldn?t see it as much different from putting some bogus silliness in the comments section of a website.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140208/284973cb/attachment.html>

From mike at alcor.org  Sun Feb  9 02:23:25 2014
From: mike at alcor.org (Mike Perry)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:23:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Music Samples
In-Reply-To: <mailman.151.1391835683.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.151.1391835683.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <201402090250.s192oDFq010370@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:30:18 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki 
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
> >
> > 
> http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/01/24/the-forever-and-ever-new-melodies-of-r-michael-perry/
> >
> >
> >
>
>### Can we get some samples to listen to?
>
>Rafal

There are now some samples (mp3 files) of the 8 tracks of "Opus 1" in 
the folder at https://mega.co.nz/#F!JJshVBzL!JHoto_L_PryLT3WQhWXI8w

Mike Perry



From tara at taramayastales.com  Sun Feb  9 03:19:48 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:19:48 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>


On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Slim gym-rats with nouveaux cuisine tastes might be desirable and healthy, but they do not get much more kids. 

Being overweight and smoking are the two biggest "Turn Offs" to the dating crowd. For men or women. There is definitely a genetic penalty.

Being drunk seems to be, as in previous centuries, no deterrent. If anything?.

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140208/1bd94810/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 08:09:01 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:09:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
 <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>

"Being overweight and smoking are the two biggest "Turn Offs" to the
dating crowd..."

I have always been an overweight smoker since I was a teen, and that
never stopped me from dating, when I was younger. These days, screw
dates, I prefer eating well and smoking.

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> Slim gym-rats with nouveaux cuisine tastes might be desirable and healthy,
> but they do not get much more kids.
>
>
> Being overweight and smoking are the two biggest "Turn Offs" to the dating
> crowd. For men or women. There is definitely a genetic penalty.
>
> Being drunk seems to be, as in previous centuries, no deterrent. If
> anything....
>
> Tara Maya
> Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb  9 11:46:13 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:46:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <374978114-8443@secure.ericade.net>

Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> , 9/2/2014 4:23 AM:

On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
Slim gym-rats with nouveaux cuisine tastes might be desirable and healthy, but they do not get much more kids.?
Being overweight and smoking are the two biggest "Turn Offs" to the dating crowd. For men or women. There is definitely a genetic penalty.
I started looking for evidence against that, but I found at least one paper supporting your view: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24223433 I could not get the paper, so no idea how big the effect is. However, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291804/ points out that things may have changed over time and that social factors do mediate a lot of this - the image is slightly confusing. Generally, being overweight does seem to be a bit of a problem on the marriage market,?http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199309303291406 (but see also?http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199403033300920 ) In the end, my guess is that you are likely correct in our current culture, but the effect size might not be enormous.?
I also found a neat argument in?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868879/ that childbearing might be a cause of obesity - no, not just in the obvious way! :-) - by an evolved factor of insulin resistance protecting the fetus from starvation. Oh, and obesity is a risk factor for lower fertility too.

Being drunk seems to be, as in previous centuries, no deterrent. If anything?.
Impulsive actions does tend to lead to more kids.?
One interesting association is between tattoos and impulsivity. Which also seems to influence smoking:?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24180254

In the end, there are a lot of moving parts in our society. Making predictions about the joint socio-psychological-demographic system is surprisingly tricky.

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/9bf9c8c2/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 12:34:12 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:34:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <374978114-8443@secure.ericade.net>
References: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <374978114-8443@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiSQ0iibR7XD0y6m2JFJn6853ozovTUCH0OZFDxi94VOw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> I started looking for evidence against that, but I found at least one paper
> supporting your view: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24223433 I could
> not get the paper, so no idea how big the effect is. However,
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291804/ points out that things
> may have changed over time and that social factors do mediate a lot of this
> - the image is slightly confusing. Generally, being overweight does seem to
> be a bit of a problem on the marriage market,
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199309303291406 (but see also
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199403033300920 ) In the end, my
> guess is that you are likely correct in our current culture, but the effect
> size might not be enormous.
>
> In the end, there are a lot of moving parts in our society. Making
> predictions about the joint socio-psychological-demographic system is
> surprisingly tricky.
>
>

I suspect all these are trivial factors compared to the first world
drop in birthrate.

Educate and empower women and they stop having children.

The reasons for this are probably multifactorial, though.


BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb  9 16:09:55 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:09:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
 <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a2c01cf25b1$600d30b0$20279210$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco

>...These days, screw dates, I prefer eating well and smoking...


You don't need to make a choice, you would merely change the wording just a
bit as follows: I prefer to screw dates, eat well and smoke.

{8^D

spike





From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 17:15:19 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:15:19 -0600
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiSQ0iibR7XD0y6m2JFJn6853ozovTUCH0OZFDxi94VOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <374978114-8443@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAL_armiSQ0iibR7XD0y6m2JFJn6853ozovTUCH0OZFDxi94VOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaX0aY4EwXQN8qLuCvN3ZHAJ=wWKi4zzreQfXVTth1T-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Nothing so violates Morgan's Canon as saying things about people.  Yes,
everything is multifactorial.

In the 3rd world, there is a negative correlation between the economy and
birth rates, though how that factors in women and their freedoms and
educations I am not sure.  bill


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:34 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> > I started looking for evidence against that, but I found at least one
> paper
> > supporting your view: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24223433 I
> could
> > not get the paper, so no idea how big the effect is. However,
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291804/ points out that
> things
> > may have changed over time and that social factors do mediate a lot of
> this
> > - the image is slightly confusing. Generally, being overweight does seem
> to
> > be a bit of a problem on the marriage market,
> > http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199309303291406 (but see also
> > http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199403033300920 ) In the end,
> my
> > guess is that you are likely correct in our current culture, but the
> effect
> > size might not be enormous.
> >
> > In the end, there are a lot of moving parts in our society. Making
> > predictions about the joint socio-psychological-demographic system is
> > surprisingly tricky.
> >
> >
>
> I suspect all these are trivial factors compared to the first world
> drop in birthrate.
>
> Educate and empower women and they stop having children.
>
> The reasons for this are probably multifactorial, though.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/aee4e435/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Sun Feb  9 18:28:39 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:28:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Demography (was: tech influence)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiSQ0iibR7XD0y6m2JFJn6853ozovTUCH0OZFDxi94VOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <374978114-8443@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAL_armiSQ0iibR7XD0y6m2JFJn6853ozovTUCH0OZFDxi94VOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BEEB348-CF60-4AFF-AD4F-80AFFF284390@taramayastales.com>


On Feb 9, 2014, at 4:34 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Educate and empower women and they stop having children.
> 
> The reasons for this are probably multifactorial, though.


The history of demographic change as it relates to women's rights was my field of study in history, so this topic is of some interest to me. I won't claim that my thesis is without controversy, but what I found from studying about 1500 years of European demographic patterns was that historically most women aimed to have two surviving children. Surveys of modern women have found that they aim for?two surviving children. In other words, education and emancipation have actually had NO EFFECT on how many children most women desire. 

What has changed is what women have to do in order to have those two. 

For most of history, this meant having many more than two, as the infant mortality rate was high. Wealthy women, who married younger and had more surviving offspring, would usually over-reach and have more than two--something that was sometimes seen by them as a burden. One noble family in the fifteenth century, for example, was completely ruined financially because all eleven of their children survived. The family diaries record a sentiment somewhat like, "Who could have foreseen this?" As in? dang it, most of these kids were supposed to die shortly after birth! Of course they were glad their children didn't die, but if they had thought that all eleven would survive, they might have been much more careful about family planning?.

All of this led me to my thesis: If every woman had exactly the number of children she wanted, it would be slightly above replacement value for the population. (The outliers--women who want twelve children and the women who want zero--cancel each other out.) But for several centuries now, whole generations of women have miscalculated, and for the very good reason that technology has changed faster than women (and men) have accounted for. This isn't even a matter of genetics vs memetics. It means that if a woman determines how many children she wants according to how things worked out for her mother and grandmother, but technology has already changed between her generation and her mother's and grandmother's, she will miscalculate.

So as the death rate fell during the industrial revolution, the REAL Baby Boom, also known as the "Demographic Revolution" spread across the continent, and then, as industry spread globally, across the world. Women continued to have twelve children, but when all of them survived to adulthood and had twelve kids of their own?. This is what led to the huge population explosion and all those dire, ridiculous prophecies of "OVERPOPULATION APOCALYPSE."

It takes an average of three generations, but gradually women started rejecting the advice of their mothers and grandmothers and re-evaluating how many children they wanted to have. They realized they didn't need to have hoards of children, or marry young, and changed their behavior accordingly. But again, many, many women of this generation have miscalculated, this time in the OTHER direction. They married too late and had too FEW children.

Hence, we have the new feature of the Demographic Revolution: the Baby Bust. It's happening now all across the First World. The severity of it is disguised by high levels of immigration of women from countries that are still in the first phase of the Demographic Revolution. THOSE women are still have a lot of kids (but less than mom and grandma had).

It's hard to prove this for the earlier centuries, but starting with the cohort in the late 19th century (1890s), we have proof of this miscalculation. Generations of women were surveyed, asked at 18 how many children they wanted; at 40 and 60 the same women were asked how many children they had. At the beginning of the century women wanted -- 2 kids. But had four, five or six. The current generation of women wanted -- 2 kids. But many ended up having only one, or none at all.

As always, these are averages. So sure, there are women who never wanted kids and never had kids. But contrary to common belief, those women are not driving the Baby Bust. It's driven by women who planned to marry and wanted two kids when they were eighteen but somehow, by forty, hadn't done it yet and realized it's too late. Or had one kid, and thought, sheesh, it's too expensive, we can't afford a second one.

Both trends of the Demographic Revolution -- the Boom and the Bust -- started in Europe and spread globally. Both started with the upper and middle classes and worked down to the lower classes. There are parts of the world that are still in the Boom stage, but plenty of evidence suggests that the next generation or two will bring them into the Bust. Women of the younger cohorts in those countries almost all say they want less children than their mothers. The exceptions are countries with high death rates. For instance, one woman in a country torn by civil war said, "I stopped having children after five because they said it would be better but now all my five children are dead! Why did I listen?" The cohort of women following a disaster are likely to have a high birth rate.

Another interesting finding was that family planning, in Europe, and around the world, precedes access to birth control. In other words, which comes first, the condom or the fall in birthrate? The answer is the fall in birthrate. It's the demand for birth control that gave rise to the technology of birth control, not the other way around. Again, several studies of modern populations in nations where birth control is outlawed but the birth rate is still falling show that this is still happening.

Finally, it is my theory, and I believe the evidence supports it, that female emancipation occurred because of the falling birth rate, not the other way around. Once women were freed from the extremely tiring work of going through a pregnancy nine months out of every year for the ten or twelve most productive years of their lives, they had much more energy and time to contribute to the economy in other ways, including entering the work force. Of course, at the individual level, it seems to work the other way around (hence the confusion about cause and effect) because the more intelligent, wealthy and educated a woman is, the more she can count on having her children survive, and therefore the more energy she can contribute to the family through earning an income outside the home. (Example: In the US, daycare costs about $20,000 a year (per child under 5); so both spouses have to be able to earn more than that for it to be worth it for their while to both work outside the home.)


Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads






From atymes at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 19:19:11 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:19:11 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion talk at Utility conference
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7ajNfWh68bQ5asmtGhAB0-2XVGYpfgdM1ZhtPW4KneBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7ajNfWh68bQ5asmtGhAB0-2XVGYpfgdM1ZhtPW4KneBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSOruXb6LUjBwEhMhjHKOChmSSjA+7FbFwtfWYWVQvzdA@mail.gmail.com>

I don't see how you can justify the expected profit.  The instant you start
undercutting oil, oil prices shift to undercut you - and they can keep
their prices down for years, if necessary, to wait until your operation
runs out of money and shuts down, abandoning the hardware in place (no
matter how efficient it would have been to keep using it).

That's how they've done it before; all indications are that they'd do it
again.


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsWDlYQmJfNjVMaHJZRE5PS2xSclA3TFNmcGF3/edit?usp=sharing
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/b53b6c5c/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb  9 23:58:16 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:58:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion talk at Utility conference
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSOruXb6LUjBwEhMhjHKOChmSSjA+7FbFwtfWYWVQvzdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <420615364-4774@secure.ericade.net>

Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> , 9/2/2014 8:21 PM:
I don't see how you can justify the expected profit.? The instant you start undercutting oil, oil prices shift to undercut you - and they can keep their prices down for years, if necessary, to wait until your operation runs out of money and shuts down, abandoning the hardware in place (no matter how efficient it would have been to keep using it).
 
That's how they've done it before; all indications are that they'd do it again.
That would work if oil was only used for energy. But it is a key chemical product, and the non-energy uses are pretty big. So as soon as they started undercut prices, the chemical industry would be buying more of the cheaper oil - now the cartel would find itself subsidizing the chem industry. And since chem sales would increase the price, they would need to counter those too. Not cheap at all. And it all requires a cartel with no defectors.
Yes, there are some complications from the different kinds of oil. But you can see the same problem in regards to energy from fracking.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/cb1a9c64/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 10 00:02:06 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:02:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Demography (was: tech influence)
In-Reply-To: <1BEEB348-CF60-4AFF-AD4F-80AFFF284390@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <420959273-4772@secure.ericade.net>

Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> , 9/2/2014 7:33 PM:
 
?I won't claim that my thesis is without controversy, but what I found from studying about 1500 years of European demographic patterns was that historically most women aimed to have two surviving children. Surveys of modern women have found that they aim for?two surviving children. In other words, education and emancipation have actually had NO EFFECT on how many children most women desire. 
Cool model.
What about those natural experiment findings from India and Brazil showing rapid culturally induced shifts in fertility due to television? Are soap opera characters vivid enough to act as counterparts to grandmothers in setting expectations?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/1ccb46e8/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Mon Feb 10 01:04:18 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:04:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Demography (was: tech influence)
In-Reply-To: <420959273-4772@secure.ericade.net>
References: <420959273-4772@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <ECE2831F-6F40-42C1-8B3F-8D111FD897E4@taramayastales.com>



On Feb 9, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> What about those natural experiment findings from India and Brazil showing rapid culturally induced shifts in fertility due to television? Are soap opera characters vivid enough to act as counterparts to grandmothers in setting expectations?

Yes, I would think so. It's not that women believe the characters are real, but that they believe the characters model the lifestyle and life history of real upper middle class women whom they wish to emulate.

And of course, television in and of itself is also a form of birth control.  ;)

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/c035311b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 01:33:05 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:33:05 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Demography (was: tech influence)
In-Reply-To: <ECE2831F-6F40-42C1-8B3F-8D111FD897E4@taramayastales.com>
References: <420959273-4772@secure.ericade.net>
 <ECE2831F-6F40-42C1-8B3F-8D111FD897E4@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ_66ttXHpFePhEuG3M33mhTZw6DSc86aRMNADnYykgOA@mail.gmail.com>

Hah.  Many do think TV actors are real.  When a soap opera woman has a baby
on the show, or gets married on the show, she gets all sorts of mail
congratulating her, baby clothes, gifts, etc.  Clearly many cannot separate
TV from life itself.  What a man I know found out that John Wayne was
really Marion Morrison, did not do his own stunts and wore a wig, he
stopped being a fan.  And then there are those who think that you cannot
put anything on TV that isn't true!  Never overestimate the under average
IQ bunch.  bil


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> What about those natural experiment findings from India and Brazil showing
> rapid culturally induced shifts in fertility due to television? Are soap
> opera characters vivid enough to act as counterparts to grandmothers in
> setting expectations?
>
>
> Yes, I would think so. It's not that women believe the characters are
> real, but that they believe the characters model the lifestyle and life
> history of real upper middle class women whom they wish to emulate.
>
> And of course, television in and of itself is also a form of birth
> control.  ;)
>
> Tara Maya
> Blog <http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/>  |  Twitter<https://twitter.com/taramayastales>  |
>  Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unfinished-Song-Epic-Fantasy/310271375658211?ref=hl>  |
>  Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Tara-Maya/e/B004HAI038/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1349796143&sr=8-2-ent>  |
>  Goodreads <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2951879.Tara_Maya>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/28075551/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 02:39:19 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:39:19 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion talk at Utility conference
In-Reply-To: <420615364-4774@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CALAdGNSOruXb6LUjBwEhMhjHKOChmSSjA+7FbFwtfWYWVQvzdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <420615364-4774@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQ5tjv7CdN5Q+3uYHsXnXd1eQsKuUzo9fK-LmYVNNO3Rg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> , 9/2/2014 8:21 PM:
>
> I don't see how you can justify the expected profit.  The instant you
> start undercutting oil, oil prices shift to undercut you - and they can
> keep their prices down for years, if necessary, to wait until your
> operation runs out of money and shuts down, abandoning the hardware in
> place (no matter how efficient it would have been to keep using it).
>
> That's how they've done it before; all indications are that they'd do it
> again.
>
>
> That would work if oil was only used for energy. But it is a key chemical
> product, and the non-energy uses are pretty big. So as soon as they started
> undercut prices, the chemical industry would be buying more of the cheaper
> oil - now the cartel would find itself subsidizing the chem industry. And
> since chem sales would increase the price, they would need to counter those
> too. Not cheap at all. And it all requires a cartel with no defectors.
>

OPEC has historically had few defectors - not none, but enough to be a
functioning cartel.  True, they would be temporarily "subsidizing", as you
say, all users of oil.  In their opinion it would be worth it to achieve
this outcome.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/e4cb3f86/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 06:28:12 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:28:12 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaqLMJV9y12fGSFik5rSMXb6wmCk=hHcsFj4w8O9dpXvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaqLMJV9y12fGSFik5rSMXb6wmCk=hHcsFj4w8O9dpXvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTHbWk2t0eFgzusTxgYHxsuHHfJ04LQ8zt0iDS75uoE8g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace
<foozler83 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Interesting article.  Will America and technology ruin the world?
>

No, for the most important meanings of "ruin the world".

For many other meanings, the world has always been in a state of being
"ruined" by new developments including new technology, with anecdotes
dating back at least to ancient Greece...and yet, despite the world being
constantly, continually "ruined", overall quality of life - averaged over
everyone - has relentlessly pressed forward, not backward, over these
thousands of years.  See
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheyChangedItNowItSucks/RealLife and
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/RuinedFOREVER for some
perspective on these meanings of "ruined".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140209/977253bb/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 09:37:56 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:37:56 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Demography (was: tech influence)
In-Reply-To: <1BEEB348-CF60-4AFF-AD4F-80AFFF284390@taramayastales.com>
References: <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <374978114-8443@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAL_armiSQ0iibR7XD0y6m2JFJn6853ozovTUCH0OZFDxi94VOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1BEEB348-CF60-4AFF-AD4F-80AFFF284390@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiGAouNp2nD3r-bvWb0q8ZZdonji+3UAdDVQsxQ26yKSQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Tara Maya  wrote:
>
> The history of demographic change as it relates to women's rights was my field of study in history,
> so this topic is of some interest to me. I won't claim that my thesis is without controversy, but
> what I found from studying about 1500 years of European demographic patterns was that
> historically most women aimed to have two surviving children. Surveys of modern women hav
> found that they aim for...two surviving children. In other words, education and emancipation
> have actually had NO EFFECT on how many children most women desire.
<snip>
>

The big problem with this view is that without empowerment it didn't
(and currently doesn't in third world countries) matter what women
want or think. While women remain property, men decide whether large
families are required to work in the fields and support them in old
age. Death and abuse is a constant threat for these women. They are
virtually slave labour. The first victims in third world wars are
women. The idea of one wife (of several) telling her husband in a
third world village that she had decided that she wasn't going to have
any more children is ridiculous. She would (at least) be thrown out on
the streets to survive as best she could and quite likely be beaten to
death.
This is not a 'choice' situation.

BillK


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 10:15:10 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:15:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Aging successfully reversed in mice...
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy1sM9TrDD4i9N=i-_LQiRBhm_3MfU2h_EU=65i5ppvuWg@mail.gmail.com>

I never want to get my hopes up too much, but this seems like a possible
huge leap forward for anti-aging medicine.  I just wonder if it will work
for humans...

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/ageing-successfully-reversed-in-mice-human-trials-to-begin-next/

I imagine everywhere, mice are rejoicing!  And I bet on the LongeCity
website, that they are focused on this like a laser beam.


John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/16217c4e/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 11:05:50 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:05:50 +0100
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <0a2c01cf25b1$600d30b0$20279210$@att.net>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
 <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0a2c01cf25b1$600d30b0$20279210$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyf1hX84kW3YPaHUbcFpiHtroFboX9185Cba3sTzg5NE5w@mail.gmail.com>

;-) ;-)
Let's settle on "I prefer to screw open-minded dates, eat well and smoke"


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:09 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> >... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
>
> >...These days, screw dates, I prefer eating well and smoking...
>
>
> You don't need to make a choice, you would merely change the wording just a
> bit as follows: I prefer to screw dates, eat well and smoke.
>
> {8^D
>
> spike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/94ee84b0/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 14:20:50 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:20:50 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion talk at Utility conference
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4-Nvhu_iNWkp76=t1+=G8fuuzsxZyGYURkYarN9C2b0g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:00 AM,  Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't see how you can justify the expected profit.  The instant you start
> undercutting oil, oil prices shift to undercut you - and they can keep
> their prices down for years, if necessary, to wait until your operation
> runs out of money and shuts down, abandoning the hardware in place (no
> matter how efficient it would have been to keep using it).

Adrian, this isn't a project to make and sell oil, it isn't even a
project to sell energy.  It's a project to sell power satellites.

The intent is to sell them at a cost that massively undercuts coal,
nuclear and gas.  The low cost allows charging 1-2 cents per kWh for
the power.

At that price, an oil company can buy power (or power satellites) make
hydrogen from water, take CO2 out of the air (or get it from some
other source such as limestone) and make synthetic transport fuels for
as little as $30/bbl.  That translates to a gasoline price of a dollar
a gallon.

> That's how they've done it before; all indications are that they'd do it
> again.

If the project concept were to sell oil, you could be right.  But it is not.

Keith


From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 10 22:34:03 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:03 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
Message-ID: <502114212-9465@secure.ericade.net>

Spread the word: Foundational Questions Institute has an essay contest of interest.??http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay
An expert panel of judges will be instructed (and general readers strongly encouraged) to rate the entries by the degree to which they are?relevant?and?interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest.

Relevant:?The theme for this Essay Contest is:?"How Should Humanity Steer the Future?".Dystopic visions of the future are common in literature and film, while optimistic ones are more rare. This contest encourages us to avoid potentially self-fulfilling prophecies of gloom and doom and to think hard about how to make the world better while avoiding potential catastrophes.?

Our ever-deepening understanding of physics has enabled technologies and ways of thinking about our place in the world that have dramatically transformed humanity over the past several hundred years. Many of these changes have been difficult to predict or control?but not all.?

In this contest we ask how humanity should attempt to steer its own course in light of the radically different modes of thought and fundamentally new technologies that are becoming relevant in the coming decades.?

Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:



What is the best state that humanity can realistically achieve?

What is your plan for getting us there? Who implements this plan?

What technology (construed broadly to include practices and techniques) does your plan rely on? What are the risks of those technologies? How can those risks be mitigated?(Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of how humanity should steer the future.)?

Additionally, to be consonant with FQXi's scope and goals, essays should be sure to touch on issues in physics and cosmology, or closed related fields, such as astrophysics, biophysics, mathematics, complexity and emergence, and the philosophy of physics.



Interesting:?An interesting essay is:

Original and Creative:?Foremost, the intellectual content of the essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with new perspective. While the essay may or may not constitute original research, if the core ideas are largely contained in published works, those works should be the author's. At the same time, the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author.

Technically correct and rigorously argued, to the degree of a published work or grant proposal.

Well and clearly written, so that it is comprehensible and enjoyable to read.

Accessible?to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of?Scientific American?and a review article in?Science?or?Nature.
Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/e6286a09/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 23:56:29 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:56:29 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The Unique Merger
Message-ID: <CAL_armjOwiA8Afg2aZw6J4xWRUu16Y181=u9GE_9GzU85T4a4A@mail.gmail.com>

A great explanation of the story of life creation.

The Unique Merger That Made You (and Ewe, and Yew)

All sophisticated life on the planet Earth may owe its existence to
one freakish event.

Quotes:

Still, without the eukaryotic architecture, bacteria are forever
constrained in size and complexity. Sure, they have their amazing
skill sets, but it's the eukaryotes that cover the Earth in forest and
grassland, that navigate the planet looking for food and mates, that
build rockets to Mars.

The transition from the classic prokaryotic model to the deluxe
eukaryotic one is arguably the most important event in the history of
life on Earth. And in more than 3 billion years of existence, it
happened exactly once.

If this story is true, and there are still those who doubt it, then
all eukaryotes--every flower and fungus, spider and sparrow, man and
woman--descended from a sudden and breathtakingly improbable merger
between two microbes. They were our
great-great-great-great-...-great-grandparents, and by becoming one,
they laid the groundwork for the life forms that seem to make our
planet so special. The world as we see it (and the fact that we see it
at all; eyes are a eukaryotic invention) was irrevocably changed by
that fateful union--a union so unlikely that it very well might not
have happened at all, leaving our world forever dominated by microbes,
never to welcome sophisticated and amazing life like trees, mushrooms,
caterpillars, and us.
---------------

In 2004, James Lake changed the rules of engagement. Rather than
looking at any single gene, he and his colleague Maria Rivera compared
the entire genomes of two eukaryotes, three bacteria, and three
archaea. Their analysis supported the merger-first ideas: They
concluded that the common ancestor of all life diverged into bacteria
and archaea, which evolved independently until two of their members
suddenly merged. This created the first eukaryotes and closed what now
appeared to be a "ring of life." Before that fateful encounter, life
had just two major domains. Afterward, it had three.
-------------

This improbability has implications for the search for alien life. On
other worlds with the right chemical conditions, Lane believes that
life would be sure to emerge. But without a fateful merger, it would
be forever microbial. Perhaps this is the answer to the Fermi
paradox--the puzzling contradiction between the high apparent odds that
intelligent life would exist elsewhere among the billions of planets
in the Milky Way, and our inability to find any signs of such
intelligence. As Lane wrote in 2010, "The unavoidable conclusion is
that the universe should be full of bacteria, but more complex life
will be rare."

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


BillK


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 00:00:31 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:31 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The Unique Merger
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjOwiA8Afg2aZw6J4xWRUu16Y181=u9GE_9GzU85T4a4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjOwiA8Afg2aZw6J4xWRUu16Y181=u9GE_9GzU85T4a4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiWhj+mGXMuN=B=PXC3u3iH5Y1e+22s1yq7ZR75UQmhAA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:56 PM, BillK wrote:
> A great explanation of the story of life creation.
>
> The Unique Merger That Made You (and Ewe, and Yew)
>
> All sophisticated life on the planet Earth may owe its existence to
> one freakish event.
>

Oops, forgot the link -
<http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acquisitions/the-unique-merger-that-made-you-and-ewe-and-yew>

BillK


From tara at taramayastales.com  Tue Feb 11 00:07:05 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:07:05 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The Unique Merger
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjOwiA8Afg2aZw6J4xWRUu16Y181=u9GE_9GzU85T4a4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjOwiA8Afg2aZw6J4xWRUu16Y181=u9GE_9GzU85T4a4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E7361CB-9282-4080-8B07-5A4BAAA95F17@taramayastales.com>

Cooperation is as important for life as competition. But much more rare?   :)


On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:56 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> A great explanation of the story of life creation.
> 
> The Unique Merger That Made You (and Ewe, and Yew)
> 
> All sophisticated life on the planet Earth may owe its existence to
> one freakish event.
> 
> Quotes:
> 
> Still, without the eukaryotic architecture, bacteria are forever
> constrained in size and complexity. Sure, they have their amazing
> skill sets, but it's the eukaryotes that cover the Earth in forest and
> grassland, that navigate the planet looking for food and mates, that
> build rockets to Mars.
> 
> The transition from the classic prokaryotic model to the deluxe
> eukaryotic one is arguably the most important event in the history of
> life on Earth. And in more than 3 billion years of existence, it
> happened exactly once.




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 02:34:15 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:34:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyf1hX84kW3YPaHUbcFpiHtroFboX9185Cba3sTzg5NE5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
 <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0a2c01cf25b1$600d30b0$20279210$@att.net>
 <CAKTCJyf1hX84kW3YPaHUbcFpiHtroFboX9185Cba3sTzg5NE5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy3seug1nAS3HkcCgPmpJ0GpeP4ytDBKViiN+6ZMOtvTBg@mail.gmail.com>

BillK wrote:

I suspect all these are trivial factors compared to the first world
drop in birthrate.

Educate and empower women and they stop having children.

The reasons for this are probably multifactorial, though.
>>>


The birth dearth is a serious problem, especially in parts of Western
Europe and Japan (especially Japan, where fertile women are practically on
a childbearing national strike), for the obvious reason of too many old
retired folks, and not enough young workers to pay for them.  Immigration
has been seen as the solution (except in Japan, where they are betting on
robotics and A.I.), but with the much higher birthrates of the immigrants,
the face of Europe may be changing quite a bit over the next fifty years.
The question is, regarding conservative/fundamentalist Muslim immigrants
and other groups, will they do the "melting pot" thing?  Or as with many
Muslims, will they prove to be memetically resistant?

I wonder if some mid 21st century nations will decide to pay healthy people
to donate sperm and eggs, so that facilities full of thousands upon
thousands of artificial wombs, will produce the young citizens they will
desperately need.  But then between that and the need for high tech and
well-run "orphanages," the costs of playing "Brave New World" would be
prohibitive.

I suppose that with the rise of A.I. and advanced robotics, that the need
for relatively robust human populations may shrink, as machines take up the
slack, and excel in ways that humans may not.


John


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:

> ;-) ;-)
> Let's settle on "I prefer to screw open-minded dates, eat well and smoke"
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:09 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
>>
>> >...These days, screw dates, I prefer eating well and smoking...
>>
>>
>> You don't need to make a choice, you would merely change the wording just
>> a
>> bit as follows: I prefer to screw dates, eat well and smoke.
>>
>> {8^D
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/186f987c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 11 05:58:06 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:58:06 -0800
Subject: [ExI] keith's vision
Message-ID: <00eb01cf26ee$3cca8150$b65f83f0$@att.net>

 

I don't know the details of this control system, but clearly these controls
guys are on it:

 

http://www.army.mil/article/116793/Army_tests_vehicle_mounted_laser_against_
multiple_targets/

 

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. (Dec. 11, 2013) -- The Army used a
vehicle-mounted high-energy laser for the first time to successfully engage
more than 90 mortar rounds and several unmanned aerial vehicles in flight. 

The Army High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator, or HEL MD, underwent
multiple test events between Nov. 18 and Dec. 10, at White Sands Missile
Range.

This was the first full-up demonstration of the HEL MD in the configuration
that included the laser and beam director mounted in the vehicle, according
to officials of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces
Strategic Command. They said a surrogate radar, the Enhanced Multi Mode
Radar, supported the engagement by queuing the laser. .

 

 

 

If they can track a mortar round, then they can keep a laser focused on a
launch vehicle.  And if they can build one of these, they can build many,
and focus them all on the launcher.  So now if we can get a launch vehicle
that can take the heat and turn it into thrust, Keith's vision of low cost
launching becomes reality.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140210/409f758c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 11 15:47:20 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:47:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 3d of the 1a
Message-ID: <006c01cf2740$8d27f4f0$a777ded0$@att.net>

 

A nearby type 1a supernova has been in the news, the closest one since my
own misspent youth in 1986.  Back in those days, we were going nuts trying
to figure out why the 1a supernovae seemed to detonate sooner than theory
would suggest, about 1% or more too soon.  In those benighted times, we were
just getting computing hardware capable of 3D models, so we were still using
the 2D models.  


The 2D models also predicted a more symmetrical explosion than nature
demonstrated, so we knew at the time it had something to do with turbulence.
Chaos theory was far less advanced in those days than it is today.  Now
these 3D models have shown that superheated ash plumes made of iron and
nickel flow upward and initiate fusion in the lighter elements above.

 

In the meantime, the 1a in M82 is putting on quite the show.  It peaked
yesterday at 10.5.   Ohhhhh orgasm is this a cool time to be alive or what?

 

http://news.science360.gov/obj/pic-day/a4438f92-16d6-4f9a-9552-bb09fd7c480b/
3-d-simulation-exploding-supernova

 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=73842
<http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=73842&from=mmg> &from=mmg

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/daad506b/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 20:07:21 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:07:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] keith's vision
In-Reply-To: <00eb01cf26ee$3cca8150$b65f83f0$@att.net>
References: <00eb01cf26ee$3cca8150$b65f83f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbJ8kq3ktHYWRtZzijQy9ynPZ3HTaczxuoh0uLSvRZoD0g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:58 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> I don't know the details of this control system, but clearly these
> controls guys are on it:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.army.mil/article/116793/Army_tests_vehicle_mounted_laser_against_multiple_targets/
>
>
>
>
> If they can track a mortar round, then they can keep a laser focused on a
> launch vehicle.  And if they can build one of these, they can build many,
> and focus them all on the launcher.  So now if we can get a launch vehicle
> that can take the heat and turn it into thrust, Keith's vision of low cost
> launching becomes reality.
>
>
>
Those lasers are for blowing things up before they can get close enough to
blow you up. I'm not sure they work as well at distances needed to go to
space.

maybe instead of mounting them on a truck ... put them on a jet... hmm...
I wonder how flying lasers would impact the cost to space.  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/29b9082e/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 20:47:54 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:47:54 -0600
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAGSKFy3seug1nAS3HkcCgPmpJ0GpeP4ytDBKViiN+6ZMOtvTBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
 <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0a2c01cf25b1$600d30b0$20279210$@att.net>
 <CAKTCJyf1hX84kW3YPaHUbcFpiHtroFboX9185Cba3sTzg5NE5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGSKFy3seug1nAS3HkcCgPmpJ0GpeP4ytDBKViiN+6ZMOtvTBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>

"The birth dearth is a serious problem, especially in parts of Western
Europe and Japan (especially Japan, where fertile women are practically on
a childbearing national strike), for the obvious reason of too many old
retired folks, and not enough young workers to pay for them."

Yes, immediate problems.  Long run - I think we are overpopulated now.
China had the right idea but went about it wrongly.  Are we going to fuck
ourselves into starvation?  OK, so maybe technology can feed 50 billion
people, or 500 billion.  But were does it stop?  I think we will eventually
have to have licenses to get pregnant, as much as this libertarian hates
government interference with anything, much less sex.

If we just take birthing out of the 'hands' of the people and make all
babies in the lab, we can design them as we wish and control the population
as well.  The 'uterine replicator' is known to scifi fans via Lois McMaster
Bujold, and it's a great idea that will eventually save mankind from its
own urges.  Or, design babies to have far lower testosterone, and you get
rid of a lot of wars as well as a lot of babies.   bill


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:34 PM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>wrote:

> BillK wrote:
>
> I suspect all these are trivial factors compared to the first world
> drop in birthrate.
>
> Educate and empower women and they stop having children.
>
> The reasons for this are probably multifactorial, though.
> >>>
>
>
> The birth dearth is a serious problem, especially in parts of Western
> Europe and Japan (especially Japan, where fertile women are practically on
> a childbearing national strike), for the obvious reason of too many old
> retired folks, and not enough young workers to pay for them.  Immigration
> has been seen as the solution (except in Japan, where they are betting on
> robotics and A.I.), but with the much higher birthrates of the immigrants,
> the face of Europe may be changing quite a bit over the next fifty years.
> The question is, regarding conservative/fundamentalist Muslim immigrants
> and other groups, will they do the "melting pot" thing?  Or as with many
> Muslims, will they prove to be memetically resistant?
>
> I wonder if some mid 21st century nations will decide to pay healthy
> people to donate sperm and eggs, so that facilities full of thousands upon
> thousands of artificial wombs, will produce the young citizens they will
> desperately need.  But then between that and the need for high tech and
> well-run "orphanages," the costs of playing "Brave New World" would be
> prohibitive.
>
> I suppose that with the rise of A.I. and advanced robotics, that the need
> for relatively robust human populations may shrink, as machines take up the
> slack, and excel in ways that humans may not.
>
>
> John
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ;-) ;-)
>> Let's settle on "I prefer to screw open-minded dates, eat well and smoke"
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:09 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
>>>
>>> >...These days, screw dates, I prefer eating well and smoking...
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't need to make a choice, you would merely change the wording
>>> just a
>>> bit as follows: I prefer to screw dates, eat well and smoke.
>>>
>>> {8^D
>>>
>>> spike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/86cde82d/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 23:00:21 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:00:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAGSKFy3seug1nAS3HkcCgPmpJ0GpeP4ytDBKViiN+6ZMOtvTBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <340553706-4991@secure.ericade.net>
 <68378622-00F6-46BA-8ABF-7283F5D9FD60@taramayastales.com>
 <CAKTCJyfhLKNWyKnk1xasYScguoovWRgExvjQBgqSwwG_JsLT-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0a2c01cf25b1$600d30b0$20279210$@att.net>
 <CAKTCJyf1hX84kW3YPaHUbcFpiHtroFboX9185Cba3sTzg5NE5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGSKFy3seug1nAS3HkcCgPmpJ0GpeP4ytDBKViiN+6ZMOtvTBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS2MbppKwiSoWu=EvY2cNTNP91L2_3O3W2GeGpniLXiCw@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 10, 2014 6:39 PM, "John Grigg" <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if some mid 21st century nations will decide to pay healthy
people to donate sperm and eggs, so that facilities full of thousands upon
thousands of artificial wombs, will produce the young citizens they will
desperately need.  But then between that and the need for high tech and
well-run "orphanages," the costs of playing "Brave New World" would be
prohibitive.

At what point does it become economical to train, license, and employ full
time child rearers, in this scheme where there are many more "nobody's
children"?  Would the results get a dramatic boost over children raised the
traditional way, or would the lack of dedicated continuing adult support
and connections - a traditional "family", where it is not replaced by just
their siblings - be a major problem?

Further, what exploits would be too tempting not to do?  Biasing them
toward military service so we don't lose so many soldiers with families?
Genetic engineering, where terminating failures at 5 years old becomes more
practical?

> I suppose that with the rise of A.I. and advanced robotics, that the need
for relatively robust human populations may shrink, as machines take up the
slack, and excel in ways that humans may not.

Not necessarily.  Consider what the "need" is, aside from just laborers of
various sorts.  Part of the reason CPUs are so cheap is that so many are
needed, enabling economies of scale impossible when the world had under a
billion people - not that long ago, compared to the span of human history.

What things are not now economical to do, that might become practical with
a market of one trillion users?  And how much faster might the scientists
among that trillion push things forward, than all the scientists around
today do?  (Not all of them will be, of course, but more people with the
same per capita resources means more scientists.)

I've done some stories along this line - not yet published, for want of a
good venue (including marketing and editing to let me know how to bias the
stories for better public uptake) to publish them in.  (It's one thing to
seriously explore a topic, but another to do so in a way that many people
will read.  I've considered going the comic book route, if I could find a
good illustrator I could work with.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/705f4820/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Feb 12 01:30:09 2014
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:30:09 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>



On Feb 11, 2014, at 12:47 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

"The birth dearth is a serious problem, especially in parts of Western Europe and Japan (especially Japan, where fertile women are practically on a childbearing national strike), for the obvious reason of too many old retired folks, and not enough young workers to pay for them."
?

This is why anti-aging R&D is critically important (among other fine reasons). ?You don't want all the boomers going unproductive if at all possible. ? This should be a ultra high priority in any sane near future planning and funding.?



Yes, immediate problems.? Long run - I think we are overpopulated now.? China had the right idea but went about it wrongly.? Are we going to fuck ourselves into starvation?? OK, so maybe technology can feed 50 billion people, or 500 billion.? But were does it stop?? I think we will eventually have to have licenses to get pregnant, as much as this libertarian hates government interference with anything, much less sex.
?
According to UN population will top under 10 billion. ?We have no problem producing enough food for that many. ?Even with anti-aging it is not likely that many would want another round or first round of kids with more options opening up. ?Also we are not stuck long term on just this one rock. ?So I see no good reason to get very excited about population size.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/b79af37b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 02:27:25 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:27:25 -0600
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbm4CdoHeTP2NDiUOUDmBYadWedUiA_ehVe=k84+4-Emw@mail.gmail.com>

 "Also we are not stuck long term on just this one rock.  So I see no good
reason to get very excited about population size."

Does anyone honestly envision exporting billions of people to planets light
years away?  None habitable that we know of.  bill



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 12:47 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> "The birth dearth is a serious problem, especially in parts of Western
> Europe and Japan (especially Japan, where fertile women are practically on
> a childbearing national strike), for the obvious reason of too many old
> retired folks, and not enough young workers to pay for them."
>
>
>
> This is why anti-aging R&D is critically important (among other fine
> reasons).  You don't want all the boomers going unproductive if at all
> possible.   This should be a ultra high priority in any sane near future
> planning and funding.
>
>
>
> Yes, immediate problems.  Long run - I think we are overpopulated now.
> China had the right idea but went about it wrongly.  Are we going to fuck
> ourselves into starvation?  OK, so maybe technology can feed 50 billion
> people, or 500 billion.  But were does it stop?  I think we will eventually
> have to have licenses to get pregnant, as much as this libertarian hates
> government interference with anything, much less sex.
>
>
> According to UN population will top under 10 billion.  We have no problem
> producing enough food for that many.  Even with anti-aging it is not likely
> that many would want another round or first round of kids with more options
> opening up.  Also we are not stuck long term on just this one rock.  So I
> see no good reason to get very excited about population size.
>
> - samantha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/8624f314/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 02:30:51 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:30:51 -0600
Subject: [ExI] hard science
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>

I am a psychologist who once was going to be a physicist but got
sidetracked by English, music and psychology.  Last physics course:  11th
grade (1959).  Did not even get to pre-cal.

So - I want some technical advice for my book, the Gardens of Eden.  I'll
handle their minds; their bodies have been improved to near perfection, so
the last thing needed is some tech advice:

Assume tens of thousands of years from now:  what kind of power will they
be using?  Will they still use wires for anything? I hate wires!  What do
you need to go wireless?  More wires.) Alternatives to circuit boards?

Assuming everything now known is digitized and so is everything from now to
then:  how big a sphere or cube would it take to hold all of man's digital
data?  Assuming some sort of storage in atoms/molecules/???

I will use anti-gravity and teleportation whether they are ever going to be
feasible or not.  It's fiction, right?
Everything else is up for grabs.

I handle the soft science, you predict some the hard science, just to throw
the hard scifi people a bone or two.  bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/5800212c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 12 03:04:58 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:04:58 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbm4CdoHeTP2NDiUOUDmBYadWedUiA_ehVe=k84+4-Emw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>
 <CAO+xQEbm4CdoHeTP2NDiUOUDmBYadWedUiA_ehVe=k84+4-Emw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <036a01cf279f$376edf10$a64c9d30$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn
Wallace
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:27 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] tech influence

 

>>. "Also we are not stuck long term on just this one rock.  So I see no
good reason to get very excited about population size."  Samantha

>.Does anyone honestly envision exporting billions of people to planets
light years away?  None habitable that we know of.  bill

 

 

Why go light years away?  Mars is only a few minutes away.  And no need to
export billions.  One or two young women with a bunch of frozen embryos
would work for a start.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/349624f5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 12 03:41:27 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:41:27 -0800
Subject: [ExI] google to rehabilitate hangar 1 at moffett
Message-ID: <037b01cf27a4$50161ce0$f04256a0$@att.net>

 

Cool! 

 

It can be properly argued that Shockley's lab where the integrated circuit
was invented in 1957 is ground zero for the silicon revolution.  But even
before that, an important local landmark which caused Sunnyvale, Palo Alto
and Mountain View to be tech magnets was Moffett Field Hangar 1.  

 

The skin had PCBs, so they tore that off, so it is a big metal skeleton.
Today we learned that Google is going to restore it to its historical
appearance.

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3347/20140211/google-subsidiary-wins-right
s-to-restore-iconic-hangar-one-and-manage-moffett-field.htm

 

I am really glad someone stepped up to save that structure.  It provides the
biggest indoor open space you will see anywhere.

 

spike  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/24f14db1/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 05:26:44 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:26:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace
<foozler83 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Assume tens of thousands of years from now:
>

I would recommend 1-2 thousand at most.  That's time enough for practically
anything to happen as it is; tens of thousands is time enough for tens - at
least - of anythings to happen, each going from its own base rather than
anything that readers in the present might recognize.


> what kind of power will they be using?
>

That is a question with many possible answers.  What kind of power would be
convenient for your story?  Even assuming no FTL, it's quite possible for
mankind to have rearranged much matter from the asteroid belts and beyond
(possibly just the Oort Cloud, if every solid body from Neptune inward was
claimed) into a full Dyson Sphere within a couple thousand years, perhaps
with a thin slice left open to shine upon the planets' and asteroids'
orbital plane (which would still leave over 99% tapped), and ship energy
around in the form of antimatter (produced, stored, and consumed at close
enough to 100% efficiency).

Compared to certain other possibilities, that's downright tame - and easy
for an audience to relate to.  Of course, if one political entity owns the
Dyson Sphere, it also owns the chief energy production means in the solar
system.  Whether or not this is a good thing depends on your story; if it
is not, then simply have multiple political entities each controlling some
portion.


> Will they still use wires for anything? I hate wires!  What do you need to
> go wireless?  More wires.)
>

That's possible today - you just have to have a way to beam power and data
from point to point.  Broadcast energy is less efficient, but given the
time you're talking about, it's not much of a handwave to say that they've
found a way to focus beams to coherent enough over long distances.  Just
don't have anything get in the way - and make sure to have receivers
specially designed, since very high energy densities are weapons-grade.
(Or, again, just ship physical fuel around.)


> Alternatives to circuit boards?
>

"Data crystals" are an old trope in science fiction for a reason: they're
quite plausible, assuming standard interfaces.

It might be better to think in terms of what properties you want, and then
see if there's a hard-enough sci-fi way to achieve that.  E.g., data
crystals - and synthetic crystals for most computing architecture - fits
right in with the
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrystalSpiresAndTogas motif used
in a lot of sci-fi, especially ones depicting the kind of society I suspect
you're going for.


> Assuming everything now known is digitized and so is everything from now
> to then:  how big a sphere or cube would it take to hold all of man's
> digital data?  Assuming some sort of storage in atoms/molecules/???
>

Less than a cubic millimeter.  Beyond that...unless you've a good plot
reason to care, it's probably best to just say "less than a cubic
millimeter", so you don't get tripped up by calculation errors.


> I will use anti-gravity and teleportation whether they are ever going to
> be feasible or not.  It's fiction, right?
> Everything else is up for grabs.
>

Sure.  It's your story, and there are at least guesses for how those two
might possibly be done given much better understanding and control of
quantum physics than present technology affords.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/f55341b7/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 12 05:44:26 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:44:26 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <040901cf27b5$7e67a800$7b36f800$@att.net>

 

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

Assume tens of thousands of years from now:

.

 

Will they still use wires for anything? I hate wires!  What do you need to
go wireless?  More wires.)

 

 

Hmmmm.  Bill, the mechanical analog to what you are asking is "Can we
transmit mechanical work without shafts?  I hate shafts."

 

The answer is yes you can, however.  It isn't the right way to transfer
mechanical force in most applications.  For instance, you could take
mechanical energy and use it to create sound waves, such as in a big
speaker, like you might see at a stadium rock concert.  Then some distance
away, another speaker would pick up the vibrations and would itself vibrate,
moving a magnet mounted to the speaker cone, generating electrical energy,
which could then be turned into mechanical energy.  So you have transmitted
mechanical energy without a big heavy greasy shaft.  Well, you transmitted a
little bit of it anyway, a very small fraction of a percent of what you
started with.

 

Transmitting electrical power without a wire is more efficient than that two
speaker trick.  You have the option of turning the electric power to a
laser, shining the laser on a distant target and turning the light back into
electrical energy.  As in the example above, you would get back a little of
the energy you put in.  In some applications that might even be an OK way to
go, such as when you only need a small amount of energy at the target, or
when you don't have the option of a wire, as in Keith Henson's vision with
the laser powered launch vehicle.

 

However, shafts and wires are your friends for most energy transmission
applications, and still will be tens of thousands of years from now.

 

spike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140211/9ca653d2/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb 12 08:07:10 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:07:10 +0100
Subject: [ExI] keith's vision
In-Reply-To: <00eb01cf26ee$3cca8150$b65f83f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <622950904-1947@secure.ericade.net>

spike <spike66 at att.net> , 11/2/2014 7:17 AM:


?

If they can track a mortar round, then they can keep a laser focused on a launch vehicle.? And if they can build one of these, they can build many, and focus them all on the launcher.? So now if we can get a launch vehicle that can take the heat and turn it into thrust, Keith?s vision of low cost launching becomes reality.
Actually, mortar rounds might be slow and easy targets. Stuff in space moves on the order of km/s, while mortars move at most a few hundred m/s (?http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/GabrielaBis.shtml )
Still, good tracking.



Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/4566670a/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Feb 12 16:59:39 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:59:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
Message-ID: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>

With so many articles about aging these days, its cumbersome to find info
without ads for a product to fight aging!  Does anyone have updated science
facts on the human body/brain as a whole that looks at:

 

1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest directly
after puberty, others say 20-ish);

2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
and some suggest after menopause and andropause); and

3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
body regenerates itself every seven years?

 

 

Thanks,

Natasha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/a3994cb3/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Feb 12 16:59:39 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:59:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
Message-ID: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>

With so many articles about aging these days, its cumbersome to find info
without ads for a product to fight aging!  Does anyone have updated science
facts on the human body/brain as a whole that looks at:

 

1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest directly
after puberty, others say 20-ish);

2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
and some suggest after menopause and andropause); and

3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
body regenerates itself every seven years?

 

 

Thanks,

Natasha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/a3994cb3/attachment-0001.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 18:59:17 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:59:17 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ+VWG-LTLF41va+DyeTj8mmRQHce41qGXDJ4aWSXSoKg@mail.gmail.com>

I know for sure that the forebrain (reasoning/judgment) isn't fully
developed until the mid 20s, later in men (as women know)  bill


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:59 AM, <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> With so many articles about aging these days, its cumbersome to find info
> without ads for a product to fight aging!  Does anyone have updated science
> facts on the human body/brain as a whole that looks at:
>
>
>
> 1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest
> directly after puberty, others say 20-ish);
>
> 2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
> and some suggest after menopause and andropause); and
>
> 3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
> affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
> daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
> cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
> body regenerates itself every seven years?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Natasha
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/3f3f8a53/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 19:02:40 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:02:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] google to rehabilitate hangar 1 at moffett
In-Reply-To: <037b01cf27a4$50161ce0$f04256a0$@att.net>
References: <037b01cf27a4$50161ce0$f04256a0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTOwLUW+bP-7Vkfv5Pn+Yh2Mrm7Ng-pSq+3-mkT1LtphQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 11, 2014 7:57 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I am really glad someone stepped up to save that structure.  It provides
the biggest indoor open space you will see anywhere.

Quite a few people stepped up; I've been talking to one of the losing
proposers.  There are concerns about what Google plans to do with the
space, but we shall see.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/98be5f1b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 18:56:53 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:56:53 -0600
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZB-fJJFTRwnsfMYoCXh0+ptXkm-9fzPmookPv-dPgtwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Less than a cubic millimeter

If all human knowledge, photos, corporate records, Tv shows, everything,
can fit into one cubic millimeter, then I can attach it to some flying
contraption, duplicate it millions of times, and have it available all over
the planet.  I assume getting the data out by some sort of radio signal is
no problem.  So, everyone everywhere has access to everything instantly.
Now if a biological radio can be designed and fitted into their skulls (and
included in the DNA), then there will be no need for any sort of inorganic
gadget implantation in their heads.

The reason I think it will take tens of thousands of years is that genetics
and epigenetics is so incredibly complex that traits that depend on dozens
or even scores of genes will take a very long time to figure out.  It
wasn't very long ago that we called some of it 'junk' DNA before we learned
that maybe it did something after all.  I figure we are very, very low on
the curve - the positively accelerated part.   bill


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Assume tens of thousands of years from now:
>>
>
> I would recommend 1-2 thousand at most.  That's time enough for
> practically anything to happen as it is; tens of thousands is time enough
> for tens - at least - of anythings to happen, each going from its own base
> rather than anything that readers in the present might recognize.
>
>
>> what kind of power will they be using?
>>
>
> That is a question with many possible answers.  What kind of power would
> be convenient for your story?  Even assuming no FTL, it's quite possible
> for mankind to have rearranged much matter from the asteroid belts and
> beyond (possibly just the Oort Cloud, if every solid body from Neptune
> inward was claimed) into a full Dyson Sphere within a couple thousand
> years, perhaps with a thin slice left open to shine upon the planets' and
> asteroids' orbital plane (which would still leave over 99% tapped), and
> ship energy around in the form of antimatter (produced, stored, and
> consumed at close enough to 100% efficiency).
>
> Compared to certain other possibilities, that's downright tame - and easy
> for an audience to relate to.  Of course, if one political entity owns the
> Dyson Sphere, it also owns the chief energy production means in the solar
> system.  Whether or not this is a good thing depends on your story; if it
> is not, then simply have multiple political entities each controlling some
> portion.
>
>
>> Will they still use wires for anything? I hate wires!  What do you need
>> to go wireless?  More wires.)
>>
>
> That's possible today - you just have to have a way to beam power and data
> from point to point.  Broadcast energy is less efficient, but given the
> time you're talking about, it's not much of a handwave to say that they've
> found a way to focus beams to coherent enough over long distances.  Just
> don't have anything get in the way - and make sure to have receivers
> specially designed, since very high energy densities are weapons-grade.
> (Or, again, just ship physical fuel around.)
>
>
>> Alternatives to circuit boards?
>>
>
> "Data crystals" are an old trope in science fiction for a reason: they're
> quite plausible, assuming standard interfaces.
>
> It might be better to think in terms of what properties you want, and then
> see if there's a hard-enough sci-fi way to achieve that.  E.g., data
> crystals - and synthetic crystals for most computing architecture - fits
> right in with the
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrystalSpiresAndTogas motif
> used in a lot of sci-fi, especially ones depicting the kind of society I
> suspect you're going for.
>
>
>>  Assuming everything now known is digitized and so is everything from
>> now to then:  how big a sphere or cube would it take to hold all of man's
>> digital data?  Assuming some sort of storage in atoms/molecules/???
>>
>
> Less than a cubic millimeter.  Beyond that...unless you've a good plot
> reason to care, it's probably best to just say "less than a cubic
> millimeter", so you don't get tripped up by calculation errors.
>
>
>>  I will use anti-gravity and teleportation whether they are ever going
>> to be feasible or not.  It's fiction, right?
>> Everything else is up for grabs.
>>
>
> Sure.  It's your story, and there are at least guesses for how those two
> might possibly be done given much better understanding and control of
> quantum physics than present technology affords.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/673c22f4/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 12 19:09:36 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:09:36 +0000
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52FBC6F0.8030207@yahoo.com>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

 > "Also we are not stuck long term on just this one rock.  So I see no good
 >reason to get very excited about population size."
 >
 >Does anyone honestly envision exporting billions of people to planets 
light
 >years away?  None habitable that we know of.  bill

Does anyone honestly think it's a good idea to spend all the effort, 
energy and money necessary to escape from one deep gravity well, only to 
throw yourself down another one?

Yes, I know the answer to that, but can't understand why.  If you just 
stop thinking in terms of planets, there's a humungosity of living space 
in this solar system alone, and more energy than you can shake a 
trillion O'Neill habitats at.

Planets are lousy living spaces, a terrible waste of matter, difficult 
to leave, and they have /weather/!

Ben Zaiboc


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 12 19:17:24 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:17:24 +0000
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52FBC8C4.6090606@yahoo.com>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

 >Assume tens of thousands of years from now
 >
 >Assuming everything now known is digitized and so is everything from 
now to
 >then

I would assume that, in tens of thousands of years, 'everything is 
digitised' would include people, and they'd have forgotten long ago what 
it was like to be embodied in frail short-lived biological bodies.

I'm afraid I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection where 
people are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.

Ben Zaiboc


From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 19:56:01 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:56:01 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZB-fJJFTRwnsfMYoCXh0+ptXkm-9fzPmookPv-dPgtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZB-fJJFTRwnsfMYoCXh0+ptXkm-9fzPmookPv-dPgtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS6ygBOE8d0Tqhmd5UCQyaQq5t3DVMHLy9bjJ-oCpQD_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 12, 2014 11:03 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> If all human knowledge, photos, corporate records, Tv shows, everything,
can fit into one cubic millimeter,

Wait, I misread.  I thought you meant "a man".  All information for all
time?  A cubic meter - and even that will only hold the most commonly used
bits.  Still, they can ask each other for things they don't know, a base
concept very similar to today's Internet, and the effect you're going for
still works - especially if everyone is still on Earth (which, frankly,
seems absurd after a few hundred years at most without very good reason).

> Now if a biological radio can be designed and fitted into their skulls
(and included in the DNA), then there will be no need for any sort of
inorganic gadget implantation in their heads.

This can be done, and is an avenue to explore by itself.  What sensory
modality does this take?  Is it a new, sixth sense by which we could speak
and listen?  I have often seen it referred to as "radiotelepathy" if that
is the case.

> The reason I think it will take tens of thousands of years is that
genetics and epigenetics is so incredibly complex that traits that depend
on dozens or even scores of genes will take a very long time to figure
out.  It wasn't very long ago that we called some of it 'junk' DNA before
we learned that maybe it did something after all.  I figure we are very,
very low on the curve - the positively accelerated part.

Even given that, tens of thousands of years massively stretches
plausibility.  A few hundred years is far more likely.  One thousand years
might be justifiable, but not much more than that, and even that requires
some interruption - some calamity or dark age - to interrupt progress (and
explain why everyone's still on Earth).

Tens of thousands of years just to figure out DNA to the level you're
specifying simply does not work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/c1009032/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 20:14:59 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:14:59 +0000
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZB-fJJFTRwnsfMYoCXh0+ptXkm-9fzPmookPv-dPgtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZB-fJJFTRwnsfMYoCXh0+ptXkm-9fzPmookPv-dPgtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armi4Qs4ifGiBntd+vMx28J0qKVs2Py=KJEzSX2c3iN_Yng@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:56 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> The reason I think it will take tens of thousands of years is that genetics
> and epigenetics is so incredibly complex that traits that depend on dozens
> or even scores of genes will take a very long time to figure out.  It wasn't
> very long ago that we called some of it 'junk' DNA before we learned that
> maybe it did something after all.  I figure we are very, very low on the
> curve - the positively accelerated part.   bill
>
>

The reason all the replies expect much quicker changes is Ray
Kurzweil's exponential curves.

Faster and faster, more and more, quicker and quicker.
Until the Singularity arrives.

BillK


From max at maxmore.com  Wed Feb 12 20:52:13 2014
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:52:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wUOw8B88emmKr0_YDaeeue6AXFbyOYFnNiwXdFk4ssB7w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

> With so many articles about aging these days, its cumbersome to find info
> without ads for a product to fight aging!  Does anyone have updated science
> facts on the human body/brain as a whole that looks at:
>
>
>
> 1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest
> directly after puberty, others say 20-ish);
>
> 2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
> and some suggest after menopause and andropause); and
>
> 3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
> affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
> daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
> cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
> body regenerates itself every seven years?
>
That broad statement is not accurate -- although it may not be a terrible
approximation of the averages of widely varying turnover times. For
instance, the cells lining the stomach last only five days, red blood cells
120 days or so, and the adult human liver 300 to 500 days, whereas other
structures retain the same cells for decades, such as "the neurons of the
cerebral cortex, the inner lens cells of the eye and perhaps the muscle
cells of the heart" (from the first link below).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198208.article

MM

>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Natasha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosophy/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transhumanist+reader
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/c1a87fd5/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 20:56:49 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:56:49 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armi4Qs4ifGiBntd+vMx28J0qKVs2Py=KJEzSX2c3iN_Yng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEa726B4k50C2088yGDjkFhkvyjq17E+LWpNLpSUR014Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR649sSyzPFWih1gb4hNY0MaNNQQfMLTkXqdBL45khwbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZB-fJJFTRwnsfMYoCXh0+ptXkm-9fzPmookPv-dPgtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armi4Qs4ifGiBntd+vMx28J0qKVs2Py=KJEzSX2c3iN_Yng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTKmGu81g_NL2_MXfyRJq=Ren-Qp4wyNPFRQsatb5bhXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 12, 2014 12:16 PM, "BillK" <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason all the replies expect much quicker changes is Ray
> Kurzweil's exponential curves.
>
> Faster and faster, more and more, quicker and quicker.
> Until the Singularity arrives.

Not needed in this case.  Even flat or slightly retarded (from current)
progress rates gets us to where he's projecting in several centuries, tops,
well short of 10,000 years.

Of course, then there is the likelihood of exponential growth to consider.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/aa89ed64/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 21:12:46 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:12:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <036a01cf279f$376edf10$a64c9d30$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>
 <CAO+xQEbm4CdoHeTP2NDiUOUDmBYadWedUiA_ehVe=k84+4-Emw@mail.gmail.com>
 <036a01cf279f$376edf10$a64c9d30$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRDjpLU6sWRsErq8oiuUp7rzgv2fSggo3-7n1-2OZi63g@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 11, 2014 7:21 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Why go light years away?  Mars is only a few minutes away.

Why leave one gravity well only to drop into another?  Lunar orbit has such
convenient access to many metals, and recyclable nitrogen (and other
life-critical substances) not hard to import.

> And no need to export billions.  One or two young women with a bunch of
frozen embryos would work for a start.

Except for the "raising the children to be capable of doing much of
consequence, and caring at all about repaying those who sent them" bit.

Seriously, just sending people to give birth and ignoring everything else
that makes up a civilization is sending them to die.  Unless you claim
everything else can be automated, but by the time that could be done (it's
not yet possible in the much more forgiving environment of Earth), there
would be no need to give birth either: just program mind children and maybe
forge robotic bodies for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/b990cd09/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 12 23:07:11 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:07:11 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRDjpLU6sWRsErq8oiuUp7rzgv2fSggo3-7n1-2OZi63g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>
 <CAO+xQEbm4CdoHeTP2NDiUOUDmBYadWedUiA_ehVe=k84+4-Emw@mail.gmail.com>
 <036a01cf279f$376edf10$a64c9d30$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRDjpLU6sWRsErq8oiuUp7rzgv2fSggo3-7n1-2OZi63g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <026101cf2847$2b26dcf0$817496d0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:13 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] tech influence

 

On Feb 11, 2014 7:21 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>. And no need to export billions.  One or two young women with a bunch of
frozen embryos would work for a start.

>.Except for the "raising the children to be capable of doing much of
consequence, and caring at all about repaying those who sent them" bit.

My concern is the opposite.  Plenty of people will be interested in anything
a Mars native has to say.  All the interesting intellectual content will
come from Earth, so my notion is that children growing up on Mars may have
an obsessive ambition to come here.

>.Seriously, just sending people to give birth and ignoring everything else
that makes up a civilization is sending them to die.  Unless you claim
everything else can be automated, but by the time that could be done (it's
not yet possible in the much more forgiving environment of Earth), there
would be no need to give birth either: just program mind children and maybe
forge robotic bodies for them.

Ja this scenario only works under the possibility (unknown but not zero)
that uploading is either inherently impossible or much more difficult than
we have imagined.  The second scenario is one I find compelling for all its
precedents.  An example is in noting the things that were being said about
how we would solve all these human diseases and understand so many things
when we could read the entire human genome.  OK so we did it.  Where's all
our superpowers?  When do we get those?

What we discovered is another layer of complication, and at least another
one implied below that one.

That applies to other areas as well.  This leads me to think we may not be
all that close to uploading, but close to machines capable of carving out a
habitat below the surface of Mars, where one-way travelers will attempt to
raise and educated children.

Store this post somewhere where you can find it again, take good care of
your health, come back and see how we are doing 40 years from now.

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/09ed5f58/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 00:45:30 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:45:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] tech influence
In-Reply-To: <026101cf2847$2b26dcf0$817496d0$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEbG1PDad7RoQ28r4++Vda7928HggDwB8_vCHBYebXuhkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d7e4263d-f8f2-4b37-ac9c-d35fb1c0322f@me.com>
 <CAO+xQEbm4CdoHeTP2NDiUOUDmBYadWedUiA_ehVe=k84+4-Emw@mail.gmail.com>
 <036a01cf279f$376edf10$a64c9d30$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRDjpLU6sWRsErq8oiuUp7rzgv2fSggo3-7n1-2OZi63g@mail.gmail.com>
 <026101cf2847$2b26dcf0$817496d0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSrUVpnv=+Mbr0YHPPwBTE9XQH_+=QZexgQd7EwBiD-YA@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 12, 2014 3:22 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> My concern is the opposite.  Plenty of people will be interested in
anything a Mars native has to say.

At first, perhaps.  Ask any animal rescue shelter what happens to virtually
all life forms that humans raise for the glamour and to show off.  I see no
reason to believe that humans on Mars would fare any different after a
decade, if not sooner.

Any viable space colonization plan must either address the cultural
component (giving the settlers a reason they care about to repay those who
sent them), or give a practical mechanism for raising sufficient funds
(given that serious money is needed, far beyond what it is possible to
raise on charity, no matter how you dress that charity up) with no widely
believable reason to expect a return on investment.

> Store this post somewhere where you can find it again, take good care of
your health, come back and see how we are doing 40 years from now.

No, I shall delete it after I send this reply.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/343ac32c/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Thu Feb 13 01:29:42 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:29:42 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <52FBC8C4.6090606@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FBC8C4.6090606@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5B729B8C-A9B6-43A0-81F9-D4B66C8D2E92@taramayastales.com>

On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would assume that, in tens of thousands of years, 'everything is digitised' would include people, and they'd have forgotten long ago what it was like to be embodied in frail short-lived biological bodies.
> 
> I'm afraid I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection where people are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.


I don't see why. Amoebas are still wandering around in single-cell suits, despite being immensely older than 10,000 years, and despite the presence of our exalted selves.

Not everything old is extinct. Not everything new displaces what it replaces.

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads







From spike66 at att.net  Thu Feb 13 02:01:49 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:01:49 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <5B729B8C-A9B6-43A0-81F9-D4B66C8D2E92@taramayastales.com>
References: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FBC8C4.6090606@yahoo.com>
 <5B729B8C-A9B6-43A0-81F9-D4B66C8D2E92@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <03d601cf285f$8f735c20$ae5a1460$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Tara Maya

>...Amoebas are still wandering around in single-cell suits, despite being
immensely older than 10,000 years, and despite the presence of our exalted
selves...Not everything old is extinct. Not everything new displaces what it
replaces.  Tara Maya
______________________________________________

Consider the first amoeba to evolve.  That one is still alive.  Reasoning:
as soon as one could reasonably define that beast as an amoeba, a billion
years ago perhaps, a piece of it blebbed off and became another amoeba, but
that was the second one.  The original one was still there, just smaller.
Or if something came along and devoured the first one, the second one could
just as legitimately be defined as the first one, and the previous first
one, which was devoured, becomes the second, after off-blebbing from the
other.

In either case, repeat that same thought experiment arbitrarily many times,
and you soon realize that any amoeba you observe under your home microscope
is every bit as much the first one as any other one.  If that thought
experiment isn't satisfying, start with any two present day amoebea and run
the clock backwards: two similar amoebae belb into one.  It doesn't matter
which of the two you consider the dominant one, perhaps the larger, it
doesn't matter: the precursor into which the two amoebae belbed is the same
either way.  Repeat repeatedly, all the way back to the first amoeba to
evolve.

We have every reason for confidence that there will still be amoebae doing
the same as they are now, little changed since the first one first evolved,
when the sun goes red supergiant and slays everything here.  Conclusion: the
amoeba is immortal.

Ain't evolution kewall?  {8^D

spike



From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb 13 02:05:42 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:05:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <5B729B8C-A9B6-43A0-81F9-D4B66C8D2E92@taramayastales.com>
References: <mailman.168.1392192461.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FBC8C4.6090606@yahoo.com>
 <5B729B8C-A9B6-43A0-81F9-D4B66C8D2E92@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <002301cf2860$1a508610$4ef19230$@natasha.cc>


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tara Maya
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:30 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] hard science

On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would assume that, in tens of thousands of years, 'everything is
digitised' would include people, and they'd have forgotten long ago what it
was like to be embodied in frail short-lived biological bodies.
> 
> I'm afraid I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection where
people are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.

Tara wrote: 
"I don't see why. Amoebas are still wandering around in single-cell suits,
despite being immensely older than 10,000 years, and despite the presence of
our exalted selves.

I like you statement about the suits, although if I were an amoeba I'd
prefer a dress because it would be more functional. But if we are making
them better than humans because we don't know if they have a sense of self;
however lengthy the life of this historical hero, does an Amoeba engineer
new tubular pseudopod when one is injured or can it innovate different types
of transport?  If environments become discomforting, can it get alter its
environment to prevent a potential microbial cyst? And lastly, if amoebia
want to engage in sex, can it petition rights for this historical behavior?

Natasha



From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb 13 02:05:53 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:05:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wUOw8B88emmKr0_YDaeeue6AXFbyOYFnNiwXdFk4ssB7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
 <CAJX-7wUOw8B88emmKr0_YDaeeue6AXFbyOYFnNiwXdFk4ssB7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002401cf2860$2013be50$603b3af0$@natasha.cc>

Thanks Max!

 

 <http://www.natasha.cc/> Natasha Vita-More, PhD

 

Faculty, University of Advancing Technology

Chair, Humanity+

_______________________________________

New Book at
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/188-1002006-3563941?url=search-ali
as%3Daps&field-keywords=the%20transhumanist%20reader&sprefix=the+transhumani
st+re%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Athe%20transhumanist%20reader> Amazon!

cover email

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:52 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Human Aging

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:

With so many articles about aging these days, its cumbersome to find info
without ads for a product to fight aging!  Does anyone have updated science
facts on the human body/brain as a whole that looks at:

 

1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest directly
after puberty, others say 20-ish);

2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
and some suggest after menopause and andropause); and

3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
body regenerates itself every seven years?

That broad statement is not accurate -- although it may not be a terrible
approximation of the averages of widely varying turnover times. For
instance, the cells lining the stomach last only five days, red blood cells
120 days or so, and the adult human liver 300 to 500 days, whereas other
structures retain the same cells for decades, such as "the neurons of the
cerebral cortex, the inner lens cells of the eye and perhaps the muscle
cells of the heart" (from the first link below).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
&_r=0

http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/
 
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198208.article

MM

 

 

Thanks,

Natasha


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




-- 

Max More, PhD

Strategic Philosopher

Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader

http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosoph
y/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books
<http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosop
hy/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=t
he+transhumanist+reader>
&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transhumanist+reader
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/0be34efa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/0be34efa/attachment.png>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 02:47:19 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:47:19 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSaLL__HefTHvqMbtTbtyqhz=KapP1EtBkpNbXK-y0OUA@mail.gmail.com>

I forwarded your questions to an acquaintance who's a researcher in the
field.  Here's what she said:

---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---
Tell Natasha that I've been working on aging and seniors for about 20 years
now, so my information is an amalgam of information gleaned largely from
clinical and academic sources, but it's come from so many sources I
couldn't possibly list them.

>Does anyone have updated science facts on the human body/brain as a whole
that looks at:
>
> 1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest
directly after puberty, others say 20-ish);

The aging process starts with chromosome chains, each of which is capped by
a telomere (kind of like the aglet on the ends if shoelaces).  Each
telomere is preprogrammed from birth to indicate (among other things) how
often this particular chromosome chain can reliably multiply before aging
and losing some of the contents. There's no specific age to each telomere,
but generally they start affecting the chromosomes around one's early 20's.
The good news is that most of the telomeres continue their healthy
reproduction of chromosomes until very late in life.

 > 2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting
views, and some suggest after menopause and andropause);

Depends on what's meant by "preparing for death."  One could say that it
starts when the first chromosome chain misbehaves and who knows when that
is.  Different parts of the body age at different rates, and disease or
malfunction can affect that.  In many cases, people know when their body is
getting ready to die.  My mother knew that she was dying more than a month
before she actually did.

> 3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
body regenerates itself every seven years?

To say that the body regenerates itself every seven years is too broad a
statement.  Some parts do, some don't. Each time there is cell division,
there is a possibility that some new gene combination will occur that
subtly changes how the body works.  Science doesn't yet know how that
works, but have observed the changes in the lab.  The ability to generate
new body parts (e.g., an ear) from skin stem cells illustrates the
phenomenon.

Please tell your friend that the phrases "fight aging" and "anti-aging" are
markers for variations on snake oil.  Most of the things sold or advocated
with those phrases in the descriptions are untested, unapproved, and
generally unbelievable.  There's a whole industry that's grown up around
those and similar phrases to take in the gullible with money to spend.

As to where to look for credible information, look for clinical research
papers or courses on aging by degreed professors.  AARP's research section
is a good place to start.
---END FORWARDED MESSAGE---

In addition to that "untested, unapproved, and generally unbelievable", I
would add, "and most of those that have been tested have been shown not to
work, but are sold as life extenders anyway".  Until there's wide scale
enforcement on truth in advertising here, the market is unfortunately
almost 100% fraud.

Of course, we care about that "almost".  But we can't ignore the facts on
the ground, if we wish to be effective.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140212/5c8d43dc/attachment.html>

From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Thu Feb 13 12:48:50 2014
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:48:50 +0100
Subject: [ExI] BBC Easter Island documentary
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting video. But after watching it, I proceeded to re-read the
chapter about Easter Island on Diamond's "Collapse" book, written in 2005.
It describes everything shown in the video, and many more details, in the
end supporting the traditional view of overpopulation and environmental
collapse. The video goes to great lenghts to refute the accuse of
cannibalism, which is horrorific to us but no big deal for other
populations, and is in the end just a side note on the whole story. The
only thing displayed even more prominently is the narcissism of the
protagonist... he's omnipresent in the shoots.

A few things are in direct conflict - for example, the gentle lowering of
the statues claimed in the video, compared to the intentional breaking of
them by toppling them over stone slabs as claimed in the book, and it
shouldn't be too difficult to decide who is closer to the truth - if only
one had the time, will, and maybe was longing for an exotic vacantion :-)

Alfio


















On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:51 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've just watched a 90 mins documentary reviewing the latest data on
> Easter Island.
>
> It claims that the Easter Island population was flourishing when first
> contacted by the Dutch in 1722. But 50 years later, in 1774, Captain
> Cook found some statues toppled and the population dying. Later slave
> traders and smallpox almost completely destroyed the population.
>
> It is a long video, but worth the time spent.
>
> <
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03srmm6/Easter_Island_Mysteries_of_a_Lost_World/
> >
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/4b2523ac/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 13:34:32 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:34:32 +0000
Subject: [ExI] BBC Easter Island documentary
In-Reply-To: <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhsdBRNfV67a3mnL4cSTNPq7T5TYwcV6+eAKDQSAGNO8g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Alfio Puglisi  wrote:
> Interesting video. But after watching it, I proceeded to re-read the chapter
> about Easter Island on Diamond's "Collapse" book, written in 2005. It
> describes everything shown in the video, and many more details, in the end
> supporting the traditional view of overpopulation and environmental
> collapse. The video goes to great lenghts to refute the accuse of
> cannibalism, which is horrorific to us but no big deal for other
> populations, and is in the end just a side note on the whole story. The only
> thing displayed even more prominently is the narcissism of the
> protagonist... he's omnipresent in the shoots.
>
>

The presenter, Jago Cooper, is a well-credentialled archeologist
presently working for the British Museum as Curator of the Americas in
the department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas. He has many
published papers.
I think he is explaining the latest research findings, which seem to
contradict Diamond's 'Just so' story. A native population being
destroyed by contact with Europeans through disease, slavery and
invasion has happened many times elsewhere.

<http://britishmuseum.academia.edu/JagoCooper>

Cooper is much involved in popularising archaeology through television
and has done several programs. I wouldn't worry about him appearing a
lot in the video. Most of the time he is talking and explaining
something. Attenborough has been appearing in nature documentaries for
70 years!

The long video is no longer available, but there are a few short clips here:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03srmm6/clips>

BillK


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Thu Feb 13 14:19:08 2014
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:19:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] BBC Easter Island documentary
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhsdBRNfV67a3mnL4cSTNPq7T5TYwcV6+eAKDQSAGNO8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhsdBRNfV67a3mnL4cSTNPq7T5TYwcV6+eAKDQSAGNO8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJUeD7g-6KT3RNcEO1FjYRZ1wr2ejWfBYd6J4Db-Q6ONHW_ptg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:34 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Alfio Puglisi  wrote:
> > Interesting video. But after watching it, I proceeded to re-read the
> chapter
> > about Easter Island on Diamond's "Collapse" book, written in 2005. It
> > describes everything shown in the video, and many more details, in the
> end
> > supporting the traditional view of overpopulation and environmental
> > collapse. The video goes to great lenghts to refute the accuse of
> > cannibalism, which is horrorific to us but no big deal for other
> > populations, and is in the end just a side note on the whole story. The
> only
> > thing displayed even more prominently is the narcissism of the
> > protagonist... he's omnipresent in the shoots.
> >
> >
>
> The presenter, Jago Cooper, is a well-credentialled archeologist
> presently working for the British Museum as Curator of the Americas in
> the department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas. He has many
> published papers.
> I think he is explaining the latest research findings, which seem to
> contradict Diamond's 'Just so' story. A native population being
> destroyed by contact with Europeans through disease, slavery and
> invasion has happened many times elsewhere.
>
> <http://britishmuseum.academia.edu/JagoCooper>
>
> Cooper is much involved in popularising archaeology through television
> and has done several programs. I wouldn't worry about him appearing a
> lot in the video. Most of the time he is talking and explaining
> something. Attenborough has been appearing in nature documentaries for
> 70 years!
>


I was not trying to criticize him, sorry if I gave that impression. It's
just that it was the most lasting impression that I took from the video :-)

It seems to me that both (Cooper and Diamond) agree that disease and
slavery took a heavy toll on Easter's population, Diamond uses exactly this
argument to support the theory of a huge population (20,000 inhabitants or
more) in pre-European contact times, in the face of drastically reduced
census numbers (about 2,000) not even a century after that.

I guess the exotic vacation is in order... who's joining?


Alfio





>
> The long video is no longer available, but there are a few short clips
> here:
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03srmm6/clips>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/20d038c9/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Feb 13 16:26:51 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:26:51 -0800
Subject: [ExI] BBC Easter Island documentary
In-Reply-To: <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <574401cf28d8$67c8e5e0$375ab1a0$@att.net>

 

 

>. On Behalf Of Alfio Puglisi
.

 

>.A few things are in direct conflict - for example, the gentle lowering of
the statues claimed in the video, compared to the intentional breaking of
them by toppling them over stone slabs as claimed in the book.Alfio

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a modern-ish European did that perhaps 400 years
ago.  Reasoning: they would see the statues as idols, and take the example
of the Old Testament Israelis, who made a habit of destroying a conquered
civilization's religious symbols.  In a way analogous to how cannibalism is
symbolic of total domination, the whole notion of smashing the other guy's
idol is a way of saying "See there, my God is more powerful than yours.  Now
you must worship mine."

 

The European sailors would have had ropes and plenty of sturdy lads
available to pull down those statues.  They had the will and the means.
That would explain if some of the statues were apparently intentionally
broken and some not.  About 400 years ago, sailing technology became
sufficient to allow ships to wander all over the Pacific Ocean.  A landing
party of a few dozen guys, armed with muskets could have done the deed, and
held off any non-firearm-enabled local opposition with ease.

 

That means of conquest worked well in cases where the invading culture had
more advanced technology then the local culture.  Consider a culture with
the habit of vesting a piece of carved stone with supernatural powers.  The
locals would know if you dance about and give its priests generous and
expensive offerings, sometimes your relatives were healed, sometimes not,
sometimes the rains would come, sometimes not.  But these new guys have
those tall ships which let them go out on the sea anywhere they want, and
those bang sticks, which cause people and game to just fall dead, COOL!
Let's follow their God who must be so powerful and must have taught them how
to do all this.

 

The lesson is clear to moderns: if we want the world to be civilized (by our
definition of the term rather than theirs) the way is to lead in science and
technology.  If we do that, then they will worship our idols willingly,
rather than force us to worship theirs.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/ec714806/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb 13 17:08:14 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:08:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSaLL__HefTHvqMbtTbtyqhz=KapP1EtBkpNbXK-y0OUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
 <CALAdGNSaLL__HefTHvqMbtTbtyqhz=KapP1EtBkpNbXK-y0OUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004401cf28de$2fb0a430$8f11ec90$@natasha.cc>

Thank you Adrian. This is kind and generous of you to do.  It is a good
recap; although nothing especially new about telomere theory.  

 

Perhaps the evidence of a woman losing the capability to reproduce, etc. is
not the body turning this function off because it is no longer necessary can
be seen as anthropomorphizing the body, but I'm not so sure. 

 

(The comment about anti-aging snake oil is strange. Has someone here been
selling snake oil?)

 

Best,

Natasha

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:47 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Human Aging

 

I forwarded your questions to an acquaintance who's a researcher in the
field.  Here's what she said:

---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---
Tell Natasha that I've been working on aging and seniors for about 20 years
now, so my information is an amalgam of information gleaned largely from
clinical and academic sources, but it's come from so many sources I couldn't
possibly list them.  


>Does anyone have updated science facts on the human body/brain as a whole
that looks at:
>
> 1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest
directly after puberty, others say 20-ish);

The aging process starts with chromosome chains, each of which is capped by
a telomere (kind of like the aglet on the ends if shoelaces).  Each telomere
is preprogrammed from birth to indicate (among other things) how often this
particular chromosome chain can reliably multiply before aging and losing
some of the contents. There's no specific age to each telomere, but
generally they start affecting the chromosomes around one's early 20's. The
good news is that most of the telomeres continue their healthy reproduction
of chromosomes until very late in life.

 

> 2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
and some suggest after menopause and andropause); 

Depends on what's meant by "preparing for death."  One could say that it
starts when the first chromosome chain misbehaves and who knows when that
is.  Different parts of the body age at different rates, and disease or
malfunction can affect that.  In many cases, people know when their body is
getting ready to die.  My mother knew that she was dying more than a month
before she actually did.  


> 3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years, how does this
affect the aging process (most views reference limited ability to create
daughter cells is the point of preparation for death) and if neurons in the
cerebral cortex are never replaced, why is there a broad statement that the
body regenerates itself every seven years?

To say that the body regenerates itself every seven years is too broad a
statement.  Some parts do, some don't. Each time there is cell division,
there is a possibility that some new gene combination will occur that subtly
changes how the body works.  Science doesn't yet know how that works, but
have observed the changes in the lab.  The ability to generate new body
parts (e.g., an ear) from skin stem cells illustrates the phenomenon.  

Please tell your friend that the phrases "fight aging" and "anti-aging" are
markers for variations on snake oil.  Most of the things sold or advocated
with those phrases in the descriptions are untested, unapproved, and
generally unbelievable.  There's a whole industry that's grown up around
those and similar phrases to take in the gullible with money to spend.

As to where to look for credible information, look for clinical research
papers or courses on aging by degreed professors.  AARP's research section
is a good place to start. 

---END FORWARDED MESSAGE---

In addition to that "untested, unapproved, and generally unbelievable", I
would add, "and most of those that have been tested have been shown not to
work, but are sold as life extenders anyway".  Until there's wide scale
enforcement on truth in advertising here, the market is unfortunately almost
100% fraud.

Of course, we care about that "almost".  But we can't ignore the facts on
the ground, if we wish to be effective.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/4d36a62b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Feb 13 17:16:12 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:16:12 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hansen going nuclear
Message-ID: <981e01cf28df$4c0b49e0$e421dda0$@att.net>

 

This makes so much sense to me.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists
/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

 

If the hardcore Greens would get behind nuclear power, we can envision that
as one of the big players in our near term and midterm energy future.  It
really stands to reason from the point of view of the Greens: nuclear power
is cleaner than any of the alternatives, including PV (depending on how you
look at it, if you include the manufacturing process for instance, which we
need to do.)  It is the most compatible with wildlife, which is something
that has broad appeal everywhere across the political spectrum (political
conservatives love wild animals too, perhaps more than moderates and
liberals.)

 

Nukes can be located way out and away from population centers if we wish,
such as along the Colorado, Sacramento and Columbia Rivers (we still need
plenty of cooling water.)  We can use the power to drive biomass to liquid
fuel conversion, which is carbon neutral, which should please the global
warming crowd.  And even if we have a bad accident, like the one at
Chernobyl, well, we just created a huge wildlife refuge, ja?  It's a
solution that doesn't need to get all tangled up in pointless left vs right
politics.

 

Dr. Hansen, what took you so long?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/3d232b0e/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 13 17:24:49 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:24:49 +0000
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52FCFFE1.8030800@yahoo.com>

Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

 >On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
 >
 >> I would assume that, in tens of thousands of years, 'everything is 
digitised' would include people, and they'd have forgotten long ago what 
it was like to be embodied in frail short-lived biological bodies.
 >>
 >> I'm afraid I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection 
where people are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.
 >
 >
 >I don't see why. Amoebas are still wandering around in single-cell 
suits, despite being immensely older than 10,000 years, and despite the 
presence of our exalted selves.
 >
 >Not everything old is extinct. Not everything new displaces what it 
replaces.


OK, what you say is correct, but not relevant to what I mean.  Let me 
rephrase:  I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection where 
the major players are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.

I'm not saying that biological humans as they are now /couldn't/ be 
around in thousands of years (there are reasons why they might not be, 
but that's another matter), I'm saying that any that are would be 
extremely unlikely to have the same status as humans do today, and would 
be like amoebas in more ways than one, compared to the beings of 
interest that should be around then (unless, of course, something like 
Ian M Banks' idea of Sublimation is possible).


Ben Zaiboc


From atymes at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 17:45:45 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:45:45 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <004401cf28de$2fb0a430$8f11ec90$@natasha.cc>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
 <CALAdGNSaLL__HefTHvqMbtTbtyqhz=KapP1EtBkpNbXK-y0OUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <004401cf28de$2fb0a430$8f11ec90$@natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQOd20gNETpE77AV+o96McraDJce5GS7mbqvdUxabxo=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 13, 2014 9:22 AM, <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> Thank you Adrian. This is kind and generous of you to do.

Ah, my friend likes to show off what she's found.  One of her big things is
how most people these days are likely to live to be 100, and many social
institutions are not ready for that.

> (The comment about anti-aging snake oil is strange. Has someone here been
selling snake oil?)

The majority of her exposure to transhumanism as it is actually practiced
has been people pushing unproven and dangerous (and not apparently
measurably effective) drugs, most of them supposedly nootropic.  She has
found similar in other attempts to modify our biology.  The high value
prospect is a strong lure for people to skip the testing (that makes sure
the drug actually does what its sellers claim, no matter how wonderful it
would be if it worked).

Which is not to say it can't be done, just that there is a very strong
fraud problem.  It was bad enough that she had to walk out on a talk Mr. de
Grey was to give before he got to the podium, when the speaker before him
pushed pure snake oil to a degree that probably killed some of the audience
within a couple years.  (I was there with her, and agree with her decision.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/e54514d2/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 13 17:42:29 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:42:29 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52FD0405.7050101@yahoo.com>

<natasha at natasha.cc>  asked:

 >1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest 
directly
 >after puberty, others say 20-ish);

That's like asking when gravity starts pulling.   We're ageing all the 
time we're alive.  Even before then.  Egg cells age, sperm age, 
everything ages all the time.


 >
 >2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
 >and some suggest after menopause and andropause);

It doesn't, any more than a tractor prepares to break down.


 >
 >3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years...

It doesn't.  I don't know where that idea comes from, but it's not a 
very useful one.  Different cell types have different turnover rates.  
Averaging them is a pretty pointless exercise, and probably not even 
possible.  An 80-year-old will likely still have some cells they had at 
birth.  Even the idea of atoms and molecules being replaced is not 
realistic, because some of them get trapped in forms that the body can't 
break down.  If you track an atom of Carbon that gets into a Lipofuscin 
granule in a heart muscle cell when you're 20, it's probably still going 
to be there when you're 70.


Ben Zaiboc


From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Thu Feb 13 18:05:13 2014
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:05:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] hansen going nuclear
In-Reply-To: <981e01cf28df$4c0b49e0$e421dda0$@att.net>
References: <981e01cf28df$4c0b49e0$e421dda0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJUeD7hHp5U8aqM3=DhCnEmzcCbxHDgc6TyFWBw+bqg3pLXXyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> This makes so much sense to me.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
>
>
>
> If the hardcore Greens would get behind nuclear power, we can envision
> that as one of the big players in our near term and midterm energy future.
> It really stands to reason from the point of view of the Greens: nuclear
> power is cleaner than any of the alternatives, including PV (depending on
> how you look at it, if you include the manufacturing process for instance,
> which we need to do.)  It is the most compatible with wildlife, which is
> something that has broad appeal everywhere across the political spectrum
> (political conservatives love wild animals too, perhaps more than moderates
> and liberals.)
>
>
>
> Nukes can be located way out and away from population centers if we wish,
> such as along the Colorado, Sacramento and Columbia Rivers (we still need
> plenty of cooling water.)  We can use the power to drive biomass to liquid
> fuel conversion, which is carbon neutral, which should please the global
> warming crowd.  And even if we have a bad accident, like the one at
> Chernobyl, well, we just created a huge wildlife refuge, ja?  It's a
> solution that doesn't need to get all tangled up in pointless left vs right
> politics.
>
>
>
> Dr. Hansen, what took you so long?
>

>
> spike
>
>
Hansen has been in favor of nuclear power for years, at least since 2008 as
far as I know, even mentioning thorium reactors and IFR. So I am not
surprised.

It is rather ironic that, here in Europe where supposedly the public is
very much against nuclear power, we have the highest percentage of
electricity generation by nukes (around 30%!). A few countries, including
mine, have rejected nuclear power, but it is kinda pointless on a merely
national level: one glance at a map (see for example
http://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/maps.htm ) shows the nuclear-free
countries surrounded by nuclear reactors. Relative distances are rather
small, so that a reactor in France, Switzerland or Slovenia isn't that far.
And the export market is vigorous (and priced by the minute!), so we do use
plenty of nuke power actually.

I am still unconviced that nuclear is cleaner than PV: maybe in regular
operations, but Japan has shown that screws-up can happen even in very
advanced countries and have the potential of making hundreds of square
miles off limits. Not good in high-density countries.
What PV really needs is chemical storage. I briefly looked for research in
large-scale methane production from electricty (methane storage for entire
months' worth of consumption is already there), but didn't find much except
pilot experiments. Is anyone up to speed on this topic? How much efficient
are current processes?

Alfio









> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/ccac2ae6/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 18:26:27 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:26:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] hansen going nuclear
In-Reply-To: <CAJUeD7hHp5U8aqM3=DhCnEmzcCbxHDgc6TyFWBw+bqg3pLXXyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981e01cf28df$4c0b49e0$e421dda0$@att.net>
 <CAJUeD7hHp5U8aqM3=DhCnEmzcCbxHDgc6TyFWBw+bqg3pLXXyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFQ+zDOLi+QcF=Br3vuO+uL90judZXCH6H6VJEMmEtQAqg@mail.gmail.com>

Hansen of NASA? I guess he is scared of fracking, that's his love for
nuclear.

When fracking will be of the table (God forbid this to happen!), he is
going to change his views again.

Those Greens are in favor for the alternative, which they see as the most
remote. They don't care for energy much, on the contrary.




On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it>wrote:

>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This makes so much sense to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
>>
>>
>>
>> If the hardcore Greens would get behind nuclear power, we can envision
>> that as one of the big players in our near term and midterm energy future.
>> It really stands to reason from the point of view of the Greens: nuclear
>> power is cleaner than any of the alternatives, including PV (depending on
>> how you look at it, if you include the manufacturing process for instance,
>> which we need to do.)  It is the most compatible with wildlife, which is
>> something that has broad appeal everywhere across the political spectrum
>> (political conservatives love wild animals too, perhaps more than moderates
>> and liberals.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Nukes can be located way out and away from population centers if we wish,
>> such as along the Colorado, Sacramento and Columbia Rivers (we still need
>> plenty of cooling water.)  We can use the power to drive biomass to liquid
>> fuel conversion, which is carbon neutral, which should please the global
>> warming crowd.  And even if we have a bad accident, like the one at
>> Chernobyl, well, we just created a huge wildlife refuge, ja?  It's a
>> solution that doesn't need to get all tangled up in pointless left vs right
>> politics.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Hansen, what took you so long?
>>
>
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
> Hansen has been in favor of nuclear power for years, at least since 2008
> as far as I know, even mentioning thorium reactors and IFR. So I am not
> surprised.
>
> It is rather ironic that, here in Europe where supposedly the public is
> very much against nuclear power, we have the highest percentage of
> electricity generation by nukes (around 30%!). A few countries, including
> mine, have rejected nuclear power, but it is kinda pointless on a merely
> national level: one glance at a map (see for example
> http://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/maps.htm ) shows the
> nuclear-free countries surrounded by nuclear reactors. Relative distances
> are rather small, so that a reactor in France, Switzerland or Slovenia
> isn't that far. And the export market is vigorous (and priced by the
> minute!), so we do use plenty of nuke power actually.
>
> I am still unconviced that nuclear is cleaner than PV: maybe in regular
> operations, but Japan has shown that screws-up can happen even in very
> advanced countries and have the potential of making hundreds of square
> miles off limits. Not good in high-density countries.
> What PV really needs is chemical storage. I briefly looked for research in
> large-scale methane production from electricty (methane storage for entire
> months' worth of consumption is already there), but didn't find much except
> pilot experiments. Is anyone up to speed on this topic? How much efficient
> are current processes?
>
> Alfio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/49742ad4/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb 13 18:40:43 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:40:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQOd20gNETpE77AV+o96McraDJce5GS7mbqvdUxabxo=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00a301cf2813$d2f51340$78df39c0$@natasha.cc>
 <CALAdGNSaLL__HefTHvqMbtTbtyqhz=KapP1EtBkpNbXK-y0OUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <004401cf28de$2fb0a430$8f11ec90$@natasha.cc>
 <CALAdGNQOd20gNETpE77AV+o96McraDJce5GS7mbqvdUxabxo=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007501cf28eb$1ad81c70$50885550$@natasha.cc>

It seems she may be confusing DIYbio and BioHackers with transhumanists.  

 

I wonder who that speaker was.  It would be interesting to know.

 

Best,

Natasha

 

 <http://www.natasha.cc/> Natasha Vita-More, PhD

 

Faculty, University of Advancing Technology

Chair, Humanity+

_______________________________________

New Book at
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/188-1002006-3563941?url=search-ali
as%3Daps&field-keywords=the%20transhumanist%20reader&sprefix=the+transhumani
st+re%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Athe%20transhumanist%20reader> Amazon!

cover email

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:46 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Human Aging

 

On Feb 13, 2014 9:22 AM, <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> Thank you Adrian. This is kind and generous of you to do. 

Ah, my friend likes to show off what she's found.  One of her big things is
how most people these days are likely to live to be 100, and many social
institutions are not ready for that.

> (The comment about anti-aging snake oil is strange. Has someone here been
selling snake oil?)

The majority of her exposure to transhumanism as it is actually practiced
has been people pushing unproven and dangerous (and not apparently
measurably effective) drugs, most of them supposedly nootropic.  She has
found similar in other attempts to modify our biology.  The high value
prospect is a strong lure for people to skip the testing (that makes sure
the drug actually does what its sellers claim, no matter how wonderful it
would be if it worked).

Which is not to say it can't be done, just that there is a very strong fraud
problem.  It was bad enough that she had to walk out on a talk Mr. de Grey
was to give before he got to the podium, when the speaker before him pushed
pure snake oil to a degree that probably killed some of the audience within
a couple years.  (I was there with her, and agree with her decision.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/8188a9fb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140213/8188a9fb/attachment.png>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb 13 18:49:42 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:49:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <52FD0405.7050101@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FD0405.7050101@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008101cf28ec$5c2b53d0$1481fb70$@natasha.cc>

Ben writes:

>3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years...

"It doesn't.  I don't know where that idea comes from, but it's not a 
very useful one.  Different cell types have different turnover rates.  
Averaging them is a pretty pointless exercise, and probably not even 
possible. ..."

Maybe, but I'm not sure.  In medicine it is necessary to quantify the
process as a baseline for studies.  

Body regenerating itself:

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/research/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025561.900-your-amazing-regenerating
-body.html

And a quick link, which if far more logical:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/k4xqm/if_cells_regenerate_every_
7_years_why_dont/


-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ben
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:42 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] Human Aging

<natasha at natasha.cc>  asked:

 >1.       When does the body starts aging (conflicting views suggest 
directly
 >after puberty, others say 20-ish);

That's like asking when gravity starts pulling.   We're ageing all the 
time we're alive.  Even before then.  Egg cells age, sperm age, everything
ages all the time.


 >
 >2.       When does the body start preparing for death (conflicting views,
 >and some suggest after menopause and andropause);

It doesn't, any more than a tractor prepares to break down.


 >
 >3.       If the body regenerates itself every seven years...

It doesn't.  I don't know where that idea comes from, but it's not a 
very useful one.  Different cell types have different turnover rates.  
Averaging them is a pretty pointless exercise, and probably not even 
possible.  An 80-year-old will likely still have some cells they had at 
birth.  Even the idea of atoms and molecules being replaced is not 
realistic, because some of them get trapped in forms that the body can't 
break down.  If you track an atom of Carbon that gets into a Lipofuscin 
granule in a heart muscle cell when you're 20, it's probably still going 
to be there when you're 70.


Ben Zaiboc
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 22:46:22 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:46:22 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging experiences
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4k0L+nZj33q_Ws2ck6rBYnnDm=dB1sHw9-HmfvVHSoYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Some of you who have known me for decades may remember that for a few
years I was on crutches from back problems, and while I got better I
never really got over it.  In recent years it had been getting worse.

My wife, Arel, was likewise with knee pain.  So a couple of years ago
we went looking to see what (if anything) medical advances might do
about these.

We found a company that seemed to do what it took and read their
studies about how they had developed and tested their procedures, from
theory and animal work right up to human studies.

The treatment Arel wanted was not available in the US because of the
FDA, so she made two trips to the Cayman Islands, one to extract stem
cells and another in July of 2012 to have her knee rebuilt with a
grown out clone of her stem cells.

While they were at it, they fixed a damaged spot in her back that was
giving her nerve pain into a toe.  The treatments fixed both the knees
and the back problem.  From an objective point of view, 3 weeks after
the treatment I watched her go down the front steps without hanging on
to the rail, and three weeks after that, I saw her go down the steps
with a plate in each hand.  (She was not aware of the observation.)

That was impressive because prior to treatment the sharp bone-on-bone
pains in her knees would cause her to collapse occasionally on stairs.
 Today she walks long distances and climbs stairs without pain.

So about three months ago, I started in on a series of treatments to
rebuild my back.  The last was yesterday.  They do not use extracted
and cloned stem cells, but do use extracted platelet contents as a way
to get local stem cells to repair the wear and tear damage to backs.

They also use saline under pressure to open up spaces so there is no
longer pressure on the nerves.  It's an outpatient procedure, though
in my case they had me on the table for close to two hour a session.
They do it with only local anesthesia, but taking a few strong
painkillers before is a good idea.

Of course I can't provide anything but a subjective report, though if
someone wants to pay for an MRI, and the cost of a radiologist making
careful comparison of the before and after views that would give an
objective view.

In any case, I am very pleased with the results.  It has cut my use of
painkillers way down.  One day after the last treatment, I have not
taken any.

I would strongly advise anyone considering knee, shoulder, back or hip
surgery to look into this.

Insurance doesn't pay for it yet, but I suspect that a minor amount of
legal work would force the insurance companies into paying for
substantially less expensive treatments.  For knees, the cost is
around 1/5th of a knee replacement.

Keith


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Feb 14 05:23:33 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:23:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] BBC Easter Island documentary
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhsdBRNfV67a3mnL4cSTNPq7T5TYwcV6+eAKDQSAGNO8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjcA0RnUgaAbh8H-tKyhOVE=NUy-0Bnnd5tzY_asqr8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUeD7iq3UcjkG_Y+Q5oJdD6caTYZjx9di+6bdsgjYOB+FT3zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhsdBRNfV67a3mnL4cSTNPq7T5TYwcV6+eAKDQSAGNO8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhvKAbxYwWqQ6tuiR-XQnRiW=YUq4FLpsgzu6TNQsxrVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:34 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

The presenter, Jago Cooper, is a well-credentialled archeologist
> presently working for the British Museum as Curator of the Americas in
> the department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas. He has many
> published papers.
> I think he is explaining the latest research findings, which seem to
> contradict Diamond's 'Just so' story. A native population being
> destroyed by contact with Europeans through disease, slavery and
> invasion has happened many times elsewhere.
>
> <http://britishmuseum.academia.edu/JagoCooper>
>
> Cooper is much involved in popularising archaeology through television
> and has done several programs. I wouldn't worry about him appearing a
> lot in the video. Most of the time he is talking and explaining
> something. Attenborough has been appearing in nature documentaries for
> 70 years!
>
> The long video is no longer available, but there are a few short clips
> here:
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03srmm6/clips>


### Propagandizing against Western civilization and white-washing cannibals
is a common pastime among modern academics.

See "Rapa Nui" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110944/ for a more balanced
view of the story. The scene where the natives cut down the last tree on
the island is particularly poignant.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140214/363c6da2/attachment.html>

From noreply+465563661 at badoo.com  Fri Feb 14 10:12:54 2014
From: noreply+465563661 at badoo.com (Florent)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:12:54 +0000
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=98=85_ExI_chat_list=2C_Florent_a_laiss=C3=A9_?=
	=?utf-8?q?un_message_pour_toi?=
Message-ID: <20140214101254.86099FF69C40@cluster1046.monopost.com>

Tu peux  imm?diatement r?pondre via notre messagerie instantan?e. Voir tes messages...
http://eu1.badoo.com/0369181730/in/8SeBVgmlyd4/?lang_id=6&g=57-0-4&m=29&mid=52fdec250000000000060000030e592500d8d79a010e


D'autres personnes attendent :


Les liens ne fonctionnent pas dans ce message? Copie-les dans la barre d'adresse de ton navigateur.


Amuse-toi bien !
L'?quipe Badoo 


Vous avez re?u cet email de Badoo Trading Limited (adresse postale ci-dessous).  Si ? l'avenir, tu ne souhaites plus recevoir d'emails de la part de Badoo, merci de te d?sabonner en cliquant ici ici : https://eu1.badoo.com/impersonation.phtml?lang_id=6&email=extropy-chat%40lists.extropy.org&block_code=0e88ff&m=29&mid=52fdec250000000000060000030e592500d8d79a010e&g=0-0-4

Badoo Trading Limited, soci?t? enregistr?e en Angleterre et Pays de Galles, sous le No. CRN 7540255, bureaux enregistr?s sous l&apos;adresse  Media Village, 131 - 151 Great Titchfield Street, Londres, W1W 5BB.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140214/f4f9c4af/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 14 21:18:33 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:18:33 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <mailman.177.1392316874.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.177.1392316874.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52FE8829.8020003@yahoo.com>

<natasha at natasha.cc> commented:

 >It seems she may be confusing DIYbio and BioHackers with transhumanists

???
If the DIYBio crowd and biohackers aren't transhumanists, I don't know 
who is!


Ben Zaiboc


From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 14 23:54:56 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:54:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <52FE8829.8020003@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.177.1392316874.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FE8829.8020003@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbJqr9aSdtWEH7nQq=v0ouLu-5drEapfW0BAw60TVrK8yw@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 14, 2014 4:36 PM, "Ben" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <natasha at natasha.cc> commented:
>
>
> >It seems she may be confusing DIYbio and BioHackers with transhumanists
>
> ???
> If the DIYBio crowd and biohackers aren't transhumanists, I don't know
who is!
>

Sure, but not all transhumanists are biohackers.  Depending on context, the
terms are not synonymous.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140214/52e83934/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat Feb 15 18:24:44 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:24:44 -0600
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <52FCFFE1.8030800@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FCFFE1.8030800@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYx+A3d-th4csT6ghmxzt75LCgsw3FpuN215nc8bniOtA@mail.gmail.com>

OK Ben and Natasha and everyone:  if we are not going to be wearing ape
suits in the future, what will we be like?  In my book I consider the
possibility of little green men:  skin able to convert sunlight to energy,
smallness because it's far more efficient, no digestive tract and its
disgusting products.


And if babies are made by machines, then breasts and penises and all the
rest of our sex equipment are unnecessary.  Producing the highs of all
types, orgasms, drugs, peak experiences should be fairly easy long before
the far future without  relying on sense organs.

We will no longer be human, but does that matter?  If, in fact, the best
way to go about improvement is to add chromosomes, then we will be a
different species, defined simply as being unable to reproduce with 46
chromosome humans.

I am comfortable with not being human, but I think I'd like to keep the ape
suit as long as the mental and physical diseases and disabilities are
gone.  (OK, maybe put the balls inside like women, and maybe a retractable
penis).

And all of this may be doable just with a brain in a jar, but I don't think
I'd opt for that existence even to save my life, even if I might not know
the difference.   Yeah, I know - that makes no sense at all.  bill


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would assume that, in tens of thousands of years, 'everything is
> digitised' would include people, and they'd have forgotten long ago what it
> was like to be embodied in frail short-lived biological bodies.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection
> where people are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.
> >
> >
> >I don't see why. Amoebas are still wandering around in single-cell suits,
> despite being immensely older than 10,000 years, and despite the presence
> of our exalted selves.
> >
> >Not everything old is extinct. Not everything new displaces what it
> replaces.
>
>
> OK, what you say is correct, but not relevant to what I mean.  Let me
> rephrase:  I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection where
> the major players are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.
>
> I'm not saying that biological humans as they are now /couldn't/ be around
> in thousands of years (there are reasons why they might not be, but that's
> another matter), I'm saying that any that are would be extremely unlikely
> to have the same status as humans do today, and would be like amoebas in
> more ways than one, compared to the beings of interest that should be
> around then (unless, of course, something like Ian M Banks' idea of
> Sublimation is possible).
>
>
> Ben Zaiboc
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140215/2fc66ec5/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Sat Feb 15 19:25:36 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:25:36 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYx+A3d-th4csT6ghmxzt75LCgsw3FpuN215nc8bniOtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.175.1392257781.319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FCFFE1.8030800@yahoo.com>
 <CAO+xQEYx+A3d-th4csT6ghmxzt75LCgsw3FpuN215nc8bniOtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E53E8AC0-8131-4C12-A257-2752ACC13F2C@taramayastales.com>



On Feb 15, 2014, at 10:24 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> And if babies are made by machines, then breasts and penises and all the rest of our sex equipment are unnecessary.  Producing the highs of all types, orgasms, drugs, peak experiences should be fairly easy long before the far future without  relying on sense organs.


It has to be remembered that reward is connected to reproduction by natural selection. If reward becomes disconnected from what actually succeeds in spreading a life form (machine or biological), then that system of reward will eventually disappear. 

Just because the technology exists to make babies with machines doesn't mean that there is any selective pressure to do so. It would have to actually prove to be a system that would result in more surviving and further-reproducing copies of itself.

Personally, as a parent, I would never trust a government creche to spawn, guard, and rear my progeny. I have a vested interest in loving my own children, and investing in their future; but some bureaucrat has only a vested interest in exploiting my offspring to benefit his own. Unless he and I were clones, those two goals would diverge by a dangerous gulf.

Tara Maya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140215/18e1fe9b/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 15 21:02:37 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:02:37 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>

Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

 >On Feb 14, 2014 4:36 PM, "Ben" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
 >>
 >> <natasha at natasha.cc> commented:
 >>
 >>
 >>> It seems she may be confusing DIYbio and BioHackers with transhumanists
 >>
 >> ???
 >> If the DIYBio crowd and biohackers aren't transhumanists, I don't know
 >who is!
 >>
 >
 >Sure, but not all transhumanists are biohackers.  Depending on 
context, the
 >terms are not synonymous.


Agreed, although you wouldn't say "It seems she may be confusing bricks 
with building materials", would you?


Ben Zaiboc


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Feb 15 21:56:49 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:56:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdb+i-+ggWkmhzw8Lsa4f4JhBORKcJ7SRKnbqTi0sFF69LQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 14, 2014 4:36 PM, "Ben" <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <natasha at natasha.cc> commented:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It seems she may be confusing DIYbio and BioHackers with transhumanists
> >>
> >> ???
> >> If the DIYBio crowd and biohackers aren't transhumanists, I don't know
> >who is!
> >>
> >
> >Sure, but not all transhumanists are biohackers.  Depending on context,
> the
> >terms are not synonymous.
>
>
> Agreed, although you wouldn't say "It seems she may be confusing bricks
> with building materials", would you?
>

Maybe; if someone was using using the terms interchangeably. We'd have to
decide whether or not the distinction is worth a side discussion.  If you
are a lumber company, the point is very relevant.  (that's a good example,
btw)

I think many people can agree intellectually with transhumanist goals at
the same time they are squicked by biohacking.  (ex: Of course I'd like a
sixth sense about the presence/strength of EM fields, but not enough to
insert magnets into my fingertips)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140215/928aadba/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 16 00:32:37 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:32:37 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2.2 g$ bird-cooker
Message-ID: <009c01cf2aae$98c299c0$ca47cd40$@att.net>

 

A few days ago when I commented that nuclear is cleaner than ground-based
solar, I may  need to clarify on the terminology.  Environmental impact is
bit of a slippery concept.  These kinds of solar concentrating schemes
scorch birds and may interfere with tortoises:

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329
484

 

On the other hand, they are good for a lot of other reasons.  I like birds,
not so much the turtles for two reasons: there aren't very many of them
anyway, and we have plenty.  So I am in the tortoises-schmortoises camp.
But I do partially buy in to the theory that birds are attracted to the
solar concentrator tower.  There is one in the southern California desert; I
can confirm that one can see one of those things a long ways off, tens of
kms easily.  It is believable to me that birds are confused by and attracted
to the bright object, perhaps interpreting it as a lake, which is a welcome
sight to a soaring bird.

 

Note that the bird argument also applies to PVs to some extent.  It doesn't
cook the birds, but it might attract them by the looks-like-a-lake phenom.
The birds land, then they can't take off.

 

If Keith's vision ever flies, the yahoos are going to argue that space based
solar is bad for wildlife.

 

Nuclear is looking better from a Greenie perspective all the time.  I keep
being reminded that if a major nuclear accident takes place, it creates a
wildlife habitat.

 

In any case, I switched over this week to LED lighting, and I am pleased
with it.  I don't have a power bill yet, but in general the un-diffused LEDs
are about 10 times more efficient compared to incandescent, and the
spectrum-adjusted LEDs (the devices that intentionally mimic the visible
color spectrum of incandescent) are about 3 times more efficient.  Do it!

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140215/08503055/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Feb 16 04:26:22 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:26:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2.2 g$ bird-cooker
In-Reply-To: <009c01cf2aae$98c299c0$ca47cd40$@att.net>
References: <009c01cf2aae$98c299c0$ca47cd40$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFj1iZvu-HzGb52OS8Zo6HM6MeWb3GG3i5MMLLYedOvmew@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:32 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> In any case, I switched over this week to LED lighting, and I am pleased
> with it.  I don?t have a power bill yet, but in general the un-diffused
> LEDs are about 10 times more efficient compared to incandescent, and the
> spectrum-adjusted LEDs (the devices that intentionally mimic the visible
> color spectrum of incandescent) are about 3 times more efficient.  Do it!
>
>
>

### I did it. Last year I installed about 110 LED luminaires around the
house, mostly recessed lights, and I also installed a geothermal HVAC
system with desuperheater. My summertime electricity bills (AC, lighting,
almost all water heating and appliance use) were about 50$ per month.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings - I did only to save money, not to
protect the environment. I might live in a forest but I am no tree-hugger,
no sir!

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140215/fcc51362/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb 16 12:29:19 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:29:19 +0100
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYx+A3d-th4csT6ghmxzt75LCgsw3FpuN215nc8bniOtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <983358330-26907@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 15/2/2014 7:29 PM:
OK Ben and Natasha and everyone:? if we are not going to be wearing ape suits in the future, what will we be like??
I think we will have an enormous amount of potential diversity. If you can modify yourself easily, it might be more like fashion. Yet fashion also shows that even when you are essentially unconstrained by practical limits there are social factors that cause convergence: you cannot dress arbitrarily within a culture and be taken seriously, and dress is very much about signalling to other members. I think the same is true for bodies: if anybody could look like anything it would be hard to tell what moods they have (is a waving of the pedipalps laughter or a frown?) or how to relate to them (wearing a tie signals a certain social pattern in a man). Hence I would assume that the shapes and patterns of the ape suits will be used as a template for the convergent appearances people are then varying around.
When I think about my ideal body it is something like the T1000 in Terminator: able to reshape itself fluidly to look like anything. But I would mostly look human when dealing with other humans - the insect-like stilt legs would be used for rapid locomotion and the wings for fun, but not during parties or academic meetings.?
...in the mainstream culture. In special environments (space, the arctic, cyberspace, the oceans) people will have other constraints that might overrule such niceties. And of course subgroups will be experimenting with radical differences. Plus, and this might wreck the above argument, better mind-to-mind communication might make appearance as a communications and social signifier irrelevant since you can just transmit that stuff in augmented reality or directly.

 In my book I consider the possibility of little green men:? skin able to convert sunlight to energy, smallness because it's far more efficient, no digestive tract and its disgusting products.
Reminds me of my one most controversial paper:?http://www.smatthewliao.com/2012/02/09/human-engineering-and-climate-change/
My boss still cringes when I mention the "green dwarf paper" ;-)

And if babies are made by machines, then breasts and penises and all the rest of our sex equipment are unnecessary.? Producing the highs of all types, orgasms, drugs, peak experiences should be fairly easy long before the far future without? relying on sense organs.
Yes, but good pleasures are not just about maximal dopamine in the medial forebrain bundle (or its counterpart). Just like the ancient Greeks noted that there is a great deal of difference between simple pleasures, complex pleasures and real excellence, we know that to really enjoy something it has to be meaningful and involve nontrivial components.
Just consider the sensual possibilities with bodies that can remap their surfaces, change their shapes, experience things in new sensory ranges, and apply millennia of culture and style. (One of the best descriptions of posthuman eroticism and hedonism along these lines can be found in Scott Westerfeldt's "Evolution's Darling", where one of the main characters uses nanotechnology in the bedroom for good effect. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is interesting as an example).
Plus, there are nontrivial risks in being able to hack one's motivation systems. I think hedonic engineering is one of those areas where posthumanity will be skating closest to a really dangerous (but exciting!) edge.?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/b6e88a89/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb 16 12:11:30 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:11:30 +0100
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <E53E8AC0-8131-4C12-A257-2752ACC13F2C@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <982555435-26899@secure.ericade.net>

Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> , 15/2/2014 8:29 PM:

On Feb 15, 2014, at 10:24 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
And if babies are made by machines, then breasts and penises and all the rest of our sex equipment are unnecessary.? Producing the highs of all types, orgasms, drugs, peak experiences should be fairly easy long before the far future without? relying on sense organs.

It has to be remembered that reward is connected to reproduction by natural selection. If reward becomes disconnected from what actually succeeds in spreading a life form (machine or biological), then that system of reward will eventually disappear.?

Not necessarily. As a gay person I am pretty happy to note the existence of many more with my orientation, despite our on average low fertility rate. There is a theory that the genetic predisposition towards homosexuality does confer a fitness advantage to relatives, although I think much more can be ascribed to the great flexibility of the mammalian mind - if a species' brains can learn a lot of behaviours it will on average be good for fitness, even if some individuals choose not to reproduce. ?
Medieval monks did not have many children, yet the social selection pressures for becoming a monk made the institution thrive for millennia. They bred pretty well memetically.

Just because the technology exists to make babies with machines doesn't mean that there is any selective pressure to do so. It would have to actually prove to be a system that would result in more surviving and further-reproducing copies of itself.
The costs of pregnancy in terms of effort, health, career effects and monetary cost are non-trivial in developed societies. Since the opportunity costs of having children go up as we become richer, people might actually really want methods that lowers them. This is one reason why fertility rates in north Europe are higher compared to south Europe: children's cr?ches do lower the overall cost for parents, and the career cost of children is far lower.?
Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/42a198be/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 16 13:51:25 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:51:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1392552001.7198.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1392552001.7198.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <5300C25D.1060209@yahoo.com>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

 >OK Ben and Natasha and everyone:  if we are not going to be wearing ape
 >suits in the future, what will we be like?

Whatever we want to be like.  On an individual basis.

My assumption (and it may be wrong, for various reasons) is that 
uploading will be possible.

My attitude is that if it's not possible, then we're pretty much screwed 
anyway, no matter what else is possible.  This is mainly because if 
uploading is not possible, we're stuck with biology, and biology is 
extremely fragile.  Without uploading, I see no long-term future for the 
human race at all.  Certainly no worthwhile one.

So, any far-future scenario that's at all interesting for me is one in 
which humans have been uploaded long ago.  They will be far removed from 
current humans, would likely be entirely incomprehensible to us, and 
have abilities that we can barely understand or even imagine.

Not ideal material for a story, is it?

If I wanted to write a story based in the far future, I suppose it would 
have to be about a set of uploads who decided to 'download' themselves 
into limited bodies, with corresponding limitation of their minds, and 
it would follow their adventures.  In other words, they'd effectively be 
going back to their distant past.

I suppose what I'm saying is, if you want to write a story about the far 
future, don't try to make it 'realistic'.  That's probably not 
possible.  Stick broadly within the laws of physics, and just make stuff 
up without fretting about how plausible it is.

Oh, here's another possibility:  The story takes place entirely within a 
simulation created by the uploads, then even the laws of physics can be 
played around with.  You could have a hard-SF story with magic in it!  
(been done, by Cory Doctorow, I think, but I forget the name of the story).

Ben Zaiboc


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 16 15:47:18 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] 2.2 g$ bird-cooker
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFj1iZvu-HzGb52OS8Zo6HM6MeWb3GG3i5MMLLYedOvmew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <009c01cf2aae$98c299c0$ca47cd40$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFj1iZvu-HzGb52OS8Zo6HM6MeWb3GG3i5MMLLYedOvmew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1392565638.62913.YahooMailNeo@web184303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>





________________________________
 From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
...
?

>...### I did it. Last year I installed about 110 LED luminaires around the house, mostly recessed lights, and I also installed a geothermal HVAC system with desuperheater. My summertime electricity bills (AC, lighting, almost all water heating and appliance use) were about 50$ per month.

>...Just to avoid any misunderstandings - I did only to save money, not to protect the environment. I might live in a forest but I am no tree-hugger, no sir! ?Rafal ?___________________________________________


No need to apologize for motives Rafal. ?The way I look at it, saving money is a good deed. ?Hugging trees, well that is one of those activities that varies according to taste. ?I like trees and beasts. ?I like saving money even more. ?That's why I waited until it was clear it would save money before I went the tree hugger route with the lighting. ?Depending on circumstances, that economic break-even point happened fairly recently.

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/c89a567b/attachment.html>

From listsb at infinitefaculty.org  Sun Feb 16 16:20:06 2014
From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:20:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging experiences
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB4k0L+nZj33q_Ws2ck6rBYnnDm=dB1sHw9-HmfvVHSoYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB4k0L+nZj33q_Ws2ck6rBYnnDm=dB1sHw9-HmfvVHSoYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5300E536.7090303@infinitefaculty.org>


El 2014-02-13 17:46, Keith Henson escribi?:
> Some of you who have known me for decades may remember that for a few
> years I was on crutches from back problems, and while I got better I
> never really got over it.  In recent years it had been getting worse.
>
> My wife, Arel, was likewise with knee pain.  So a couple of years ago
> we went looking to see what (if anything) medical advances might do
> about these.
>
> We found a company that seemed to do what it took and read their
> studies about how they had developed and tested their procedures, from
> theory and animal work right up to human studies.

[....]

Thanks for the inspiring account of progress!

Is the company Regenexx? I know someone who is considering having a 
procedure done with them (also in the Caymans -- though they have 
offices offering FDA-approved procedures in the US, as well).

Brian



From tara at taramayastales.com  Sun Feb 16 18:53:57 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:53:57 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <982555435-26899@secure.ericade.net>
References: <982555435-26899@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <B16DDF9B-F35E-4940-8EF1-A96960943B8D@taramayastales.com>

On Feb 16, 2014, at 4:11 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Not necessarily. As a gay person I am pretty happy to note the existence of many more with my orientation, despite our on average low fertility rate. There is a theory that the genetic predisposition towards homosexuality does confer a fitness advantage to relatives, although I think much more can be ascribed to the great flexibility of the mammalian mind - if a species' brains can learn a lot of behaviours it will on average be good for fitness, even if some individuals choose not to reproduce.  
> 
> Medieval monks did not have many children, yet the social selection pressures for becoming a monk made the institution thrive for millennia. They bred pretty well memetically.


I am intrigued by the idea that memes might be a competing reproductive system with genes. I'm not convinced we've proven it yet. 

Take the role of the Church. There are two rival theories, both congruent with sociobiology:

1. The Church actually INCREASED the genetic success of followers: in exchange for a very small number of celibate workers (1-2% of the population) they tirelessly advocated for early, monogamous marriage and against birth control and infanticide, arguably increasing family size. That would have more than made up for the few priests they took "out of circulation," as it were. 

OR:

2. The Church acted like a memetic virus, and DECREASED the genetic success of its followers, but increased its memetic success so greatly by creating full time vectors (celebrate priests devoted full time to creating memetic offspring -- converts -- rather than wasting money and time investing in their own biological offspring) that it spread anyway. In this theory, religion is like a parasite that debilitates the host, yet must not be too successful (like the Shakers) as it also depends on the continued survival of the host.


I would very much to like to do a historical study of the Church to test the theory of whether families who had monks and nuns in them actually thrived and had more surviving children because of it. Probably the study would have to be of noble families only, since generally there aren't enough birth records before the 1500s to compare. 

Throughout European history, at least the 1500 years that I studied, between 10 and 20 percent of any given generation never married and reproduced. These numbers tend to swamp out the effect of celibate or gay individuals. That said, it doesn't mean that they didn't contribute to the fitness of their families. 

The record is replete with "maiden aunts" and, more occasionally, "rich uncles" who lavished care on nephews and nieces. The nuclear family is very old in European history. It dates to at least 1000 C.E. If there were other adults in the household it was usually either a surviving grandparent or a maiden aunt, who might have been from the paternal OR maternal side. Usually these aunts or uncles had married but lost their spouse without offspring. (Or lost their children too.) 

These families may indeed have done a better job to concentrate the investment of three (or more) rather than two adults on the same batch of children, especially when the infant mortality rate was so high, and especially among the poor, for whom a set-back like unemployment could mean homelessness and starvation.


Finally, humans have the innate ability to love children, which may have sociobiological origins, even if it is applied in ways that defy immediate gain. Take the story of the Quaker man who lost his wife and half dozen children to disease. He went on to run a home for foundlings and orphans. He never converted any of those foundlings to Quakerism, so neither his genes nor his memes were passed on, but from his diary, it is clear that he cared dearly for them.

His project was so successful that the English state decided to try something similar. In time, the places they build became known as Workhouses and Poorhouses. Those were not run by Quakers, and quickly became synonymous with abuse and exploitation. 

Which brings my argument full circle. Are individuals able to care for others' children as dearly as their own? Yes, clearly. But over the long term, to put the care of children into the hands of indifferent bureaucrats has always been a disaster.


Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/71fd091b/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb 16 20:25:19 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:25:19 +0100
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <B16DDF9B-F35E-4940-8EF1-A96960943B8D@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <1012483970-24723@secure.ericade.net>

Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> , 16/2/2014 7:58 PM:
Take the role of the Church. There are two rival theories, both congruent with sociobiology:
1. The Church actually INCREASED the genetic success of followers: in exchange for a very small number of celibate workers (1-2% of the population) they tirelessly advocated for early, monogamous marriage and against birth control and infanticide, arguably increasing family size. That would have more than made up for the few priests they took "out of circulation," as it were.?
OR:
2. The Church acted like a memetic virus, and DECREASED the genetic success of its followers, but increased its memetic success so greatly by creating full time vectors (celebrate priests devoted full time to creating memetic offspring -- converts -- rather than wasting money and time investing in their own biological offspring) that it spread anyway. In this theory, religion is like a parasite that debilitates the host, yet must not be too successful (like the Shakers) as it also depends on the continued survival of the host.
I doubt either theory works. The population history of Europe since the fall of the Roman empire(s) does not look like it outperformed similar regions (consider the growth in the medieval Muslim world, where priests were not celibate and monks were rare), nor did the church have a chance to convert that many heathens once it got fully established. People are religious in general, their culture affects their fertility patterns, but it seems rare that a particular meme radically affects fertility patterns consistently over a long time.?

I would very much to like to do a historical study of the Church to test the theory of whether families who had monks and nuns in them actually thrived and had more surviving children because of it. Probably the study would have to be of noble families only, since generally there aren't enough birth records before the 1500s to compare.?
Maybe one could use the methodology from Gregory Clark's "Farewell to alms". His data is post-1500 so it is not suited for this study, but one could likely apply it (with plenty of elbow grease) to pre-reformation environments.?
I suspect that even if there is a fitness enhancing effect, it gets swamped by the "memetic noise" of people changing beliefs, moving between communities etc.

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/a2901bc6/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 07:16:55 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:16:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdb+i-+ggWkmhzw8Lsa4f4JhBORKcJ7SRKnbqTi0sFF69LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>
 <CAOJFdb+i-+ggWkmhzw8Lsa4f4JhBORKcJ7SRKnbqTi0sFF69LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQ-==bNvpWx6p+ydVC3FJwyFFYWq9t24yzu_6ZeO4t1Dg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe; if someone was using using the terms interchangeably. We'd have to
> decide whether or not the distinction is worth a side discussion.  If you
> are a lumber company, the point is very relevant.  (that's a good example,
> btw)
>
> I think many people can agree intellectually with transhumanist goals at
> the same time they are squicked by biohacking.  (ex: Of course I'd like a
> sixth sense about the presence/strength of EM fields, but not enough to
> insert magnets into my fingertips)
>

Indeed, but what means toward preventing or slowing human aging (aside from
uploading, or schemes that are essentially uploading) have been presented
that are not biohacking?  Thus, in this very narrow context, what is the
difference as reduces to practice between transhumanism and biohacking?

As to the talk - IIRC, it was at the Cubberly Community Center, some
evening in 200X.  I do not recall beyond that, although googling suggests
that it was http://www.svhi.com/newsletters/2009/slf-052009.pdf and
http://www.suretomeet.com/exec/gt/event.h,event=8b9b4d1bc178 .  Again, the
problem was that the presentations before Aubrey's dissolved into pitches
for not-well-tested and potentially counterproductive medication routines,
such that we left before Aubrey even took the podium.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/3b3d600d/attachment.html>

From tech101 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 07:30:38 2014
From: tech101 at gmail.com (Adam A. Ford)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:30:38 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQ-==bNvpWx6p+ydVC3FJwyFFYWq9t24yzu_6ZeO4t1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>
 <CAOJFdb+i-+ggWkmhzw8Lsa4f4JhBORKcJ7SRKnbqTi0sFF69LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQ-==bNvpWx6p+ydVC3FJwyFFYWq9t24yzu_6ZeO4t1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABG8Bmw5Sn-8SsJfa5hbALJ8M-WtjZez4sXup5N7gscLWRG7Gw@mail.gmail.com>

> ???
> If the DIYBio crowd and biohackers aren't transhumanists, I don't know
who is!
>

DIYBio, Grinders etc may not follow any transhumanist philosophy by will or
ignorance.
If you describe transhumanism loosely to include anyone who tries to
augment themselves, then we have to go a long way back to find the first
transhumanist.


Kind regards,

Adam A. Ford
Director - Humanity+ Global, Director - Humanity+ Australia, Chair - Humanity+
@ Melbourne Summit
 Chair - Singularity Summit Australia
Director - Future Day

Mob: +61 421 979 977 | Email:  tech101 at gmail.com
<http://summit.singinst.org.au>

*Science, Technology & the Future <http://hplusconf.com.au>*

*Future Day <http://futureday.org> - "Join the conversation on Future Day
March 1st to explore the possibilities about how the future is transforming
us. You can celebrate Future Day however you like, the ball is in your
court -- feel free to send a photo of your Future Day gatherings to
info at futureday.org <info at futureday.org>, and your jubilation may wind up
being commemorated on the Future Day website and the Facebook page!
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Future-Day/237779372974327>"*

Humanity+ <http://humanityplus.org> | Humanity+
Australia<http://hplusconf.com.au>| Singularity
Summit Australia <http://singularitysummit.com.au> |
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Singularity-Summit-Australia/136972026316342?v=app_2344061033>|
Twitter <http://twitter.com/singsum_au> |
YouTube<http://youtube.com/TheRationalFuture>| Future
Day <http://FutureDay.org>

"A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move
toward higher levels." ("Atomic Education Urged by Albert Einstein", New
York Times, 25 May 1946)

Please consider the environment before printing this email
<http://hplusconf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/H+logo_mauve_embossed_dropshadow_trans.png>


On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe; if someone was using using the terms interchangeably. We'd have to
>> decide whether or not the distinction is worth a side discussion.  If you
>> are a lumber company, the point is very relevant.  (that's a good example,
>> btw)
>>
>> I think many people can agree intellectually with transhumanist goals at
>> the same time they are squicked by biohacking.  (ex: Of course I'd like a
>> sixth sense about the presence/strength of EM fields, but not enough to
>> insert magnets into my fingertips)
>>
>
> Indeed, but what means toward preventing or slowing human aging (aside
> from uploading, or schemes that are essentially uploading) have been
> presented that are not biohacking?  Thus, in this very narrow context, what
> is the difference as reduces to practice between transhumanism and
> biohacking?
>
> As to the talk - IIRC, it was at the Cubberly Community Center, some
> evening in 200X.  I do not recall beyond that, although googling suggests
> that it was http://www.svhi.com/newsletters/2009/slf-052009.pdf and
> http://www.suretomeet.com/exec/gt/event.h,event=8b9b4d1bc178 .  Again,
> the problem was that the presentations before Aubrey's dissolved into
> pitches for not-well-tested and potentially counterproductive medication
> routines, such that we left before Aubrey even took the podium.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/4c3e89da/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 07:38:29 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:38:29 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <5300C25D.1060209@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392552001.7198.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <5300C25D.1060209@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSMtyf1JsthCyfFpqy9H_WQFT9fQSPQ=SFyfdWzywwzxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> So, any far-future scenario that's at all interesting for me is one in
> which humans have been uploaded long ago.  They will be far removed from
> current humans, would likely be entirely incomprehensible to us, and have
> abilities that we can barely understand or even imagine.
>
> Not ideal material for a story, is it?
>

This is part of why I suggested dialing it back to no more than a thousand
years from now.  There's only so far into the future one can write while
keeping it both realistic and interesting to modern audiences.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140216/54e7feee/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 14:10:50 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:10:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQ-==bNvpWx6p+ydVC3FJwyFFYWq9t24yzu_6ZeO4t1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>
 <CAOJFdb+i-+ggWkmhzw8Lsa4f4JhBORKcJ7SRKnbqTi0sFF69LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQ-==bNvpWx6p+ydVC3FJwyFFYWq9t24yzu_6ZeO4t1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdb+3YG+AuOnRUsCqu5cy+n0pPryhL6JjkMs-BiFNcxW35Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 17, 2014 2:18 AM, "Adrian Tymes" <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, but what means toward preventing or slowing human aging (aside
from uploading, or schemes that are essentially uploading) have been
presented that are not biohacking?  Thus, in this very narrow context, what
is the difference as reduces to practice between transhumanism and
biohacking?

If consuming turmeric or ginger in higher than typical amounts is
biohacking, then I'll grant you use of the term is very inclusive.   I
would likely reserve that term for more aggressive or radical forms of
enhancement like cyborgization and tDCS.  I am not comfortable applying a
transhumanist philosophy to that level of acting on my belief.

However, I could see supporting a kickstarter project aimed at increasing
awareness of transhumanist goals as acting on belief/principle.  I also
vote with dollars by consuming entertainment in this vein such that it
incentivizes produces to create more.  In that sense actively promoting
transhumanist memes is action without biohacking.

I can certainly see you point now though about life extension implying
biohacking even (especially) if that includes careful choices in diet and
lifestyle towards the goal of a long and healthy existence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/ae60f8b3/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 14:14:46 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:14:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSMtyf1JsthCyfFpqy9H_WQFT9fQSPQ=SFyfdWzywwzxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392552001.7198.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <5300C25D.1060209@yahoo.com>
 <CALAdGNSMtyf1JsthCyfFpqy9H_WQFT9fQSPQ=SFyfdWzywwzxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdb+b24cuRvM6+-URDjOgy7CfwH+s2RiXAijhVpjWHn_tnQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 17, 2014 2:39 AM, "Adrian Tymes" <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, any far-future scenario that's at all interesting for me is one in
which humans have been uploaded long ago.  They will be far removed from
current humans, would likely be entirely incomprehensible to us, and have
abilities that we can barely understand or even imagine.
>>
>> Not ideal material for a story, is it?
>
>
> This is part of why I suggested dialing it back to no more than a
thousand years from now.  There's only so far into the future one can write
while keeping it both realistic and interesting to modern audiences

Another famous option is a spatially distant locale, presumably beyond the
viewer's own light cone:
"In a galaxy far, far away..."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/7542b376/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 17 14:37:54 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 06:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1392638401.15301.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <1392647874.79566.YahooMailBasic@web165003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

"Adam A. Ford" <tech101 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> ???
>> If the DIYBio crowd and biohackers aren't transhumanists, I don't know
>who is!
>>
>
>DIYBio, Grinders etc may not follow any transhumanist philosophy by will or
>ignorance.
>If you describe transhumanism loosely to include anyone who tries to
>augment themselves, then we have to go a long way back to find the first
>transhumanist.


I'd define transhumanism exactly as the desire or effort to use technology to improve ourselves.  Some people simply have the desire and don't do anything about it (except maybe talk about it, which could be regarded as a form of doing, depending on what and how and to whom they are speaking), and some do what they can towards furthering the aim.

I don't think that whether or not you subscribe to any other philosophical view is really relevant.

Yes, I'd agree that transhumanism is very ancient.  At least 6000 years old.  You could argue that transhumanism is what we do as a species, overall.  So it gets lost in the mists of time.  When did someone first pick up a stick and think "Hmm, I could do things with this!"?

If there are any biohackers doing work with the intention of making things /worse/, then I'd concede that they aren't transhumanists!

Ben Zaiboc



From spike66 at att.net  Mon Feb 17 15:47:58 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 07:47:58 -0800
Subject: [ExI] nash equilibrium again
In-Reply-To: <053101cf2bb4$424b9130$c6e2b390$@rainier66.com>
References: <053101cf2bb4$424b9130$c6e2b390$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <012701cf2bf7$a2a3e440$e7ebacc0$@att.net>

 

 

A few months ago we got talking about Nash equilibrium here.  Anders was up
to speed on it, so I am hoping he or one of the other math/philosophy
hipsters will be able to untangle this.

 

Scenario: the pirate ship is spotted by the navy, battle ensues, cannonball
thru the pirate ship's hull, blub blub blub, navy is hanging the survivors
from yard arms, but three pirates manage to escape in a lifeboat.  They row
like crazy in the moonless night.  When morning comes, it appears fortune is
with them, for they discover the navy ship is nowhere to be seen, the
lifeboat has drifted ashore near a town, and that the captain hid the loot
in the lifeboat!  Along with three loaded guns!  Each take one gun, the kind
they had in the old days, a huge lead ball driven by an absurd amount of
powder, so if one gets shot with one of those, they are ruined, game over
man, arrrr.

 

They sit on the beach and start to divide the gold doubloons in the usual
way, dealer starts the old one for you, one for you, one for me, repeat a
number of times, but the dealer was a logic professor before she gave it up
for the piracy business.  She knows about Nash equilibria.  The next round
goes one for you, one for you, two for me. Both the other pirates turn their
weapons on her, but she knows neither will fire, for as soon as either one
does, that guy is unarmed with one dead pirate (the dealer) one armed pirate
and a sack of gold coins.  The outcome of that doesn't require a math degree
to predict.  

 

She is right of course, both aim their weapons, neither fires.  So she
continues, one for you, one for you, three for me, and the next time, five
for me, and keeps Fibonnacci-ing for a few rounds, but then abruptly stands
up with the remaining gold, and bids them good day.  She walks away with
most of the gold, knowing neither will shoot, for the same reason as before:
he who shoots, dies by the other.  Nothing personal, it's just business,
it's what pirates do, along with saying arrrr much too often.

 

As she fades in the distance, she hears a shot.  This too is perfectly
logical: the remaining two pirates are not in a Nash equilibrium, not even a
metastable one that existed temporarily with the three of them.  She
quickens her pace, since there is now one living pirate with a few coins.
She and that guy aren't in a Nash equilibrium either.  She isn't motivated
to risk her many coins for a few more, but he is motivated to risk his few
for her many.

 

OK now could we argue that the three pirates were never in a Nash
equilibrium to start with?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/9e342b34/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 18:28:04 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:28:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdb+b24cuRvM6+-URDjOgy7CfwH+s2RiXAijhVpjWHn_tnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392552001.7198.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <5300C25D.1060209@yahoo.com>
 <CALAdGNSMtyf1JsthCyfFpqy9H_WQFT9fQSPQ=SFyfdWzywwzxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+b24cuRvM6+-URDjOgy7CfwH+s2RiXAijhVpjWHn_tnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNREK6XsJX1sPPzw9VnGqS4aSv=LM3sWvj1-BN19Qay8pw@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 17, 2014 6:15 AM, "Mike Dougherty" <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another famous option is a spatially distant locale, presumably beyond
the viewer's own light cone:
> "In a galaxy far, far away..."

Yes, but that implies no direct connection to humans on Earth, which is a
problem if one is trying to write about extensions of things seen IRL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/f980ac99/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 18:34:07 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:34:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdb+3YG+AuOnRUsCqu5cy+n0pPryhL6JjkMs-BiFNcxW35Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392465601.28849.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <52FFD5ED.6060900@yahoo.com>
 <CAOJFdb+i-+ggWkmhzw8Lsa4f4JhBORKcJ7SRKnbqTi0sFF69LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQ-==bNvpWx6p+ydVC3FJwyFFYWq9t24yzu_6ZeO4t1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdb+3YG+AuOnRUsCqu5cy+n0pPryhL6JjkMs-BiFNcxW35Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRw7GjeHmkthFcq3AAd+_iABP=K4LG7qm-p6HxE9u3ZBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 17, 2014 6:12 AM, "Mike Dougherty" <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> If consuming turmeric or ginger in higher than typical amounts is
biohacking, then I'll grant you use of the term is very inclusive.

Technically that qualifies.  It is far milder than certain other uses,
granted.

> I would likely reserve that term for more aggressive or radical forms of
enhancement like cyborgization and tDCS.

Actually I would put those two as less so, since they are less purely bio,
even if more extreme in other measures.

> However, I could see supporting a kickstarter project aimed at increasing
awareness of transhumanist goals as acting on belief/principle.  I also
vote with dollars by consuming entertainment in this vein such that it
incentivizes produces to create more.  In that sense actively promoting
transhumanist memes is action without biohacking.

Yes, but that is not directly life extension.  Transhumanism includes a lot
more than biohacking, but within certain very narrow domains they become
the same in practice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/0d0353f4/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 19:49:20 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:49:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Human Aging experiences
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB6P=OKU4dwg_J6OXGKMaY2kPLL9=LiSpA3Cp+ccYRoG_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:00 AM,  Brian Manning Delaney
<listsb at infinitefaculty.org> wrote:

> El 2014-02-13 17:46, Keith Henson escribi?:

>> We found a company that seemed to do what it took and read their
>> studies about how they had developed and tested their procedures, from
>> theory and animal work right up to human studies.
>
> Is the company Regenexx?

Yes.  Sorry, left out the name in the story.

> I know someone who is considering having a
> procedure done with them (also in the Caymans -- though they have
> offices offering FDA-approved procedures in the US, as well).
>
We have done both.  If you go the the Caymans, be sure to plan on
playing with the sting rays.

Keith

PS.  This kind of work has to be done under image guidance.  They use
a low dose C-arm x-ray.  It's useless or even worse than useless to
put stem cells or growth factors in random locations.


From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 17 22:58:03 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:58:03 +0100
Subject: [ExI] nash equilibrium again
In-Reply-To: <012701cf2bf7$a2a3e440$e7ebacc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1107909566-7237@secure.ericade.net>

spike <spike66 at att.net> , 17/2/2014 5:05 PM:


?

?Scenario: the pirate ship is spotted by the navy, battle ensues, cannonball thru the pirate ship?s hull, blub blub blub, ...

...As she fades in the distance, she hears a shot.? This too is perfectly logical: the remaining two pirates are not in a Nash equilibrium, not even a metastable one that existed temporarily with the three of them.? She quickens her pace, since there is now one living pirate with a few coins.? She and that guy aren?t in a Nash equilibrium either.? She isn?t motivated to risk her many coins for a few more, but he is motivated to risk his few for her many.

?

OK now could we argue that the three pirates were never in a Nash equilibrium to start with?

Hehehe... this pirate problem has a surprising depth. It gets even more awesome when you start considering larger groups. In many ways a worthy successor of Mrs Santa's north and east run.
Now, the definition of Nash equilibria is that knowing the other players' strategies they still do not change their strategy. So in each of the subgames things are all right as long as they only plan for surviving that game. But since one could also see them as steps along the way to an end-game. So the key thing is would players change strategies based on this? It seems that there would be larger equilibria here too.


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/c768abcc/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 17 23:14:42 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:14:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
Message-ID: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>

A while ago I started working on an essay called "the meaning of life in transhumanism", but quite soon I got distracted (Oh! Shiny!) and it languished. Then I got an offer to turn it into a book chapter, and it is now up and running. However, while much of it is standard scholarship (Nikolai Fedorov's cosmism and its links to Tipler and FHI-style big futures) I think it would be sensible to actually ask you in the community for your views of what the "meaning of life is".
Some ground rules: Yes, it is not clear that the question even makes sense. Do your best. See?http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/ for a lot of takes on what might be going on (including a pretty cool use of uploading as a counterargument to soul-centred views). I am interested in meanings that actually relate to transhumanism: either as an idea that motivates you to want to enhance yourselves or hope humanity does get enhanced, or as an explanation of why all of this enhancement actually is moving things along in the right direction, or maybe the meaning of life as the right direction(s) to enhance ourselves along.?
Bonus meaning-of-life-points to people who can point at fun publications I can cite: I love having footnotes to early issues of Extropy.?



Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140218/d50642f9/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Feb 17 23:13:06 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:13:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] International Space Development Conference 2014 - Speakers
	Needed
Message-ID: <001201cf2c35$d3c75aa0$7b560fe0$@natasha.cc>

Hello Everyone!

 

Karen Mermel, the brain behind the track on transhumanism at ISDC has asked
me to work with her to get speakers for the conference's session on
transhumanism. This year's ISDC 2014 will be held in Los Angeles May 14-18
at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel.  I'd love for you all to consider giving a
talk or being on a panel.   http://isdc.nss.org/2014/  Bty, last year our
session included Vernor Vinge, David Brin, David Orban, and myself.
http://isdc.nss.org/2013/tracks-transhumanism.shtml  (Howard Bloom was
unable to make it.)

 

Please let me know if you are interested in giving a talk or being on a
panel and I will forward your interest  on to Karen Mermel, our friend at
ISDC.

 

Cheers -

Natasha

 

 <http://www.natasha.cc/> Natasha Vita-More, PhD

 

Faculty, University of Advancing Technology

Chair, Humanity+

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/83e524fd/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 23:33:39 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:33:39 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj7HZ_ArTZ4UWLWpAjnSksdtrBRzjiHBuFTYzLw-22gyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> A while ago I started working on an essay called "the meaning of life in
> transhumanism", but quite soon I got distracted (Oh! Shiny!) and it
> languished. Then I got an offer to turn it into a book chapter, and it is
> now up and running. However, while much of it is standard scholarship
> (Nikolai Fedorov's cosmism and its links to Tipler and FHI-style big
> futures) I think it would be sensible to actually ask you in the community
> for your views of what the "meaning of life is".
>
> Some ground rules: Yes, it is not clear that the question even makes sense.
> Do your best. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/ for a lot
> of takes on what might be going on (including a pretty cool use of uploading
> as a counterargument to soul-centred views). I am interested in meanings
> that actually relate to transhumanism: either as an idea that motivates you
> to want to enhance yourselves or hope humanity does get enhanced, or as an
> explanation of why all of this enhancement actually is moving things along
> in the right direction, or maybe the meaning of life as the right
> direction(s) to enhance ourselves along.
>
>

It changes as you age. The meaning of life for a twenty year old is
not the same as for a seventy year old.
Similarly if you are a 30 year old with a young family, the meaning of
life changes again.

If life extension is successful and everyone stabilizes in a permanent
healthy 30 year old body for centuries, then a rethink of the meaning
of life might be in order.

What gets you out of bed every day might reduce to simple curiosity.
What's up, doc?

BillK


From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 18 06:30:35 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:30:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTsp7HS3oti+1M89eCte7m4V6zZi+CNY6WA2FaVRUPShw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> A while ago I started working on an essay called "the meaning of life in
> transhumanism", but quite soon I got distracted (Oh! Shiny!) and it
> languished. Then I got an offer to turn it into a book chapter, and it is
> now up and running. However, while much of it is standard scholarship
> (Nikolai Fedorov's cosmism and its links to Tipler and FHI-style big
> futures) I think it would be sensible to actually ask you in the community
> for your views of what the "meaning of life is".
>

Would that not be the definition of "life" from biology?  :P

Assuming you actually meant "the purpose of life", purposes come from a
source, which strongly informs possible purposes:

1) If the source is a God-equivalent, then one must prove its existence in
order to prove there is a purpose.  This is, of course, impossible.

2) If the source comes from other people, or from oneself, then there is no
"the" purpose.  There are many purposes, depending on who assigns them and
why.

3) If the source comes from nature, it's pretty clear the purpose is to
survive long enough to breed, genetically and/or memetically.  (Ensuring
the reproduction of someone you wish to reproduce is fine.  Lots of social
animals include members who never have their own children, yet their
efforts ensure the continued survival of their species.)  But a lot of
human beings instinctively reject this, wanting more out of living.

4) If none of the above, there is no purpose.  Life just is.  Of course,
one can assign oneself a purpose, but then it becomes case #2.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140217/a1c92e62/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Tue Feb 18 07:30:01 2014
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:30:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj7HZ_ArTZ4UWLWpAjnSksdtrBRzjiHBuFTYzLw-22gyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAL_armj7HZ_ArTZ4UWLWpAjnSksdtrBRzjiHBuFTYzLw-22gyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wXXQ+4gyG+vUu10TJp3tb8BAJzet4Jj+LRsK+_5DoygoQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:33 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It changes as you age. The meaning of life for a twenty year old is
> not the same as for a seventy year old.
> Similarly if you are a 30 year old with a young family, the meaning of
> life changes again.
>

 For many people, perhaps. I can say, though, that my answer at age 50 is
the same as it would be at 20.

What is that answer? Sorry, there is insufficient room in the margins of
this notebook...

--Max

P.S. Anders: Great topic, I would like to give my answer for real when more
awake. What is your deadline?


-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosophy/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transhumanist+reader
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140218/fc76a108/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Feb 18 07:57:02 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:57:02 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyfuSFABHU5DkNmWAQRBqOUJOQuYHL_6JPwrL_PsWmPHPA@mail.gmail.com>

The question "what's the meaning of life?" assumes that there is a
unique answer valid for everyone. But I don't think there is one. It's
up to everyone to give meaning to their life.

I find meaning in being a small part of something very big - humanity
on its way to become a cosmic civilization that will achieve the
dreams of Fedorov and Tipler, mentioned by Anders.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> A while ago I started working on an essay called "the meaning of life in
> transhumanism", but quite soon I got distracted (Oh! Shiny!) and it
> languished. Then I got an offer to turn it into a book chapter, and it is
> now up and running. However, while much of it is standard scholarship
> (Nikolai Fedorov's cosmism and its links to Tipler and FHI-style big
> futures) I think it would be sensible to actually ask you in the community
> for your views of what the "meaning of life is".
>
> Some ground rules: Yes, it is not clear that the question even makes sense.
> Do your best. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/ for a lot
> of takes on what might be going on (including a pretty cool use of uploading
> as a counterargument to soul-centred views). I am interested in meanings
> that actually relate to transhumanism: either as an idea that motivates you
> to want to enhance yourselves or hope humanity does get enhanced, or as an
> explanation of why all of this enhancement actually is moving things along
> in the right direction, or maybe the meaning of life as the right
> direction(s) to enhance ourselves along.
>
> Bonus meaning-of-life-points to people who can point at fun publications I
> can cite: I love having footnotes to early issues of Extropy.
>
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 18 14:43:33 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:43:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXXQ+4gyG+vUu10TJp3tb8BAJzet4Jj+LRsK+_5DoygoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1165041448-825@secure.ericade.net>

It is fun to see that the first flurry of responses actually manages to cover nearly all main approaches to the question. I'll keep out of responding for a little while in order not to bias you too much.

Max More <max at maxmore.com> , 18/2/2014 8:34 AM:

P.S. Anders: Great topic, I would like to give my answer for real when more awake. What is your deadline?
My deadline is about mid-next month, but I better have my main text together in the next three weeks or so.?
I would really like to hear your answer!

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140218/0ac5655c/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Feb 18 16:23:22 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:23:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <00a201cf2cc5$bf3bf1f0$3db3d5d0$@natasha.cc>

Hi Anders, 

 

My doctorate dissertation?s thesis focuses on life in regards to life extension, personhood expansion, and particularly delves into the topic of ?What is Life? (i.e., Margulis) and  expressly on what is the core of life that transhumanists value and want to extend and expand.  You are welcome to cite me.

 

I can send you excerpts from it to this list or to you privately. Just tell me what you want me to do.

 

Best,

Natasha

 

 <http://www.natasha.cc/> Natasha Vita-More, PhD

 

Faculty, University of Advancing Technology

Chair, Humanity+

_______________________________________

New Book at  <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/188-1002006-3563941?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the%20transhumanist%20reader&sprefix=the+transhumanist+re%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Athe%20transhumanist%20reader> Amazon!

cover email

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:15 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)

 

A while ago I started working on an essay called "the meaning of life in transhumanism", but quite soon I got distracted (Oh! Shiny!) and it languished. Then I got an offer to turn it into a book chapter, and it is now up and running. However, while much of it is standard scholarship (Nikolai Fedorov's cosmism and its links to Tipler and FHI-style big futures) I think it would be sensible to actually ask you in the community for your views of what the "meaning of life is".

 

Some ground rules: Yes, it is not clear that the question even makes sense. Do your best. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/ for a lot of takes on what might be going on (including a pretty cool use of uploading as a counterargument to soul-centred views). I am interested in meanings that actually relate to transhumanism: either as an idea that motivates you to want to enhance yourselves or hope humanity does get enhanced, or as an explanation of why all of this enhancement actually is moving things along in the right direction, or maybe the meaning of life as the right direction(s) to enhance ourselves along. 

 

Bonus meaning-of-life-points to people who can point at fun publications I can cite: I love having footnotes to early issues of Extropy. 

 



Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140218/827f1419/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140218/827f1419/attachment.png>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 18 18:45:32 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:45:32 +0000
Subject: [ExI]  The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1392724801.13160.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1392724801.13160.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <5303AA4C.3040606@yahoo.com>

The meaning of life?  That's easy.

The meaning of life is... <drumroll>...


You decide.


That applies as much to transhumanism as to anything else.

And no, it's not facetious or superficial.  That, for me at least, is 
what the meaning of life really is.


Ben Zaiboc


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Tue Feb 18 12:41:24 2014
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:41:24 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfuSFABHU5DkNmWAQRBqOUJOQuYHL_6JPwrL_PsWmPHPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAKTCJyfuSFABHU5DkNmWAQRBqOUJOQuYHL_6JPwrL_PsWmPHPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C4976C68-8878-49A9-8463-E5D307930F0F@gmu.edu>

I understand "the meaning of my life" as story of my life framed in terms of ideals.
A life story where ideals are embodied and achieved is more meaningful. 
Since there are many ideals, there can be many life meanings.

For me that meaning is "to find and tell key facts". That requires a fair bit of smarts, 
effort, and toughness, which can be promoted by culture and institutions. 
So better culture and institutions will help, and I look forward to a future that has them.
But it doesn't really require much direct enhancement of individuals, other than via
the usual cultural plasticity by which humans have been enhancing themselves for 
many millennia. 

On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:57 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote:
> The question "what's the meaning of life?" assumes that there is a
> unique answer valid for everyone. But I don't think there is one. It's
> up to everyone to give meaning to their life.
> 
> I find meaning in being a small part of something very big - humanity
> on its way to become a cosmic civilization that will achieve the
> dreams of Fedorov and Tipler, mentioned by Anders.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>> A while ago I started working on an essay called "the meaning of life in
>> transhumanism", but quite soon I got distracted (Oh! Shiny!) and it
>> languished. Then I got an offer to turn it into a book chapter, and it is
>> now up and running. However, while much of it is standard scholarship
>> (Nikolai Fedorov's cosmism and its links to Tipler and FHI-style big
>> futures) I think it would be sensible to actually ask you in the community
>> for your views of what the "meaning of life is".
>> 
>> Some ground rules: Yes, it is not clear that the question even makes sense.
>> Do your best. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/ for a lot
>> of takes on what might be going on (including a pretty cool use of uploading
>> as a counterargument to soul-centred views). I am interested in meanings
>> that actually relate to transhumanism: either as an idea that motivates you
>> to want to enhance yourselves or hope humanity does get enhanced, or as an
>> explanation of why all of this enhancement actually is moving things along
>> in the right direction, or maybe the meaning of life as the right
>> direction(s) to enhance ourselves along.
>> 
>> Bonus meaning-of-life-points to people who can point at fun publications I
>> can cite: I love having footnotes to early issues of Extropy.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
>> University
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

Robin Hanson  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Res. Assoc., Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford Univ.
Assoc. Professor, George Mason University
Chief Scientist, Consensus Point
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323






From tara at taramayastales.com  Wed Feb 19 01:24:41 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:24:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <5303AA4C.3040606@yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392724801.13160.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <5303AA4C.3040606@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7F09569A-02F0-4F5F-A231-B2C367F90C5E@taramayastales.com>

I don't even understand the meaning of the "meaning of life." Seriously. What does that even MEAN? 

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Feb 18, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The meaning of life?  That's easy.




From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 19 01:36:46 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:36:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <7F09569A-02F0-4F5F-A231-B2C367F90C5E@taramayastales.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392724801.13160.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <5303AA4C.3040606@yahoo.com>
 <7F09569A-02F0-4F5F-A231-B2C367F90C5E@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <067b01cf2d13$0db6b520$29241f60$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Tara Maya
Subject: Re: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)

I don't even understand the meaning of the "meaning of life." Seriously.
What does that even MEAN? 

Tara Maya



No Tara, we aren't even talking about the (meaning) squared of life, or the
square (meaning) of life.  We don't even know what the units are for that
measurement.  

I may have some insights regarding the meaning of life for squares.  That I
can answer: life for geeks is all about gobbling up as much awe and wonder
as we can in the short time we have.  Mathematics is a great place to search
for that stuff; the field is filled with it, everywhere.  Nature is filled
with it, science in all its forms, filled with awe and wonder.  Furthermore,
in just the past couple decades, there are huge spreads of square meaning
from awe and wonder completely free for the taking, just sitting out there
on the internet, open for anyone to devour.  Oh, liiiife is gooooood, LIFE
is GOOD!

spike




From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 19 12:41:27 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:41:27 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1165041448-825@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAJX-7wXXQ+4gyG+vUu10TJp3tb8BAJzet4Jj+LRsK+_5DoygoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1165041448-825@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhM0C6bHnCeRZxRddEjW-_Wce4rCn18xqxAT5Tbzy=HCw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> It is fun to see that the first flurry of responses actually manages to
> cover nearly all main approaches to the question. I'll keep out of
> responding for a little while in order not to bias you too much.
>
>


Just when I discovered the meaning of life, they changed it.
- George Carlin

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
John Lennon

It may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.

And, of course,
Monty Python film -  The Meaning of Life (1983).
With the brilliant Eric Idle song -

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44DlSj6bnn4>  2:40mins

Man in Pink: [singing]
Whenever life gets you down Mrs. Brown / and things seem hard or tough
/ and people are stupid, obnoxious or daft / and you feel that you've
had quite enough! / just remember that your standing on a planet
that's evolving / revolving at nine-hundred miles an hour / its
orbiting at ninety miles a second / so its reckoned / a sun that is
the source of all our power / the sun and you and me / and all the
stars that we can see / are moving at a million miles a day / in an
outer spiral arm at forty-thousand miles an hour / of the galaxy we
call the Milky Way / Our galaxy itself / contains a hundred billion
stars / its a hundred thousand light years side to side / it bulges in
the middle / sixteen-thousand light years thick / but out by us its
just three-thousand light years wide / were thirty-thousand light
years from galactic central point / we go round every
two-hundred-million years / and our galaxy is only one of millions of
billions in this amazing and expanding universe.

[musical interlude]

Man in Pink: The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding / in
all of the directions it can whiz / as fast as it can go / the speed
of light you know / twelve million miles a minute and thats the
fastest speed there is / so remember when your feeling very small and
insecure / how amazingly unlikely is your birth / and pray that there
intelligent life somewhere up in space / cause theres bugger all down
here on Earth.
-------------


BillK


From rahmans at me.com  Wed Feb 19 13:13:52 2014
From: rahmans at me.com (Omar Rahman)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:13:52 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
Message-ID: <9FC3BEB8-0875-4B43-B42D-801ED67A4FBF@me.com>



Dear Anders,

	Thank you for asking this question. My answer to this in a 'traditional' context would be that we give our own meaning to life in the context of ourselves and our surroundings. This type of meaning is perhaps insufficient now that we live in the Anthropocene Era and we are embarking on the evolutionary era of transhumanism. I would like to refer to this evolutionary era as the 'giving ourselves ourselves' era, I'm pretty sure it would sound nifty in Latin or Ancient Greek. (Google translate proposes for Latin: dans tempus et ipsi nobis)

	In this context, where we may consciously shape both the environment and ourselves, we face the danger of over adaption to our environment. We might end up 'living in the bubble' of our own light cone, so galactically smug that we die literally of boredom. Do species knowingly or unknowingly engage in some sort of 'less than zero sum' game of adaptation of environment and self? Does this explain the Fermi Paradox?

	Or not. Perhaps there is a more interesting context just over that horizon which is MUCH more interesting that the shared context we have from being bipedal hairless apes of our various social-political-economic-cultural persuasions.

	We have the meaning we give ourselves, and if we dig at this meaning enough we end up with a 'because...just because' type of answer. Existentialists at some point have to face this and accept this to whatever degree they are able. Transhumanists will have to face this fully and be damn careful about editing that 'because.config' file.

Best regards,

Omar Rahman


From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 19 16:37:05 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:37:05 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <9FC3BEB8-0875-4B43-B42D-801ED67A4FBF@me.com>
References: <9FC3BEB8-0875-4B43-B42D-801ED67A4FBF@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZq93CubqUkfN_ANV2grZUZg1fhNE6o_J3pBvzk=afMxw@mail.gmail.com>

Meaning of life: 1 -  either you discover it or have it revealed to you, or
2 - you make it up.

Over 10,000 religions and adding two a day (
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/02/oh-gods/302412/) are
eagerly awaiting your innocence to tell you what to do, how to do it, what
not to do, and ask how much money you are donating.

Felix Mendelssohn, after playing a piano work of his own, was asked by a
lady what it meant.  He turned back to the piano, played it again, and said
"That's what it means."

So, meaning is not something something brings to you, it's something you
bring to it.  I think that covers all bases.

bill


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Omar Rahman <rahmans at me.com> wrote:

>
>
> Dear Anders,
>
>         Thank you for asking this question. My answer to this in a
> 'traditional' context would be that we give our own meaning to life in the
> context of ourselves and our surroundings. This type of meaning is perhaps
> insufficient now that we live in the Anthropocene Era and we are embarking
> on the evolutionary era of transhumanism. I would like to refer to this
> evolutionary era as the 'giving ourselves ourselves' era, I'm pretty sure
> it would sound nifty in Latin or Ancient Greek. (Google translate proposes
> for Latin: dans tempus et ipsi nobis)
>
>         In this context, where we may consciously shape both the
> environment and ourselves, we face the danger of over adaption to our
> environment. We might end up 'living in the bubble' of our own light cone,
> so galactically smug that we die literally of boredom. Do species knowingly
> or unknowingly engage in some sort of 'less than zero sum' game of
> adaptation of environment and self? Does this explain the Fermi Paradox?
>
>         Or not. Perhaps there is a more interesting context just over that
> horizon which is MUCH more interesting that the shared context we have from
> being bipedal hairless apes of our various
> social-political-economic-cultural persuasions.
>
>         We have the meaning we give ourselves, and if we dig at this
> meaning enough we end up with a 'because...just because' type of answer.
> Existentialists at some point have to face this and accept this to whatever
> degree they are able. Transhumanists will have to face this fully and be
> damn careful about editing that 'because.config' file.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Omar Rahman
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140219/b030e132/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Feb 19 16:57:25 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:57:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <7F09569A-02F0-4F5F-A231-B2C367F90C5E@taramayastales.com>
References: <mailman.1.1392724801.13160.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <5303AA4C.3040606@yahoo.com>
 <7F09569A-02F0-4F5F-A231-B2C367F90C5E@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <007801cf2d93$ab5f5db0$021e1910$@natasha.cc>

Take a look at the book What is Life by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Life-Lynn-Margulis/dp/0520220218
This is pretty darn clear on what life is, from a biologist's perspective.

An  issue for transhumanism concerns this thing called life and living - the
"now" of being that we experience and its possible transmutation from  cell
to code.  

Natasha

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tara Maya
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:25 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)

I don't even understand the meaning of the "meaning of life." Seriously.
What does that even MEAN? 

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Feb 18, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The meaning of life?  That's easy.


_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140219/52e58211/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Feb 19 17:23:35 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:23:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Ape suits, was hard science
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4abiRcfL4+HsGooMyQht3fL1VwxfHQG6t+CWS9oebjhw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:41 AM,  Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

snip

>  >I don't see why. Amoebas are still wandering around in single-cell
> suits, despite being immensely older than 10,000 years, and despite the
> presence of our exalted selves.
>  >
>  >Not everything old is extinct. Not everything new displaces what it
> replaces.
>
> OK, what you say is correct, but not relevant to what I mean.  Let me
> rephrase:  I can't take seriously any kind of long-term projection where
> the major players are still wandering around in meat ape-suits.

I side with Ben on this issue.

If we are to be major players, we will have to upload just to keep up.
 And for physical reasons, you can't have a fast mind in a meat body,
the body just can't keep up.  I talked about this here:

http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/04/12/transhumanism-and-the-human-expansion-into-space-a-conflict-with-physics/

Recently I have been working on propulsion lasers, which have to be
out in space (GEO to be exact) and need GW of cooling.  Taking
thermodynamic at a local university to unrust my skills at this (steam
tables, oh my).  Deep ocean is still the best location for a large
compact community.

> I'm not saying that biological humans as they are now /couldn't/ be
> around in thousands of years (there are reasons why they might not be,
> but that's another matter), I'm saying that any that are would be
> extremely unlikely to have the same status as humans do today, and would
> be like amoebas in more ways than one, compared to the beings of
> interest that should be around then (unless, of course, something like
> Ian M Banks' idea of Sublimation is possible).

Biological human are _required_ if you want to write a story about the
future.  Otherwise, there are no characters to identify with.  Agreed
that they would have a status much like amoebas.

Keith


From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 19 17:17:23 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:17:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZq93CubqUkfN_ANV2grZUZg1fhNE6o_J3pBvzk=afMxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9FC3BEB8-0875-4B43-B42D-801ED67A4FBF@me.com>
 <CAO+xQEZq93CubqUkfN_ANV2grZUZg1fhNE6o_J3pBvzk=afMxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <088a01cf2d96$74a5c900$5df15b00$@att.net>

 

 

. On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace



Meaning of life: 1 -  either you discover it or have it revealed to you, or
2 - you make it up.So, meaning is not something something brings to you,
it's something you bring to it.bill

.

Dear Anders,. Do species knowingly or unknowingly engage in some sort of
'less than zero sum' game of adaptation of environment and self? Does this
explain the Fermi Paradox? .Omar Rahman

_______________________________________________



Meaning of life, awe and wonder, etc:  when you have some some quiet and
enough time for a mind-blower, google images on "open clusters" and
"globular clusters" to get a feel for a huge wad of stars.  Here's some
pretty good sites: 

 

http://scitechdaily.com/hubble-views-open-cluster-ngc-411/

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VISTA_Finds_Star_Clusters_Galore.jpg

 

Then get a good Hubble image of a nearby galaxy, noting those bright spots
and recognizing that these are open clusters and globulars, each a huge knot
of stars.  That will give you a vague feel for how mind-numbing many stars
are in a typical galaxy.  The word billion is far too easy to say and far
too difficult to comprehend, so do the cluster exercise. 

 

OK, now go into the NASA site and download a few of their deep space images.
Pick one, any one.  Gaze at that for a while.  Jillions of galaxies,
everywhere we look, every one of them with all those clusters, each cluster
with all those stars, many of those stars with planets.  If that exercise
doesn't inject something profound into the whole meaning of life ponderfest,
your mind is just wired differently from mine.

 

spike  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140219/c91ead55/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 19 17:44:45 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:44:45 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Ape suits, was hard science
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB4abiRcfL4+HsGooMyQht3fL1VwxfHQG6t+CWS9oebjhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB4abiRcfL4+HsGooMyQht3fL1VwxfHQG6t+CWS9oebjhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTba73KtgsyF183w-A9gedC=VuwNobyuns7oTf5z0f+rA@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 19, 2014 9:24 AM, "Keith Henson" <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Biological human are _required_ if you want to write a story about the
> future.  Otherwise, there are no characters to identify with.  Agreed
> that they would have a status much like amoebas.

Not completely true.  One can write a story about mostly humanoid robots
with human-like attitudes...say, after the last biological human dies.
I've seen it done well, and get at least thousands of readers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140219/532fd1fb/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Feb 19 19:37:17 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:37:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Hemingway test program.
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7ZpqnZ2zcd4XAP=OE5qjVMDUgTaQyJ6d0NrhuGONeuzQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ran this through the clear writing program and worked on it till
junior high kids could read it.

Scope of the problem

Humans need to replace ~15 TW of power from fossil fuel with a cheap
non-carbon source over the next 20-25 years.

"Cheap" here is from Gail Tverberg's article
http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/266116/oil-prices-lead-hard-financial-limits

and her discussion at a conference on power satellites where $30-50
per bbl oil was OK for vibrant economies.

If power satellites are a possible solution, then we need to consider
number of areas of knowledge to analyze the project.  This list is not
exhaustive.

Economics

For a low maintenance, no fuel power source, the cost per kWh is
~1/80,000 of the capital investment.  Thus, $800/kW capital cost would
provide 1 cent per kWh power, $1600 would cost 2 cents per kWh, etc.
(One cent/kWh is $10/MWh.)

Chemistry and electro chemistry

Synthetic oil cost about $10/bbl for the capital equipment.  This was
what the Sasol plant in Qatar cost.  It also takes electrolytic
hydrogen and biomass or CO2 from the atmosphere.  The CO2 is close to
free.  The hydrogen for a bbl of oil takes two MWh of power.  Thus
$10/MWh power would provide $30/bbl oil and $20/MWh would make $50/bbl
oil.  Synthetic liquid transportation fuels need vast amounts of low
cost electrical power.  Hydropower is this inexpensive, but there is
not enough hydropower to solve the problem.

Orbital mechanics

Describes the velocity change needed to reach to LEO and the transfer
from LEO to GEO.  There are other orbits besides equatorial GEO.
Geosynchronous Laplace orbits take less station keeping.  Molniya
orbits are good for high latitude locations.

"Rocket science," the rocket equation

It is critical to understand the reaction mass fraction required for a
given delta V and a particular exhaust velocity.  Low exhaust velocity
results in low payload fractions.  This is the motivation for the high
investment in a 3 GW propulsion laser.  With laser propulsion, it
takes two stages to GEO.  Even then, we need to convert the entire dry
mass of the second stage into power satellite parts for economics to
work out.

Microwave optics

The microwave frequency sets the power satellite size.  At 2.45 GHz,
(the most proposed wavelength), the transmitter in space needs to be a
km in diameter.  The rectenna on the ground is 10 km east to west for
a power satellite on the same longitude as the rectenna.  Higher
frequency decreases the size of both antennas, but increases the
atmospheric absorption

Geometry and geography figure into the launch system.  The launches
need to be to the east (to take advantage of the earth's rotation).
It must be on a coast near the equator, especially if using laser
propulsion.  A glance at a globe will show that there are few such
locations.

Geometry also figures into the power satellite and laser propulsion
design.  The 23 deg tilt of the geosynchronous orbit and the need to
keep sunlight off radiators complicates the design.

Laser optics

The same microwave optics equation sets the optical aperture size to
focus a high-powered laser beam on a vehicle.  For 808 nm, a ten-meter
mirror will focus to 4 meters over the distance from GEO to LEO.

Thermodynamics

Cooling the propulsion laser is a thermodynamics problem.  Three GW of
waste heat takes over 8.5 square km of area.  Low pressure steam is
the heat transfer fluid of choice.

Skylon

The Skylon vehicle comes into this story twice.  It is the vehicle of
choice to lift ~15,000 tons for the initial laser propulsions station.
 Modified with laser hydrogen heaters in the wings, it can go into
orbit with a much higher payload fraction.  A laser boosted Skylon is
the only vehicle proposed that will provide the throughput power
satellites need.

[No wonder people don't understand the proposal]


From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb 20 20:48:09 2014
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:48:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] TEDx Munich Feb 24, 2014
Message-ID: <001301cf2e7d$1170ab60$34520220$@natasha.cc>

I'll be speaking at TEDx Munich. If anyone going or lives in Munich and
wants to meet for a beer, please let me know!

 

http://www.tedxmuenchen.de/events

 

 

Natasha

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140220/b79e99a9/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 02:20:14 2014
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:20:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Meltdown at Mt. Gox (Bitcoin exchange)
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7ZpqnZ2zcd4XAP=OE5qjVMDUgTaQyJ6d0NrhuGONeuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7ZpqnZ2zcd4XAP=OE5qjVMDUgTaQyJ6d0NrhuGONeuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1392949214.2156.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

mirco,

It appears the concerns I expressed here a few months ago about Mt. Gox's solvency were justified. I am not happy to have been correct about it, but I am happy that I transferred my bitcoins out of that black hole. I hope you did as well, assuming you had any there.

As of this moment, bitcoin currently trades on Mt. Gox at about 100 USD vs. about 560 USD on healthy markets. It is unclear whether anyone will be able to withdraw their coins, to say nothing of any USD.?

Gordon?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140220/a17ba425/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Fri Feb 21 04:13:43 2014
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:13:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Meltdown at Mt. Gox (Bitcoin exchange)
In-Reply-To: <1392949214.2156.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7ZpqnZ2zcd4XAP=OE5qjVMDUgTaQyJ6d0NrhuGONeuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1392949214.2156.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5306D277.10802@canonizer.com>


Extropians,

It looks to me like MtGox might have lost at least some Bitcoin due to 
the transaction malleability issue in the protocol, which could cause 
liquidity problems having nothing to do with prior history?  They could 
also be making some serious money buying from those poor locked in guys 
willing to sell for around  $100/BTC. Whatever it is, It'd sure be nice 
to know.

In Jan, I abandoned the, till that time unanimous consensus $10,000/BTC 
in 2014 camp, for the Bitcoin will never achieve a $10,000 valuation camp.

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/7

And I've been selling vigorously since then.

I remain in the "Canonized Law of the Crypto Coin" camp, it's just that 
I think there are some drastically superior coins about to come out.  
And as always, a superior coin has, to me, been the only significant 
risk to Bitcoin.

I think the Invictus Innovations Bitshare coin that is about to come out 
is, or at least will be, by far, the best coin out there, investment 
wise (you can bid on them now see: http://www1.agsexplorer.com/).

Just wondering what you guys think?  Is there anything else out there 
close to that?

Are you still bullish on Bitcoin?  Are you still bullish on Crypto 
Currencies?  Do you think Bitcoin will ever set a new record? What is 
the best alt coin out or about to be out there, investment wise, that 
you know of?

Brent Allsop





On 2/20/2014 7:20 PM, Gordon wrote:
> mirco,
>
> It appears the concerns I expressed here a few months ago about Mt. 
> Gox's solvency were justified. I am not happy to have been correct 
> about it, but I am happy that I transferred my bitcoins out of that 
> black hole. I hope you did as well, assuming you had any there.
>
> As of this moment, bitcoin currently trades on Mt. Gox at about 100 
> USD vs. about 560 USD on healthy markets. It is unclear whether anyone 
> will be able to withdraw their coins, to say nothing of any USD.
>
> Gordon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140220/392ee436/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 21 04:55:00 2014
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Meltdown at Mt. Gox (Bitcoin exchange)
In-Reply-To: <5306D277.10802@canonizer.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7ZpqnZ2zcd4XAP=OE5qjVMDUgTaQyJ6d0NrhuGONeuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1392949214.2156.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <5306D277.10802@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <1392958500.71453.YahooMailNeo@web164604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:

>In Jan, I abandoned the, till that time unanimous consensus $10,000/BTC in 2014 camp, for the Bitcoin will never achieve a $10,000 valuation camp... And I've been selling vigorously since then.

Really? You were the guy who thought the price of bitcoin must grow exponentially forever as a result of some mysterious "Moore's Law of Bitcoin," and now you're selling vigorously??

?>And as always, a superior coin has, to me, been the only significant risk to Bitcoin.

I suppose I do agree with that much.

> Are you still bullish on Bitcoin?

Yes.

?>Are you still bullish on Crypto Currencies?

Yes.

>Do you think Bitcoin will ever set a new record?

Probably.

?>What is the best alt coin out or about to be out there, investment wise, that you know of?

I do not like altcoins in general, but I do have some mild interest in a new altcoin called vertcoin. It is essentially litecoin with a few tweaks to make it resistant to ASIC mining. ?

Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140220/a68b49a8/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri Feb 21 07:12:38 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:12:38 -0800
Subject: [ExI] nash equilibrium again
In-Reply-To: <012701cf2bf7$a2a3e440$e7ebacc0$@att.net>
References: <053101cf2bb4$424b9130$c6e2b390$@rainier66.com>
 <012701cf2bf7$a2a3e440$e7ebacc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQ1O=u3JzQy1HqkjF1y8qv0JQtNR62YLMD9oeD9y-ubxw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:47 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> They sit on the beach and start to divide the gold doubloons in the usual
> way, dealer starts the old one for you, one for you, one for me, repeat a
> number of times, but the dealer was a logic professor before she gave it up
> for the piracy business.  She knows about Nash equilibria.  The next round
> goes one for you, one for you, two for me... Both the other pirates turn
> their weapons on her, but she knows neither will fire, for as soon as
> either one does, that guy is unarmed with one dead pirate (the dealer) one
> armed pirate and a sack of gold coins.  The outcome of that doesn't require
> a math degree to predict.
>
>
>
> She is right of course, both aim their weapons, neither fires.  So she
> continues, one for you, one for you, three for me, and the next time, five
> for me, and keeps Fibonnacci-ing for a few rounds, but then abruptly stands
> up with the remaining gold, and bids them good day.  She walks away with
> most of the gold, knowing neither will shoot, for the same reason as
> before: he who shoots, dies by the other.  Nothing personal, it's just
> business, it's what pirates do, along with saying arrrr much too often.
>

Arr, but when she's dealing the coins, she don't have easy access to her
gun.  Shoot the other pirate, take his gun before it falls, make sure you
can grab it and fire it at the ex-professor before she can get her gun
out.  All for me and none for you, yahaharr.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140220/39096f44/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb 21 07:16:59 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:16:59 -0800
Subject: [ExI] nash equilibrium again
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQ1O=u3JzQy1HqkjF1y8qv0JQtNR62YLMD9oeD9y-ubxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <053101cf2bb4$424b9130$c6e2b390$@rainier66.com>
 <012701cf2bf7$a2a3e440$e7ebacc0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQ1O=u3JzQy1HqkjF1y8qv0JQtNR62YLMD9oeD9y-ubxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02de01cf2ed4$ea2213c0$be663b40$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes



>.Arr, but when she's dealing the coins, she don't have easy access to her
gun.  Shoot the other pirate, take his gun before it falls, make sure you
can grab it and fire it at the ex-professor before she can get her gun out.
All for me and none for you, yahaharr.

 

 

Arrrr, but she thought of that.  She holds her gun in one hand, reaches into
the bag with the other, never taking her eyes off the other two, tossing one
coin at a time in case either gets the notion of doing exactly what you
suggested.  Actually she hopes either of the other two will try exactly such
a stunt, for then she gets all the gold, arrrr.  

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140220/c3c63ce8/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Fri Feb 21 23:47:46 2014
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:47:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Meltdown at Mt. Gox (Bitcoin exchange)
In-Reply-To: <1392958500.71453.YahooMailNeo@web164604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7ZpqnZ2zcd4XAP=OE5qjVMDUgTaQyJ6d0NrhuGONeuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1392949214.2156.YahooMailNeo@web164601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <5306D277.10802@canonizer.com>
 <1392958500.71453.YahooMailNeo@web164604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5307E5A2.5090706@canonizer.com>


Hi Gordon,


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Gordon <gts_2000 at yahoo.com 
<mailto:gts_2000 at yahoo.com>> wrote:

    Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com
    <mailto:brent.allsop at canonizer.com>> wrote:

    >In  Jan, I abandoned the, till that time unanimous consensus
    $10,000/BTC in 2014 camp, for the Bitcoin will never achieve a
    $10,000 valuation camp... And I've been selling vigorously since then.

    Really? You were the guy who thought the price of bitcoin must grow
    exponentially forever as a result of some mysterious "Moore's Law of
    Bitcoin," and now you're selling vigorously?


No, It's specifically titled "Law of the Crypto Coin" not "Law of the 
Bitcoin".  It applies to the market cap of all crypto currencies.  I've 
always said that a superior to Bitcoin coin is the biggest risk to 
Bitcoin.  But, I must admit that I am very much more in your camp, 
seeing more risks than just superior coins as possibilities.  I figure I 
should have been much more open to your good advice back then.

The idea behind "BitShares" is that coins can be like stocks in a public 
organization, with real money making and distribution potential backing 
them up, like real stocks of a company with PE ratios.  Yet without the 
need of the middle men stock exchanges and brokerage houses.  Obviously 
a coin that can be spent like Bitcoin and is paying real dividends from 
real profits of a company, like a share of a company, is a better 
investment than something that is only a coin like Bitcoin.

I see a day in the near future where all public companies move their 
shares off of the major stock exchanges and go "cryptographically 
public".  When people go shopping, they will indicate what asset they 
will want to pay with, and the sellers will indicate what asset they 
want to receive, and a frictionless decentralized network, like the 
ripple network, will easily and automatically find the most price 
efficient way to move between the two - the buyer and seller not needing 
to be aware of the automatic near free stuff that is going on 
underneath.  And the seller and payer's software will be integrated into 
their accounting system so whatever taxes are mandated will be 
automatically tallied.  You will no longer need to pay a brokerage house 
to keep track of all this for you, and taking an expensive piece of 
every buy and sell.

What possible futures do you see?

Brent


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140221/2e67001f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Feb 21 23:41:07 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:41:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>

Thanks for your answers! Very thought provoking, and actually useful. Some observations:
We are *way* naturalistic subjectivists on this list. I think Adrian was the only one even mentioning non-naturalistic sources of purpose, and objectivist ideas mentioned have mainly dealt with the nature of biological life and its purpose. In fact, many of the answers were pretty classic existentialism!?
It is interesting to note that most answers did not directly jump into transhumanism, but were about general life philosophies. So at least around here it doesn't look like people base their sense of purpose on a transhumanist idea as the core value, but rather that one can choose a meaning, and we happen to have chosen transhumanist-aligned views. Of course, cause and effect may be mixed.
While most responses were individualistic or focused on enhancing the individual self, I also got a very relevant off-list response about non-individual goals. There seem to be an interesting tension between some of the me-centric subjective purposes of some transhumanists and the more other-regarding purposes of other transhumanists.?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140222/8d5d338a/attachment.html>

From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Sat Feb 22 02:29:35 2014
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:29:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAMdUVLz1bZANhKO4nxMThz1Wi7jdOHgmEWqnUqDYS9Jx+qZQdg@mail.gmail.com>

I'll chime in with the perspective of a psychologist, or at least this
psychologist.

The current version of humans are meaning-making creatures. We seek meaning
in everything. In the absence of finding such meaning in our daily
activities, psychopathology often results in the form of anxiety and/or
depression. Identifying with such meaning is so important to us that we
formulate (nonsensical) anthropocentric questions such as, "What is the
meaning of life?"

I recognize however that many view this question as synonymous with, "What
is the purpose of [sentient] life," although they are not equivalent IMHO.
I think of this question in terms of what is the goal of this game we call
life. I will put forth a few of my favorite transhumanist-inspired
suppositions:
-To solve the problem of why consciousness exists and its origins/destiny.
-To solve the imposition of death.
-To transcend our physical limitations and merge with other energy within
or outside our universe.
-Love/Unity.
-The aim of the game is to feel real good.
-To create art for art's sake. This can be attributed to John Perry Barlow
I believe. I take this to mean that maybe our variety of life is destined
to create art for the rest of "life" elsewhere. Like this is a nuanced
strength of ours that we take for granted but that doesn't come so easily
to "life" elsewhere.
-If we are in a simulation, the purpose of the simulation could be to play
out alternate outcomes relative to the original. Alternately, if this is a
simulation, the purpose could be to learn about how our predecessors in the
original achieved a certain outcome (self-destruction?), like a history
lesson of sorts.

Live long and prosper,
-Henry Rivera, PsyD

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Thanks for your answers! Very thought provoking, and actually useful. Some
> observations:
>
> We are *way* naturalistic subjectivists on this list. I think Adrian was
> the only one even mentioning non-naturalistic sources of purpose, and
> objectivist ideas mentioned have mainly dealt with the nature of biological
> life and its purpose. In fact, many of the answers were pretty classic
> existentialism!
>
> It is interesting to note that most answers did not directly jump into
> transhumanism, but were about general life philosophies. So at least around
> here it doesn't look like people base their sense of purpose on a
> transhumanist idea as the core value, but rather that one can choose a
> meaning, and we happen to have chosen transhumanist-aligned views. Of
> course, cause and effect may be mixed.
>
> While most responses were individualistic or focused on enhancing the
> individual self, I also got a very relevant off-list response about
> non-individual goals. There seem to be an interesting tension between some
> of the me-centric subjective purposes of some transhumanists and the more
> other-regarding purposes of other transhumanists.
>
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140221/d2e92da0/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb 22 09:47:12 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:47:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjN2YkeN8PH7Y1BcdMhzbS43J4O3D2meoZkZT2_wDroxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
<snip>
> While most responses were individualistic or focused on enhancing the
> individual self, I also got a very relevant off-list response about
> non-individual goals. There seem to be an interesting tension between some
> of the me-centric subjective purposes of some transhumanists and the more
> other-regarding purposes of other transhumanists.
>
>

It might be interesting to change your question to -
'What is the direction of life?' or 'How do we think human life will develop?'

That might bring out more transhuman purposes.

Personally I think that current evidence points against individual
intelligences continuing. Humans seem to want to merge with others, to
fight the loneliness of the individual. All our social apps,
community, partnerships, point in this direction. When uploading
becomes possible, merging into a communal intelligence seems obvious.
Due to speed of light communication limits, it won't be 'one'
super-intelligence. But more a distributed intelligence, communicating
back to the centre.


BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb 22 21:12:19 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 22:12:19 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAMdUVLz1bZANhKO4nxMThz1Wi7jdOHgmEWqnUqDYS9Jx+qZQdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1531433837-25504@secure.ericade.net>

BillK <pharos at gmail.com> , 22/2/2014 10:50 AM:
It might be interesting to change your question to - 
'What is the direction of life?' or 'How do we think human life will develop?' 
 
That might bring out more transhuman purposes. 
Yup. Still, I felt it was useful to check what people have as basic approach to this kind of issue - with the naturalist subjectivism out of the way we can get on with the more transhumanist takes on things. I liked Henry Rivera's list - many of these makes some sense as answers to the above questions. Generally I think answers to the first question leads to cosmist transhumanism, while answers to the second towards a more terrestrial transhumanism.?
When looking in the literature I found a few quotable ideas. Here are a few ones to get started:
Ettinger:
"At last one of the central questions can be dealt with: What is the purpose of life? Answer: To discover the purpose of life. This is not a play on words, but a recognition of the obvious truth that since ultimate answers are not within view we must make do, for the foreseeable future, with uncovering and pursuing a succession of intermediate goals, and that this requires a program of growth and development....We must, in fine, become immortal supermen--not to gloat over our accomplishments and strut among the stars, but to do our work, the only work there is." (R.C.W. Ettinger, Man into Superman p. 213-214)
This fits in nicely with one of Nick Bostrom's earliest essays where he points out that the deep philosophical problems are very hard, so we are unlikely to get any answer soon - so we better improve our minds or make AI so we can figure things out, get life extension if we want to know the answers, and reduce xrisk so that there will be a future to come up with the answers.?

Sebastian Seung had an external perspective that I quite like: 

?The ?meaning of life? includes both universal and personal dimensions. We can ask both ?Are we here for a reason?? and ?Am I here for a reason?? Transhumanism answers these questions as follows. First, it?s the destiny of humankind to transcend the human condition. This is not merely what will happen, but what should happen. Second, it can be a personal goal to sign up for Alcor, dream about uploading, or use technology to otherwise improve oneself. In both of these ways, transhumanism lends meaning to lives that were robbed of it by science. 

The bible said that God made man in his own image. The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said that man made God in his own image. The transhumanists say that humanity will make itself into God.? (Connectome, p. 273) 

According to him transhumanists have accepted the post-Enlightenment critique of reason, yet not given up on using reason to achieve grand ends that give meaning to life. This actually fits in well with the good ol' Extropian Principles:??Religions traditionally have provided a sense of meaning and purpose in life, but have also suppressed intelligence and stifled progress. The Extropian philosophy provides an inspiring and uplifting meaning and direction to our lives, while remaining flexible and firmly founded in science, reason, and the boundless search for improvement.?
There is of course much more in the principles I would like to comment on, but I would also like to hear what Max has to say.?
Then there is the Nietzsche link. For example, in?http://www.nietzschecircle.com/AGONIST/2011_08/Loeb_Nietzsche_Transhumanism.pdf

 

?Indeed, this is the whole point of Sorgner?s first essay on Nietzsche and the transhumanist movement: although transhumanists are influenced by Nietzsche?s concept of the superhuman in wanting to take the next step in the evolutionary process, they do not follow Nietzsche in justifying this desire by reference to the question of the meaning of life. Sorgner?s unstated implication is that transhumanists might want to learn from Nietzsche about the need to justify human enhancement as part of a general project to affirm this life and this world to the fullest?a project whose success will be determined by our longing for their eternal recurrence.?

Of course, we can let Friedrich speak for himself:

?Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss. 

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting. 

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING. 

I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore. 

I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive. 

I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going.? (Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)



 

Naively this implies that the meaning of the human is to become posthuman (and this meaning is not due to any supernatural "beyond the stars" reason). But Nietzsche of course saw this as a continuing process with no end (because eternal return): the posthuman would also be a bridge. So the meaning of life for the posthuman is the same continual striving.?Finally, my always cheerful colleague Guy Kahane has written a paper on "Our cosmic insignificance" (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nous.12030/full ) which tackles the question of just how insignificant we are. He concludes that we might very well be insignificant, but not for the reasons usually invoked, and we do not know this.?
"A concern with cosmic significance can be entirely outward looking. What is important deserves our attention. What is cosmically importance deserves our attention, when?we adopt a viewpoint that encompasses everything. This needn?t, of course, be us. If God exists, for example, He would be of immense cosmic significance. It goes without saying,that this is something that?s important to know. ... (We think it is important to know where life came from, how the universe begun, and how it will end. Surely, if this purely theoretical knowledge about the cosmos is important, then knowledge about what?s cosmically important is at least as important.)
In any event, even if there was something distasteful in the desire for cosmic significance, it hardly follows that it doesn?t matter whether we are cosmically significant. (That it?s childish to fantasize about being a hero doesn?t mean there are no heroes.) ...
There is something embarrassingly megalomaniac in the desire for grand cosmic significance. Even so, this desire might be fulfilled. It is highly unlikely that any of us possesses cosmic significance. But as is turns out, if we are alone in the universe then, taken together, we humans may nevertheless be of immense cosmic significance?and the irony is that we might have this significance precisely because the surrounding universe is so cold and indifferent. ... If we possess great significance, we possess it precisely because there is no one else but us? and thus only when there is no one (but us) who can appreciate our significance. We may be centre stage, but the theatre is empty.
If anything, this result should be sobering. It is not a cause for elation, but a burden, a great responsibility. If we are alone in the universe, the only thing of value, then this gives our continuing existence, and our efforts to avert disaster, a cosmic urgency, on top of whatever self-interested, anthropocentric reasons we have to stay around. That is to say, we might be far more important than we take ourselves to be. We humans are after all careless in numerous familiar ways, we fail to safeguard the future, or kick off pernicious habits. From a cosmic point of view, the problem wouldn?t be that we suffer from an inflated sense of importance. It is that that we don?t take our existence seriously enough."
There is much more that can be quoted and discussed, but I'll stop here for now.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140222/2532e0ff/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 23 01:38:34 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:38:34 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1531433837-25504@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAMdUVLz1bZANhKO4nxMThz1Wi7jdOHgmEWqnUqDYS9Jx+qZQdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1531433837-25504@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZCmuM_daZCHvZCi9n5VqYADNWjyNP1M3XVibT_dYKhkg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> BillK <pharos at gmail.com> , 22/2/2014 10:50 AM:
>
> It might be interesting to change your question to -
> 'What is the direction of life?' or 'How do we think human life will
> develop?'
>
> That might bring out more transhuman purposes.
>
>
> Yup. Still, I felt it was useful to check what people have as basic
> approach to this kind of issue - with the naturalist subjectivism out of
> the way we can get on with the more transhumanist takes on things. I liked
> Henry Rivera's list - many of these makes some sense as answers to the
> above questions. Generally I think answers to the first question leads to
> cosmist transhumanism, while answers to the second towards a more
> terrestrial transhumanism.
>
> When looking in the literature I found a few quotable ideas. Here are a
> few ones to get started:
>
> Ettinger:
>
> "At last one of the central questions can be dealt with: What is the
> purpose of life? Answer: To discover the purpose of life. This is not a
> play on words, but a recognition of the obvious truth that since ultimate
> answers are not within view we must make do, for the foreseeable future,
> with uncovering and pursuing a succession of intermediate goals, and that
> this requires a program of growth and development.
> ...
> We must, in fine, become immortal supermen--not to gloat over our
> accomplishments and strut among the stars, but to do our work, the only
> work there is." (R.C.W. Ettinger, Man into Superman p. 213-214)
>
> This fits in nicely with one of Nick Bostrom's earliest essays where he
> points out that the deep philosophical problems are very hard, so we are
> unlikely to get any answer soon - so we better improve our minds or make AI
> so we can figure things out, get life extension if we want to know the
> answers, and reduce xrisk so that there will be a future to come up with
> the answers.
>
> Sebastian Seung had an external perspective that I quite like:
>
> "The "meaning of life" includes both universal and personal dimensions. We
> can ask both "Are we here for a reason?" and "Am *I* here for a reason?"
> Transhumanism answers these questions as follows. First, it's the destiny
> of humankind to transcend the human condition. This is not merely what will
> happen, but what should happen. Second, it can be a personal goal to sign
> up for Alcor, dream about uploading, or use technology to otherwise improve
> oneself. In both of these ways, transhumanism lends meaning to lives that
> were robbed of it by science.
>
> The bible said that God made man in his own image. The German philosopher
> Ludwig Feuerbach said that man made God in his own image. The
> transhumanists say that humanity will make itself into God." (Connectome,
> p. 273)
>
> According to him transhumanists have accepted the post-Enlightenment
> critique of reason, yet not given up on using reason to achieve grand ends
> that give meaning to life. This actually fits in well with the good ol'
> Extropian Principles:
> "Religions traditionally have provided a sense of meaning and purpose in
> life, but have also suppressed intelligence and stifled progress. The
> Extropian philosophy provides an inspiring and uplifting meaning and
> direction to our lives, while remaining flexible and firmly founded in
> science, reason, and the boundless search for improvement."
>
> There is of course much more in the principles I would like to comment on,
> but I would also like to hear what Max has to say.
>
> Then there is the Nietzsche link. For example, in
> http://www.nietzschecircle.com/AGONIST/2011_08/Loeb_Nietzsche_Transhumanism.pdf
>
>  "Indeed, this is the whole point of Sorgner's first essay on Nietzsche
> and the transhumanist movement: although transhumanists are influenced by
> Nietzsche's concept of the superhuman in wanting to take the next step in
> the evolutionary process, they do not follow Nietzsche in justifying this
> desire by reference to the question of the meaning of life. Sorgner's
> unstated implication is that transhumanists might want to learn from
> Nietzsche about the need to justify human enhancement as part of a general
> project to affirm this life and this world to the fullest--a project whose
> success will be determined by our longing for their eternal recurrence."
>
> Of course, we can let Friedrich speak for himself:
>
> "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over
> an abyss.
>
> A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a
> dangerous trembling and halting.
>
> What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is
> lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.
>
> I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows
> of longing for the other shore.
>
> I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going
> down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the
> earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.
>
> I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the
> Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going." (Friedrich
> Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
>
>  Naively this implies that the meaning of the human is to become
> posthuman (and this meaning is not due to any supernatural "beyond the
> stars" reason). But Nietzsche of course saw this as a continuing process
> with no end (because eternal return): the posthuman would also be a bridge.
> So the meaning of life for the posthuman is the same continual striving.
> Finally, my always cheerful colleague Guy Kahane has written a paper on
> "Our cosmic insignificance" (
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nous.12030/full ) which
> tackles the question of just how insignificant we are. He concludes that we
> might very well be insignificant, but not for the reasons usually invoked,
> and we do not *know *this.
>
> "A concern with cosmic significance can be entirely outward looking. What
> is important deserves our attention. What is cosmically importance deserves
> our attention, when
> we adopt a viewpoint that encompasses everything. This needn't, of course,
> be us. If God exists, for example, He would be of immense cosmic
> significance. It goes without saying,
> that this is something that's important to know. ... (We think it is
> important to know where life came from, how the universe begun, and how it
> will end. Surely, if this purely theoretical knowledge about the cosmos is
> important, then knowledge about what's cosmically important is *at least*as important.)
>
> In any event, even if there was something distasteful in the *desire *for
> cosmic significance, it hardly follows that it doesn't matter whether we *are
> *cosmically significant. (That it's childish to fantasize about being a
> hero doesn't mean there are no heroes.) ...
>
> There is something embarrassingly megalomaniac in the desire for grand
> cosmic significance. Even so, this desire might be fulfilled. It is highly
> unlikely that any of us possesses cosmic significance. But as is turns out,
> if we are alone in the universe then, taken together, we humans may
> nevertheless be of immense cosmic significance--and the irony is that we
> might have this significance precisely because the surrounding universe is
> so cold and indifferent. ... If we possess great significance, we possess
> it precisely because there is no one else but us-- and thus only when there
> is no one (but us) who can appreciate our significance. We may be centre
> stage, but the theatre is empty.
>
> If anything, this result should be sobering. It is not a cause for
> elation, but a burden, a great responsibility. If we are alone in the
> universe, the only thing of value, then this gives our continuing
> existence, and our efforts to avert disaster, a cosmic urgency, on top of
> whatever self-interested, anthropocentric reasons we have to stay around.
> That is to say, we might be *far more* important than we take ourselves
> to be. We humans are after all careless in numerous familiar ways, we fail
> to safeguard the future, or kick off pernicious habits. From a cosmic point
> of view, the problem wouldn't be that we suffer from an inflated sense of
> importance. It is that that we don't take our existence seriously enough."
>
> There is much more that can be quoted and discussed, but I'll stop here
> for now.
>

This is not a reply to Anders above but just a couple of thoughts.

We are born human.  This is our group and we try to stay in it, most of us,
support our group, and try to love our fellow humans.  We also try to
contribute to it and improve it in some ways.  The least we can do is use
our talents to do our duty to ourselves, our families, and ultimately our
race.

In the law a duty is paired with a right.  Society has a right to expect us
to perform as above - to do our duties.

I think that "He was a dutiful person" is a great epitaph.   bill

>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140222/7197d6a0/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb 23 11:25:48 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:25:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZCmuM_daZCHvZCi9n5VqYADNWjyNP1M3XVibT_dYKhkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1583581363-11108@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 23/2/2014 2:43 AM:
We are born human.? This is our group and we try to stay in it, most of us, support our group, and try to love our fellow humans.? We also try to contribute to it and improve it in some ways.? The least we can do is use our talents to do our duty to ourselves, our families, and ultimately our race. 
In the law a duty is paired with a right.? Society has a right to expect us to perform as above - to do our duties.
 
 I think that "He was a dutiful person" is a great epitaph.?? bill

In ethics duties are what you ought to do. Depending on moral system they may be all over the place, but once you decided that system X is true, it follows logically that you ought to do (or not do) certain things. And you should want to do this, since the whole idea of morality is that it is about what is good to do. In practice we are of course psychologically not terribly good at this, so the epitaph is a good one.
I am not convinced that "society has a right" makes sense from an ethical perspective. Society is not a moral agent. If I do not vote I might be remiss in my democratic duties, but there doesn't seem to be an entity that could feel *morally* infringed upon in the same way as if I did not repay a loan. Sometimes we have a moral duty to not do a social duty, for example not obeying or enforcing unjust laws. This of course goes back to the question of what the heck the social contract actually is, whether groups can be said to be morally relevant entities and the sticky question of what a right really is.
Do we have moral duties to our species? A lot of the utilitarians and consequentialists around here think so. To them happiness and well-being (suitably defined) is the ultimate value, and the more the better. This makes existential risk something very bad since it cuts off nearly all future value, and making sure (post)humanity spreads and thrives is a way of getting way more value into the universe. Yes, aliens, animals and maybe AIs count too: it is a very general duty to make value-holding life spread and thrive rather than just humans.
I think one can make a Kantian version of this by arguing that moral agents have value (being ends rather than means) and that we have a duty to help them. We should act to preserve our species since this is a self-consistent moral maxim. But it is less clear that this leads to duties to help enhance humanity, since this kind of value is rather binary.?
Besides the duties there are the virtues. A virtue ethicist may culture the virtue of caring about humans and helping them evolve.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140223/c6e6da83/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 24 16:25:03 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:25:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1583581363-11108@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAO+xQEZCmuM_daZCHvZCi9n5VqYADNWjyNP1M3XVibT_dYKhkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1583581363-11108@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaLcBHLrKTQYwPaaxB1ycB2TErVyG5Zg4vU++SjOatSDQ@mail.gmail.com>

We are born human.  This is our group and we try to stay in it, most of us,
> support our group, and try to love our fellow humans.  We also try to
> contribute to it and improve it in some ways.  The least we can do is use
> our talents to do our duty to ourselves, our families, and ultimately our
> race.
>
> In the law a duty is paired with a right.  Society has a right to expect
> us to perform as above - to do our duties.
>
> I think that "He was a dutiful person" is a great epitaph.   bill
>
>
>
> In ethics duties are what you ought to do. Depending on moral system they
> may be all over the place, but once you decided that system X is true, it
> follows logically that you ought to do (or not do) certain things. And you
> should want to do this, since the whole idea of morality is that it is
> about what is good to do. In practice we are of course psychologically not
> terribly good at this, so the epitaph is a good one.
>
> I am not convinced that "society has a right" makes sense from an ethical
> perspective. Society is not a moral agent. If I do not vote I might be
> remiss in my democratic duties, but there doesn't seem to be an entity that
> could feel *morally* infringed upon in the same way as if I did not repay a
> loan. Sometimes we have a moral duty to not do a social duty, for example
> not obeying or enforcing unjust laws. This of course goes back to the
> question of what the heck the social contract actually is, whether groups
> can be said to be morally relevant entities and the sticky question of what
> a right really is.
>
> Do we have moral duties to our species? A lot of the utilitarians and
> consequentialists around here think so. To them happiness and well-being
> (suitably defined) is the ultimate value, and the more the better. This
> makes existential risk something very bad since it cuts off nearly all
> future value, and making sure (post)humanity spreads and thrives is a way
> of getting way more value into the universe. Yes, aliens, animals and maybe
> AIs count too: it is a very general duty to make value-holding life spread
> and thrive rather than just humans.
>
> I think one can make a Kantian version of this by arguing that moral
> agents have value (being ends rather than means) and that we have a duty to
> help them. We should act to preserve our species since this is a
> self-consistent moral maxim. But it is less clear that this leads to duties
> to help enhance humanity, since this kind of value is rather binary.
>
> Besides the duties there are the virtues. A virtue ethicist may culture
> the virtue of caring about humans and helping them evolve.
>

Abstractions are just words we give to observations we make.  I am not one
to argue ontology with a philosopher.  Whether 'right' or 'duty' has an
existence in an ontological sense plays second fiddle in my thinking.  As a
psychologist I just look at what people do.  People overwhelmingly conform
to many of their family's expectations,  to their religion's, to their
profession's, and to society's.  In fact if they do not they earn a
psychiatric designation:  asocial or antisocial, or perhaps just 'nut'.

  So, in effect we act as if humanity has legitimate expectations of us and
we mostly act accordingly.  A person may contribute nothing to the
advancement of humanity but at least doesn't impede it by their
nonconformity.

Our personal morality and society's expectations often conflict as Anders
notes, and society's expectations are sometimes just morally abhorrent
(the pressure to be a good Nazi, for example).

"As if...."  is a deep thought.  Our minds are mostly metaphor machines.

bill

>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140224/c77dd3a6/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 25 00:17:33 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:17:33 -0600
Subject: [ExI] International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor,
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaK0sJ=C_sOG_OSY_cU-rgq47nBVsRmjqwedJ7LZPdcew@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe not news to you guys/gals.  bill

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_khatchadourian?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklyemail&mbid=nl_Weekly%20%2827%29
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140224/cacbedeb/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 25 01:18:27 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:18:27 -0800
Subject: [ExI] International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor,
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaK0sJ=C_sOG_OSY_cU-rgq47nBVsRmjqwedJ7LZPdcew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaK0sJ=C_sOG_OSY_cU-rgq47nBVsRmjqwedJ7LZPdcew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTfBcsZzvUynFfp6rMHta2m3X3Dfjqv_ZmgCiumBJ__Xg@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 24, 2014 4:19 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Maybe not news to you guys/gals.  bill
>
>
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_khatchadourian?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklyemail&mbid=nl_Weekly%20%2827%29

Big expensive project tries to solve many questions at once that could more
reliably, and more cheaply, be answered separately before putting it all
together, news at 11.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140224/881761d3/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 25 02:08:25 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:25 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaLcBHLrKTQYwPaaxB1ycB2TErVyG5Zg4vU++SjOatSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1724346386-3803@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 24/2/2014 5:31 PM:
Whether 'right' or 'duty' has an existence in an ontological sense plays second fiddle in my thinking.? As a psychologist I just look at what people do.? People overwhelmingly conform to many of their family's expectations,? to their religion's, to their profession's, and to society's.? 

I tend to regard being able to question and (in principle) change one's behaviour as a sign of mental health (and ethical thinking). Most people who are mentally ill are stuck with a certain way of thinking and acting, even when it is painful, harmful or against what they wish. By analogy, never questioning one's life is a form of mental condition - not quite an illness, but a lack of flexibility and potential for growth. Most of us of course never rebel against most expectations even if we consider whether to obey them or not: many make sense on one level or another. But being aware that one could do differently is tremendously liberating.?




Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140225/a0359c89/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb 25 05:13:42 2014
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1724346386-3803@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAO+xQEaLcBHLrKTQYwPaaxB1ycB2TErVyG5Zg4vU++SjOatSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1724346386-3803@secure.ericade.net> 
Message-ID: <1393305222.91426.YahooMailNeo@web160104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

The Meaning of Life
To understand to the best of your capability the experiences, the knowledge and tools available to you in the given time you are allotted on this earth.  Believe that there exists something greater than yourself.  Teach to the best of your ability; compassion, spirituality and forgiveness.  Love, laugh and enjoy small moments. At all times, seek the truth.

My quote hoping to learn eventually, Femme Chakra :)



On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:09:02 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
  
William Flynn Wallace<foozler83 at gmail.com> , 24/2/2014 5:31 PM:

Whether 'right' or 'duty' has an existence in an ontological sense plays second fiddle in my thinking.? As a psychologist I just look at what people do.? People overwhelmingly conform to many of their family's expectations,? to their religion's, to their profession's, and to society's.? 

I tend to regard being able to question and (in principle) change one's behaviour as a sign of mental health (and ethical thinking). Most people who are mentally ill are stuck with a certain way of thinking and acting, even when it is painful, harmful or against what they wish. By analogy, never questioning one's life is a form of mental condition - not quite an illness, but a lack of flexibility and potential for growth. Most of us of course never rebel against most expectations even if we consider whether to obey them or not: many make sense on one level or another. But being aware that one could do differently is tremendously liberating.?





Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140224/6ed081b5/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Feb 25 07:07:28 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:07:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwapFCm6izRd_1aVnd1gYFn+m5vx0G093FOVzQcc_FZzZw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Thanks for your answers! Very thought provoking, and actually useful. Some
> observations:
>
> We are *way* naturalistic subjectivists on this list. I think Adrian was
> the only one even mentioning non-naturalistic sources of purpose, and
> objectivist ideas mentioned have mainly dealt with the nature of biological
> life and its purpose. In fact, many of the answers were pretty classic
> existentialism!
>

Sorry to jump in here late, but I have a slightly different answer. It does
sort of come up under the "life just is" heading, but here goes.

I tend to believe that we don't really have free will. However, we do seem
to have free will, and the concept seems useful to getting out of bed in
the morning. This, in turn, is useful to continuing to fuel the body that
hauls my brain and gonads around. This helps me to reproduce, which seems
to be a major point to this thing called "life". Now if you talk about the
meaning of the universe, that's quite different. But the meaning of "life"
is to produce more life, so this reproduction thingy seems pretty central
to the whole concept.

Now, what we do have is some sort of optimization function that we use to
decide what to do from moment to moment. For some reason, my optimization
function says, "type this drivel" rather than "go to bed", which seems like
it would make a lot more sense at this time of night. Why? Zeus if I know.

So the meaning of human life might be to run one's optimization function.
And if you want to get really tricky, then you can make whatever "choice"
there might be to optimize one's optimization function. One might refer to
this optimization as "acquiring wisdom".

Now, if acquiring wisdom is the meaning of human life, then in
transhumanism the goal could be stated as "acquire more wisdom than is
currently humanly possible."

So perhaps, if there is a meaning of life in a transhumanist sense, then
this might be it. Of course, you might not be acquiring the wisdom
yourself, so as a cyborgy type creature, you might be content to share your
wisdom-aquiring with say Google, or the world wide connected brainy thing
we seem to be using to send ASCII text to each other in an attempt at meme
spreading.

So another meaning of transhumanist life is to create something wiser than
homo sapiens. Or perhaps even to bring an end to homo sapiens and usher in
something with a better optimization function. It still won't have free
will, but I'd bet it will have the illusion of free will, or it will be
pretty damn useless at running it's optimization function. Or at least this
is what I would suppose.


> It is interesting to note that most answers did not directly jump into
> transhumanism, but were about general life philosophies. So at least around
> here it doesn't look like people base their sense of purpose on a
> transhumanist idea as the core value, but rather that one can choose a
> meaning, and we happen to have chosen transhumanist-aligned views. Of
> course, cause and effect may be mixed.
>

I hope my answer goes in that direction just a tiny bit.


> While most responses were individualistic or focused on enhancing the
> individual self, I also got a very relevant off-list response about
> non-individual goals. There seem to be an interesting tension between some
> of the me-centric subjective purposes of some transhumanists and the more
> other-regarding purposes of other transhumanists.
>

Indeed, group goals are sometimes quite counter to individualistic goals. I
don't need to refer to politics do I?

Happy navel pondering!

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140225/f5782913/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 25 17:08:20 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:08:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Largest lunar impact caught by astronomers
Message-ID: <7545DEFD-B9E8-4E6C-9619-F5099CD7328E@yahoo.com>

http://www.nature.com/news/largest-lunar-impact-caught-by-astronomers-1.14773?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20140225

Regards,

Dan
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F02DLNG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140225/73e755bd/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 03:05:28 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:05:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Film- "The 25th Reich"
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy3saCRnvQS-aMZOAAd=B29N3rWfg6y85U3AbDcFAy-dKA@mail.gmail.com>

This looks to be a very fun low budget tribute to the science fiction films
of the fifties and sixties!  : )  And hey, traveling to parallel Earths is
certainly a transhumanist activity... lol


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI5Z1DCK2Sg


John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140225/aa5c8cf7/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 14:12:24 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:12:24 -0600
Subject: [ExI] and so it starts
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaxD5dWUqA472JXWDYNnHn5_GTgYy48Dmu6zNGqbP2L6A@mail.gmail.com>

Gengineering is our future.  Goodbye natural selection and mutation - hello
evolution by geneticists.   bill

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-babies-with-3-genetic-parents-gets-fda-hearing/?&WT.mc_id=SA_HLTH_20140225
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140226/245fe8ba/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 19:15:40 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:15:40 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwapFCm6izRd_1aVnd1gYFn+m5vx0G093FOVzQcc_FZzZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwapFCm6izRd_1aVnd1gYFn+m5vx0G093FOVzQcc_FZzZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaw__Z1=ryCs_8ED9GdZz=8QUwKYCYt-53K9-DtAtNR9Q@mail.gmail.com>

(Anders) I tend to regard being able to question and (in principle) change
one's behaviour as a sign of mental health (and ethical thinking). Most
people who are mentally ill are stuck with a certain way of thinking and
acting, even when it is painful, harmful or against what they wish. By
analogy, never questioning one's life is a form of mental condition - not
quite an illness, but a lack of flexibility and potential for growth. Most
of us of course never rebel against most expectations even if we consider
whether to obey them or not: many make sense on one level or another. But
being aware that one could do differently is tremendously liberating.

(bill)  Now you have raised several questions:  when should we nonconform,
who should nonconform, what should we do about nonconformers, and what does
this have to do with creativity (besides everything)?

I assume the scientific method, verifiablity/falsifiability, is not a
candidate for nonconformity.  Innovators' very duty is to nonconform.  I
was 'born' a skeptic, a contrarian, a free thinker and probably most
everyone on this list is too.

Re mentally ill:  actually I think it's the other way around, at least for
neurotics.  They constantly question themselves and everything they do, and
dither and fret but without rational result, or at least one that gets
translated into behavior.  They are indeed inflexible. So, examination of
self and one's alternatives can be overdone.




On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your answers! Very thought provoking, and actually useful.
>> Some observations:
>>
>> We are *way* naturalistic subjectivists on this list. I think Adrian was
>> the only one even mentioning non-naturalistic sources of purpose, and
>> objectivist ideas mentioned have mainly dealt with the nature of biological
>> life and its purpose. In fact, many of the answers were pretty classic
>> existentialism!
>>
>
> Sorry to jump in here late, but I have a slightly different answer. It
> does sort of come up under the "life just is" heading, but here goes.
>
> I tend to believe that we don't really have free will. However, we do seem
> to have free will, and the concept seems useful to getting out of bed in
> the morning. This, in turn, is useful to continuing to fuel the body that
> hauls my brain and gonads around. This helps me to reproduce, which seems
> to be a major point to this thing called "life". Now if you talk about the
> meaning of the universe, that's quite different. But the meaning of "life"
> is to produce more life, so this reproduction thingy seems pretty central
> to the whole concept.
>
> Now, what we do have is some sort of optimization function that we use to
> decide what to do from moment to moment. For some reason, my optimization
> function says, "type this drivel" rather than "go to bed", which seems like
> it would make a lot more sense at this time of night. Why? Zeus if I know.
>
> So the meaning of human life might be to run one's optimization function.
> And if you want to get really tricky, then you can make whatever "choice"
> there might be to optimize one's optimization function. One might refer to
> this optimization as "acquiring wisdom".
>
> Now, if acquiring wisdom is the meaning of human life, then in
> transhumanism the goal could be stated as "acquire more wisdom than is
> currently humanly possible."
>
> So perhaps, if there is a meaning of life in a transhumanist sense, then
> this might be it. Of course, you might not be acquiring the wisdom
> yourself, so as a cyborgy type creature, you might be content to share your
> wisdom-aquiring with say Google, or the world wide connected brainy thing
> we seem to be using to send ASCII text to each other in an attempt at meme
> spreading.
>
> So another meaning of transhumanist life is to create something wiser than
> homo sapiens. Or perhaps even to bring an end to homo sapiens and usher in
> something with a better optimization function. It still won't have free
> will, but I'd bet it will have the illusion of free will, or it will be
> pretty damn useless at running it's optimization function. Or at least this
> is what I would suppose.
>
>
>> It is interesting to note that most answers did not directly jump into
>> transhumanism, but were about general life philosophies. So at least around
>> here it doesn't look like people base their sense of purpose on a
>> transhumanist idea as the core value, but rather that one can choose a
>> meaning, and we happen to have chosen transhumanist-aligned views. Of
>> course, cause and effect may be mixed.
>>
>
> I hope my answer goes in that direction just a tiny bit.
>
>
>> While most responses were individualistic or focused on enhancing the
>> individual self, I also got a very relevant off-list response about
>> non-individual goals. There seem to be an interesting tension between some
>> of the me-centric subjective purposes of some transhumanists and the more
>> other-regarding purposes of other transhumanists.
>>
>
> Indeed, group goals are sometimes quite counter to individualistic goals.
> I don't need to refer to politics do I?
>
> Happy navel pondering!
>
> -Kelly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140226/b8a342a2/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 19:18:25 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:18:25 -0800
Subject: [ExI] and so it starts
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaxD5dWUqA472JXWDYNnHn5_GTgYy48Dmu6zNGqbP2L6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaxD5dWUqA472JXWDYNnHn5_GTgYy48Dmu6zNGqbP2L6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQB0c+C+_Wz6mj4BqS9=sieBOpEV7UYF9ey=zctoacB-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 26, 2014 6:13 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Gengineering is our future.  Goodbye natural selection and mutation -
hello evolution by geneticists.   bill

Only once it becomes affordable and practical for most mothers-to-be.  "Has
been done a few times in a lab" does not guarantee eventual
commercialization.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140226/c332ddb8/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb 27 03:58:37 2014
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwapFCm6izRd_1aVnd1gYFn+m5vx0G093FOVzQcc_FZzZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwapFCm6izRd_1aVnd1gYFn+m5vx0G093FOVzQcc_FZzZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1393473517.72160.YahooMailNeo@web160104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Even though she wasn`t talking about my quote..lol

``Now if you talk about the meaning of the universe, that's quite different. But the meaning of "life" is to produce more life, so this reproduction thingy seems pretty central to the whole concept.``

I wasn`t talking about reproduction.? That`s pretty easy ;)
``So the meaning of human life might be to run one's optimization function. And if you want to get really tricky, then you can make whatever "choice" there might be to optimize one's optimization function. One might refer to this optimization as "acquiring wisdom".

Yes, acquiring wisdom.? Learn as much as you can.

``so as a cyborgy type creature, you might be content to share your wisdom-aquiring with say Google, or the world wide connected brainy thing we seem to be using to send ASCII text to each other in an attempt at meme spreading.``

I said ``tools``, so yes..lol

``So another meaning of transhumanist life is to create something wiser than homo sapiens.``

That`s called religion.? Science exists, homo sapiens can only learn what they have been taught.? The only thing that can transcend without Science is Metaphoric, there is no realm apparently for metaphorics in Science. You will not find it on this list, right Spike? lol

Funny how people interpret things.? Thanks for reminding me Sanders why this thread is so interesting.
.






On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:07:43 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
  
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

Thanks for your answers! Very thought provoking, and actually useful. Some observations:
>
>
>We are *way* naturalistic subjectivists on this list. I think Adrian was the only one even mentioning non-naturalistic sources of purpose, and objectivist ideas mentioned have mainly dealt with the nature of biological life and its purpose. In fact, many of the answers were pretty classic existentialism!? 

Sorry to jump in here late, but I have a slightly different answer. It does sort of come up under the "life just is" heading, but here goes.

I tend to believe that we don't really have free will. However, we do seem to have free will, and the concept seems useful to getting out of bed in the morning. This, in turn, is useful to continuing to fuel the body that hauls my brain and gonads around. This helps me to reproduce, which seems to be a major point to this thing called "life". Now if you talk about the meaning of the universe, that's quite different. But the meaning of "life" is to produce more life, so this reproduction thingy seems pretty central to the whole concept. 

Now, what we do have is some sort of optimization function that we use to decide what to do from moment to moment. For some reason, my optimization function says, "type this drivel" rather than "go to bed", which seems like it would make a lot more sense at this time of night. Why? Zeus if I know. 

So the meaning of human life might be to run one's optimization function. And if you want to get really tricky, then you can make whatever "choice" there might be to optimize one's optimization function. One might refer to this optimization as "acquiring wisdom". 

Now, if acquiring wisdom is the meaning of human life, then in transhumanism the goal could be stated as "acquire more wisdom than is currently humanly possible."

So perhaps, if there is a meaning of life in a transhumanist sense, then this might be it. Of course, you might not be acquiring the wisdom yourself, so as a cyborgy type creature, you might be content to share your wisdom-aquiring with say Google, or the world wide connected brainy thing we seem to be using to send ASCII text to each other in an attempt at meme spreading. 

So another meaning of transhumanist life is to create something wiser than homo sapiens. Or perhaps even to bring an end to homo sapiens and usher in something with a better optimization function. It still won't have free will, but I'd bet it will have the illusion of free will, or it will be pretty damn useless at running it's optimization function. Or at least this is what I would suppose. 

It is interesting to note that most answers did not directly jump into transhumanism, but were about general life philosophies. So at least around here it doesn't look like people base their sense of purpose on a transhumanist idea as the core value, but rather that one can choose a meaning, and we happen to have chosen transhumanist-aligned views. Of course, cause and effect may be mixed.
>

I hope my answer goes in that direction just a tiny bit.

While most responses were individualistic or focused on enhancing the individual self, I also got a very relevant off-list response about non-individual goals. There seem to be an interesting tension between some of the me-centric subjective purposes of some transhumanists and the more other-regarding purposes of other transhumanists.?
>

Indeed, group goals are sometimes quite counter to individualistic goals. I don't need to refer to politics do I?

Happy navel pondering!

-Kelly


_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140226/33ecb82e/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 27 13:14:34 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:14:34 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life (in transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1393473517.72160.YahooMailNeo@web160104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1108551530-7237@secure.ericade.net>
 <1454848035-10897@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwapFCm6izRd_1aVnd1gYFn+m5vx0G093FOVzQcc_FZzZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1393473517.72160.YahooMailNeo@web160104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaFh+Hz9L4YRYHngY2bWYL99YxL6SEDMuWhDf4QR_GoYg@mail.gmail.com>

``So another meaning of transhumanist life is to create something wiser
> than homo sapiens.``
>
> That`s called religion.
>

Something based on superstition and bigotry ('only our god is the right
one') is wise?  Beg to differ.


 Science exists, homo sapiens can only learn what they have been taught.
>

And what they have discovered for themselves, among which is that religion
is no better and often worse than no religion.

Now philosophy, particularly moral philosophy, is the key to wisdom beyond
science. And I would add my own field, psychology, because it is only when
we can fully understand humans that we can transcend.





>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140227/22acd0d9/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 28 08:42:00 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 01:42:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist activists do a public protest!
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy37pnbU30VxVow_u-qTTTShQg7y6NNi9kf--jR1moJTdA@mail.gmail.com>

I look forward to seeing to what extent this grows and develops!  But I'm
just not too thrilled about signs that read "immortality now," because that
can get us branded as not worthy of being taken seriously.  I would prefer
"radical life extension now," or something akin to that declaration.


"Activists Turchin Alexei, Jason Xu, and Michael Anisimov occupied the
large green Android 'bot, holding up signs saying, "Immortality now," "Viva
Calico," and "Google, please, solve Death." Ten minutes into the action,
however, campus security confronted the activists and asked them to leave
the premises, stating they couldn't protest on the private grounds. So they
packed up their things and politely conceded by leaving."


http://proactiontranshuman.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/first-ever-street-action-for-transhumanism-in-the-united-states/


John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140228/7d2aa530/attachment.html>