From: Sinfonia 21 (info@sinfonia21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 08 1998 - 11:23:15 MDT
Please stop sending messages to our address. We don't want to receive anymore junk mail.
Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul Miller
Concerts Manager
Sinfonia 21
t 0171 584 2759
f 0171 581 0970
email: info@sinfonia21.co.uk
http://www.orchestranet.co.uk/sinf21.html
-----Original Message-----
From: extropians-digest [SMTP:owner-extropians-digest@extropy.com]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 1:10 PM
To: extropians-digest@extropy.com
Subject: extropians-digest V2 #502
extropians-digest Monday, June 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 502
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 05:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kathryn Aegis <aegis@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Please go see THE TRUMAN SHOW!
At 11:38 AM 6/7/98 +0000, Damien Broderick wrote:
>While I haven't seen the movie, reports make it sound very much like a
>Philip K. Dick novel (especially TIME OUT OF JOINT, THE COSMIC PUPPETS or
>EYE IN THE SKY), perhaps spliced onto Robert Heinlein's classic `The
>Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag' and `They'.
The movie was originally inspired by 'the Gods Must Be Crazy', and there is
a short homage to that movie at the very beginning, along with an homage to
'The Prisoner'. The directors cited a few other cinematic and philosophical
references, but no science fiction. Peter Weir, one of the directors, tends
more towards literature and European philosophy. The underlying themes of
the movie, some cultural and some philosophical, are universal enough to
have found their way into many genres throughout literature. I certainly
don't think that any science fiction writers invented those themes, although
many have found interesting applications for them.
I just realized that our European friends probably won't get to see this for
the next year...
Sin,
Kathryn Aegis
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 09:38:18 -0500
From: ChuckKuecker <ckuecker@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Cryonics
At 09:45 PM 6/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Alex Future Bokov, <alexboko@umich.edu>, writes:
>> Once launch costs go down, we can store the frozen in orbit.
>> Cheaper to keep them cold, no natural disasters, and not in anyone's way.
>
>In orbit around what? Earth? How would you cool them? Refrigeration
>machinery? Who maintains it and makes sure it doesn't break down?
>
>Hal
Once in orbit, you need no refrigeration, just a sun shield. Vacuum is the
ultimate insulator.
I would be more fearful of micrometeorites and space junk in Earth orbit.
How about one of the Lagrange points? Perhaps the storage facility would be
connected with the L5 habitat?
Chuck Kuecker
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 11:00:58 -0400
From: Reilly Jones <Reilly@compuserve.com>
Subject: Transvision '98; Proceedings so far...
<Felix Ungman, Aleph, ExI, World
TransVisionaries of the world are uniting.>
A particularly apt phrase, considering www.transcedo.bolshevik.org.
Reilly
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:38:52 -0500
From: "Halperin, Jim" <JIM@HERITAGECOIN.COM>
Subject: RE: Truth Machine Mailing List
I've been traveling and I'm not sure if I answered this yet. I couldn't
really spare the time to do this myself, but I would participate in
discussions. I also have several thousand e-mail addresses of people who
have participated in surveys at my original TTM Web site in 1996, and
hundreds more who mailed in surveys from the books. I'll be happy to
supply these addressed to whoever runs the list (which I think could
even make some money by setting up a bookstore link to amazon.com)
Best, Jim
> ----------
> From: Max More[SMTP:maxmore@primenet.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 12:42 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Cc: harara@shamanics.com; david@lucifer.com; jim@heritagecoin.com
> Subject: Re: Truth Machine Mailing List
>
> At 10:33 PM 5/31/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >I asked Jim Halperin if there was a mailing list on the topic of
> >Truth Machines. He said there was not any to his knowledge. I
> >personally do not have the resources to support a mailing list,
> >and wonder if any of you can host a majordomo mailing list on
> >this topic. If you can, let me know by private email.
> >
> >The focus of this list is what is needed to build a Truth Machine.
> >The other consequences of a TM can be discussed on other lists.
>
> We've been wanting to set up special purpose lists to build the
> "NodeNet".
This issue would be a good list as part of that project. The NodeNet
> structure does require one person to decide who is allowed to post to
> the
> list (anyone can read). Jim -- would be you be willing to suggest
> subscribers and to approve applicants? If so, I can send you the info
> (written by Greg Burch) on how the NodeNet lists work.
>
> Max
>
> Max More, Ph.D.
> more@extropy.org
> Updated website (Jan 98): http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore
> President, Extropy Institute: exi-info@extropy.org,
> http://www.extropy.org
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:12:42 -0700
From: Max More <maxmore@primenet.com>
Subject: MSNBC article on artificial humanity (cyborgs, Moravec, etc.)
Skim through the beginning on MIT folks with wearable computers and the
article is worth a quick read. It's bringing some of the stuff we discuss
to a wide audience on MSNBC:
http://www.techserver.com/newsroom/ntn/info/060798/info11_12495.html
Max
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------
Max More, Ph.D.
more@extropy.org (soon also: <max@maxmore.com>)
http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore
President, Extropy Institute: exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 12:54:16 -0700
From: Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Cryonics
>Alex Future Bokov wrote:
> >Once launch costs go down, we can store the frozen in orbit.
> >Cheaper to keep them cold, no natural disasters, and not in anyone's way.
>
> not necessarily, on all three points, especially the first. you still have
> solar heating, assuming you meant earth orbit. natural disasters? a solar
> flare would irradiate tissues that could be damaged even though they are
> solidly frozen. not in anyone's way? well, possibly, if you lift it high
> enough. the low earth environment is already getting crowded.
> perhaps we could orbit a shuttle external tank, remove the forward access
> cover of the hydrogen tank on orbit, fill the tank with ln2, spin the
> entire assembly end over end to keep the ln2 at the bottom of the tank,
> then drop in the corpsicles from the open access cover. liquid nitrogen
> vented directly to space (a few millitorr pressure) might eventually freeze
> solid. i need to do the calculations on this. i suspect we would be
> better off keeping our frozen remains down here on the deck... {8^D
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 16:11:39 -0400
From: Ian Goddard <igoddard@netkonnect.net>
Subject: Biotech-> Bio-TYRANNY ?
The following report makes a seemingly compelling
case for banning a type of genetically altered
seed, known as the "Terminator Technology" (TT).
http://www.arkinstitute.com/98/up0606.htm
I'd like to see counter arguments to it
before I make up my mind. Here's the
picture the report painted for me:
In a nutshell, the TT causes a genetically
altered crop to yield only seeds that will
NOT grow. This ensures that farmers cannot
resell hybrid strains and that the farmers
cannot produce their own seeds and thereby
become independent of the seed company.
Concern focuses on the possibility and apparent
plan of the major seed companies to convert all
agriculture to crops "dead-ended" by a TT genetic
dead-seed sequence, which would mean that all
farmers and the people they feed would be depen-
dent on the few seed companies to supply seeds
for the next years harvest, and these companies
seem to be merging into one. In short, if TT
crops took over, no one could grow their own
food from the seeds that they themselves grew.
But could TT crops take over? Maybe so...
Concern also focuses on the possibility that
TT genetic information will spread to other
crops in areas where farmers had chosen NOT
to use TT controlled crops, thereby slowly
forcing them under the control of the seed
companies because their crops now increasingly
yield dead seeds. In short, a vision of global
domination by a few seed companies is presented
in the cited report as a possibility. Reading
about the merging of these companies into
larger entities fits into such a scenario
and takes it to the extreme Supreme Monopoly.
Even short of nightmare of total food control
by an evil monopoly is the concern of a seed-kill
genetic sequence being set loose into the gene
pools of various human life-sustaining crops.
The process of seed-to-crop-to-seed... has
been and is what has keeps humans alive!
A genetic code that breaks that cycle
could have devastating repercussions.
SO, is this just anti-technology paranoia, or is
there real reason here to be concerned and maybe
even to call for the outright prohibition of TT?
It's obvious that if each farmer chooses to
purchase TT controlled seeds, it's their choice,
and that's freedom. True, but people CAN choose
to become slaves, particularly if they can't see
exactly how their choices now will lead to that.
If every farmer thinks, "I'll do the TT seeds be-
cause they are RoundUp resistant, so I can kill
all weeds," no one farmer chooses to become a slave
(each assuming other seeds would still be around),
but because all other non-TT seeds went out of
business, All the farmers choose slavery!
So X might in fact not be able to sucker any one
farmer to purchase slavery, and yet X could sucker,
and only sucker, them All, so long as each assumes
other farmers will support non-TT seed companies
to the extent they even consider that they need
other seed options to exist to be free farmers.
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:48:29 -0500
From: "Scott Badger" <wbadger@psyberlink.net>
Subject: Re: MSNBC article on artificial humanity (cyborgs, Moravec, etc.)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Max More <maxmore@primenet.com>
To: extropians@extropy.org <extropians@extropy.org>
Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 3:11 PM
Subject: MSNBC article on artificial humanity (cyborgs, Moravec, etc.)
>Skim through the beginning on MIT folks with wearable computers and the
>article is worth a quick read. It's bringing some of the stuff we discuss
>to a wide audience on MSNBC:
>
>
>http://www.techserver.com/newsroom/ntn/info/060798/info11_12495.html
>
>Max
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
>------------
>Max More, Ph.D.
>more@extropy.org (soon also: <max@maxmore.com>)
>
>http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore
>President, Extropy Institute: exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
>------------
>
The web page above links to an article on hacking. I think the address on
artifical humanity is actually:
http://www.techserver.com/newsroom/ntn/info/060798/info6_7479.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 12:41:35 +0000
From: Damien Broderick <damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Please go see THE TRUMAN SHOW!
At 05:47 AM 6/7/98 -0700, Kathryn wrote:
>I just realized that our European friends probably won't get to see this for
>the next year...
Actually, it opened in several European cities several months back, in
advance of the US premiere.
Damien Broderick
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 19:44:49 -0700
From: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>
Subject: Re: Biotech-> Bio-TYRANNY ?
I would assume that seeds which don't reproduce would be considerably
less expensive than seeds which can be reproduced. (I don't know how
well modern hybrid seeds can be reproduced over multiple generations.)
Selling a reproducible seed, you have to make all the profit in one sale
for multiple generations of seeds. Selling seeds which last only for
one generation allows you to get by with a much smaller profit.
Hal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 00:35:17
From: "David C. Harris" <dharris@best.com>
Subject: Re: Biotech-> Bio-TYRANNY ?
Ian, I think you cry "wolf" too quickly.
The granting of a patent does not grant the right to produce something,
merely the right to prevent others from producing it for 20 years. If
collectively we ban such a gene's sale, the patent holder has no right to
sell it. Thus, for instance, there are patents for LSD synthesis that are
not usable to make an openly salable product.
As to such a gene "escaping" into other crops.... If a gene makes a life
form's descendants LESS likely to reproduce that gene, then the gene tends
to die out in the evolutionary competition. Only a strong selective
pressure (like a company producing these TT seeds with OTHER, DESIREABLE
characteristics) would given them even a brief existance in the single
generation that would live. Imagine: if the TT gene got into any
individuals of another variety or species, the TT-inheriting individuals
would live their life and produce absolutely NO descendants. End of
problem, no?
------------------------------------------------------------------
David C. Harris, dharris@best.com, residing in Palo Alto, California.
------------------------------------------------------------------
At 04:11 PM 98/6/7 -0400, Ian Goddard wrote:
>The following report makes a seemingly compelling
>case for banning a type of genetically altered
>seed, known as the "Terminator Technology" (TT).
>
>http://www.arkinstitute.com/98/up0606.htm
>
>I'd like to see counter arguments to it
>before I make up my mind.
>Here's the
>picture the report painted for me:
>
>In a nutshell, the TT causes a genetically
>altered crop to yield only seeds that will
>NOT grow. This ensures that farmers cannot
>resell hybrid strains and that the farmers
>cannot produce their own seeds and thereby
>become independent of the seed company.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:44:01 +0100
From: Sarah Marr <skm4@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on NodeNet
At 21:55 05/06/98 -0600, Michael Nielsen wrote:
>How will this system differ from Usenet?
>
>Consider especially that there already exist structures for moderation, a
>world-wide system for distribution, a large user-base, and tested
>protocols. Propogation is reasonably fast and reliable.
I think you answered this in your mail. One other answer is, 'marketing'
(cf. Betamax vs. VHS).
>I am consistently amazed at the extent to which technical innovation is
>centralized in the US. This has great cost benefits for people wishing
>to reach innovators. If I wished to reach the technical innovators of
>tomorrow, I'd target Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley, MIT, and a few other
>places, inviting bright undergraduates and graduate students to take
>part.
Free membership for the best essay written by an undergraduate in the
following disciplines, etc.
>> The former are
>> kept abreast of developments, and on-going work, whilst the latter,
>> initially joining for communication purposes, are naturally guided in
>> directions desirable to Extropian Principles by their contact with ExI.
>
>I do wonder how likely that is. My own guess, no doubt influenced by my
>own political biases (more socialist than libertarian :-), is that the
>less philosophical baggage, the more likely the scheme is to succeed. At
>times, if ExI wants input from the best innovators around, it is going to
>have to bite its philosophical tongue.
I quite agree. But, also, the philosophy of Extropianism, particularly its
politico-social philosophy might be appropriately restricted by the
specialization and stratification of the nodes. For instance, the political
arguments may not find there way on to the scientific lists. In many ways I
consider this a good thing. One of the strong attractions of Extropianism
for me is its transhuman interests which lend themselves to scientific
debate, without getting lost in the mire of political thought. (Not to say
that the two aren't interlinked, or that that linkage is not important.
Merely to say that sometimes separation is a good thing.)
>> And for those of you who see money as the solution, then rest assured some
>> revenue generation planning would form part of the grand scheme.
>
>To get something going I imagine that revenue would be needed less than
>time and creativity. Later on, such a system may pay for itself.
Or, if it really takes off, more than pay for itself. And that revenue
would form the basis of ExI's ability to further expand, including,
perhaps, the awarding of grants to certain parties.
Sarah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:53:29 +0100
From: Sarah Marr <skm4@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: NodeNet: A Stupid idea!
At 19:35 06/06/98 +0200, Max M. (not More) wrote:
>A thing that is worse than a noisy maillist is twenty empty maillists.
This is not in itself an argument against the Nodes. It is an argument
against a total failure to market and manage the Nodes effectively.
>A maillist is a network. When
>splitting up a maillist into nodes or interrestgroups the value of these
>nodes combined will be smaller than the value of one big node.
If the ability to interrelate the specialized Nodes is retained through
appropraite browing privileges and cross-posting then this is not a valid
argument.
>Naturally the noise level of the big node will probably be bigger than
>in the many seperate nodes. Therefore a node will only increase in value
>until a certain point. I am pretty shure that the Exi list is so far
>from this point that it will be a bad idea to split it up.
The ExI list will never reach this point as it stands, because it's
structure is not attractive to the sort of specialist who can actually
bring about Extropian ideals. The concept of Nodes is intended to be
attractive to such people. Nodes do not replace this list, they serve to
augment it by a marketing strategy with an appropriately specialist-facing
twist.
>I spend my working time building comunities in intranets and the
>Internet. My experience is that a LOT of people has to use something
>like a maillist for it to be of any interrest. If not... interrest
>simply fades away. This could easily happen for Exi.
Equally, interest fades where discussion does not translate in to action.
ExI should not be an observer, it should be a creator. Nodes may well allow
ExI to become such a creator.
>The main reason for the succes of the net, I think, is that it gives
>everybody the ability to reach out and touch anybody they want to.
The specialist who would be attracted to the Nodes would not want to be
touched by just anybody. Being open to everyone is not everybody's idea of
networking Nirvana.
>The
>Exi list gives us the abillity to discuss with the "leaders" in
>transhumanism and extropy, and by participating long enough, to maybe
>become one of the leaders ourselves.
The Nodes would give the leaders something to lead.
Sarah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:46:19 +0100
From: Sarah Marr <skm4@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Crossing the Styx in to transhumanism
Following the posts about humanism and satanism. I sat on the train to work
this morning, next to a woman reading the Bible. I was reading a book by
Paul Davies on GUTs and quantum physics. Somehow, I couldn't help feeling
that both my travelling companion and I were looking for the same thing in
our choices of literature.
Sarah
------------------------------
End of extropians-digest V2 #502
********************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:10 MST