From: Max More (maxmore@globalpac.com)
Date: Mon Oct 26 1998 - 10:55:41 MST
At 10:13 AM 10/26/98 +1300, J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
>Max More wrote:
>>
>> At 03:25 PM 10/24/98 +1300, you wrote:
>> >
>> >"as with all the links in my bookmarks, I do not necessarily agree with
>> >all the sentiments expressed therein. For example in the Extropian
>> >Principles 3.0 and The Journal of Transhumanism, the term 'economic
>> >growth' relies on capitalism and a price system which to my way of
>> >thinking are at odds with a public-AI decentralised data fusion, Survey
>> >Society.
>>
>> You've lost me here. How does the term "economic growth" rely on any
>> particular system? "Economic growth" means no more than an increase in the
>> total measurable output of an economy. It does not specify how that economy
>> is organized. The current version of the Principles does not even mention
>> the price system.
>
>Let me quote how you qualified the use of the term "economic growth".
>------------------
>Robin Hanson's JOT ABSTRACT http://www.transhumanist.com/
>
> "Economic growth is determined by the supply and
>demand of investment capital; "
>
>Max More EP 3.0 http://www.extropy.org/extprn3.htm
>
>"The market price system encourages conservation, substitution,
>and innovation, preventing any need for a brake on
>growth and progress. "
>
>--------------------
>
>I say: Investment capital and the market price system mean
>only one thing; - money. Although the market system
>is analysed as a negative feedback loop, money has
>been shown to create self re-inforcing positive
>feedback loops of wealth/poverty vicious circles.
I'm usually more frugal in quoting the message I'm replying to, but all of
the above seems to be needed for context here.
First let me note that I understand your response, thanks to your
elaboration. I was thinking of the changes I made in the Principles when
moving from "Spontaneous Order" to "Open Society". Part of my intent was to
leave open the possibility of alternative, non-monetary, non-price system
decentralized mechanisms. Although I firmly believe that a market price
system *currently* is the best way to ensure freedom and growing wealth for
everyone (to the extent that governments refrain from tampering other than
to refine the underlying legal rules), I do not want to rule out the
possibility of a replacement in future. I *do* want the Principles to rule
out a coercive, centralized allocation system that compels individuals to
follow orders. A transhumanist could believe in the desirability of such a
system, but they would not be an Extropian transhumanist.
When I wrote "The market price system encourages conservation,
substitution, and innovation, preventing any need for a brake on growth and
progress", I was making a statement that I believe is correct. But I did
not intend to say that the market price system in principle is the *only*
system that could do this. If a superior non-coercive, decentralized
economic system arises, well fine. I don't see any sign of such an
alternative but I do not rule it out as a possibility.
Perhaps I can rephrase the above quote to be more inclusive. Again, I only
want to rule out coercive, centralized economic systems as incompatible
with core extropian principles, not possible future developments compatible
with these values. I could replace "The market price system" with something
like "Effective economies, currently in the form of the market price
system...". Not terribly elegant, but perhaps someone can suggest a better
phrasing.
Thanks for your feedback, Maxwell.
Onward!
Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
more@extropy.org (soon also: <max@maxmore.com>)
http://www.maxmore.com
Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies
President, Extropy Institute:
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:41 MST