From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Mon Jun 14 13:43:39 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA08055; Mon, 14 Jun 93 13:43:37 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA14924; Mon, 14 Jun 93 13:43:31 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Mon, 14 Jun 93 16:22:53 -0400 Message-Id: <9306142022.AA06853@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 16:22:27 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <9306142022.AA06842@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0325 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on June 14, 373 P.N.O. [20:22:50 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: O Extropians Digest Mon, 14 Jun 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0325 Today's Topics: Cats posting [1 msgs] Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) [6 msgs] Eric slams vegetarianism again. [4 msgs] LIFE-EX: Milk [1 msgs] MEDIA: Jurassic Park [1 msgs] MILK: IT DOES A BODY GOOD [1 msgs] NANO: what hope for normal robots? [2 msgs] NANOTECH: Bearding the Drexler in his Den [1 msgs] POLY: HSG theory, a question for the group... [1 msgs] RANT: Oral religious sacraments & culinary bigotry [1 msgs] SOC: Birth Order and Extropians [1 msgs] SPACE/FREE: Governments in Space [1 msgs] Sex Differences: Who's talking? [3 msgs] calendar numerology [1 msgs] out of touch [1 msgs] Administrivia: This is the digested version of the Extropian mailing list. Please remember that this list is private; messages must not be forwarded without their author's permission. To send mail to the list/digest, address your posts to: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu To send add/drop requests for this digest, address your post to: exi-daily-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu To make a formal complaint or an administrative request, address your posts to: extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu If your mail reader is operating correctly, replies to this message will be automatically addressed to the entire list [extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu] - please avoid long quotes! The Extropian mailing list is brought to you by the Extropy Institute, through hardware, generously provided, by the Free Software Foundation - neither is responsible for its content. Forward, Onward, Outward - Harry Shapiro (habs) List Administrator. Approximate Size: 50781 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 02:27 EST From: X91007@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au Subject: Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) The common labelling of the cones in the retina as 'red', 'green' or 'blue' is quite misleading, since these cones individually do not create the perception of colour. It is much more accurate to label the three cone classes as Long, Medium and Short Wavelength (L, M, & S) rather than 'Red', 'Green' and 'Blue'. The latter implies that the stimulation of a cone is directly responsible for the type of colour that is perceived - which it isn't - while the former merely makes reference to the maximal frequency at which a cone absorbs light. 'Red' cones do not on their own create the perception of red, anymore than 'blue' or 'green' cones create the perception of blue and green. Indeed there is a great deal of overlap in the frequencies at which the three types of cone are simulated. For instance, 'red' cones or L cones absorb maximally at approximately 566 nm, which is a part of the visual spectrum associated with red, but 'green' and a less extent 'blue' cones also fire quite strongly at this frequency. To determine the colour of a small part of the visual field the brain calculates the relative outputs of the cones within that area. Put very simply the calculations that are performed are: L-M or M-L (red-green) or S-(L+M) or (L+M)-S (blue-yellow) or L+M+S or -L-M-S (brightness) If the firing of the L cones is greater than the M cones red is perceived, if the M cones fire more green is perceived. If the S cones fire more than the L and M cones blue is perceived, while if the reverse is true yellow is perceived (this is why yellow is perceived as a pure colour, along with red, green and blue). Brightness is determined by the relative firing of all the cones. The photopigments of all the cones are closely related to rhodopsin, the photopigment in rods. Evolution has created mutations that has lead to photopigments with slightly different spectral absorption properties and this has allowed the emergence of colour vision. Recently it has been shown that the L photopigment has undergone a slight mutation that has given rise to two different photopigments, with slightly different absorption properties. Since the gene of the L photopigment is carried on the X chromosome, men end up with either one or the other version of the photopigment, while women end up with either one or the other or both photopigments. By examining the above equations it can be seen that by changing the absorption spectrum of L, not only the perception of red would be changed but one's whole colour space. Since the locations of the genes that code photopigments are known it should be quite feasible in the near/mid future to genetically alter the range of wavelengths that humans perceive in, by changing the absorption frequencies of one or more of the photopigments. In other words it should be relatively simple to create people that see in the infra-red and/or ultra-violet part of the spectrum. However, the next step of actually changing the type of calculations that are performed, and the numbers of photopigments involved would appear to be much harder. If people are shown a colour and asked whether it is a pure or a composite they will only say that red, green, yellow and blue are 'pure' colours. This can be seen as an inevitable outcome of the above equations. So if a person was engineered that had additional photopigments and the necessary neural machinery to divide up the colour space in extra ways to our own would they perceive additional colours that we can't even imagine? I was told a nice story related to this whole topic, though I have been unable to find a reference for it. The photopigments used in the cones are all based on rhodopsin, which is derived from Vitamin A. This led the US Army in the Second World War to experiment with feeding volunteers a slightly different form of the normal version of Vitamin A (or perhaps it was a molecule closely related to Vitamin A). The hope was that by changing the shape of teh photopigments their absorption patterns would be modified and shifted towards the infra-red. Thus giving US soldiers an advantage in night fighting. After the a few months the volunteers were indeed showing some ability to see in the infra-red, but the experiment was terminated with the invention of night goggles. I would love to know how true this story is, and what the possible dangers of it were; so if you know a reference to it please let me know. An excellent basic reference to colour perception is: Chapter Six of _Visual Perception: the neurophysiological foundations_ by L. Spillmann and J. S. Werner (1990) Academic Press: San Diego. Patrick Wilken x91007@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 10:16:30 PDT From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: NANOTECH: Bearding the Drexler in his Den Eric S. Raymond writes: > > > Thats the same weekend as the Extropians gala, isn't it? > > Extropians gala? First I've heard of it! > -- Dammit, no one was supposed to tell *Eric*! You let one neopagan in and dammit, there goes the whole neighborhood. Well, since you found out (it was mentioned in Exponent, as well as announced by Max on the list), the details are: Saturday, Aug 28, 1993 from about 2:00p.m. till whenever on Sunday at the Stately DeSilets Manor, Boulder Creek, CA (30 minutes from San Jose) Which gives me a perfect segue into the following request: If you are coming from out of town, and are interested in staying longer than just Sat/Sun, and want to know about hotel/motel/campgrounds in the area, could you please give me a heads-up? While anyone who wants to is welcome to sleep where they fall down on Saturday night, I won't be able to put up many folks for an extended period of time. The point is, if there are a bunch of folks staying for multiple days around the 28th (e.g. Friday the 27th) we might be able to get a discount rate. Anyway, if you are planning to come from out of the SFBay Area, please drop me a line and let me know your rough plans, and your level of interest in hotel/motel or campgrounds. Mark P.S. To Eric Raymond -- just kidding! Come! Luvta meetcha! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 12:28:33 CDT From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) Subject: NANO: what hope for normal robots? Rich Walker writes: > I've been reading these nanotech threads, and it's starting to worry me. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you, for reasons elaborated below. >See, I've spent the last four or five years working with a bunch of other guys >on the general-purpose robot. I'll post a history/current status/next steps >when I've had it vetted by the rest of them I hope you do; I look forward to it! >Would I be being more useful (in the strict Fuller manner) working on nanotech >or in this conventional robotics? Indeed, is it _worth_ working in conventional >robotics. The hard robotics issues -- controlling feedback systems with many degrees of freedom, interpretation of sensory input, understanding and disambiguating natural language commands, and so on, need solving no matter what. Although sensors for nanotech systems may be different than in a macro-scale robot, the basic issues are still the same, I think. If you're working hard at things like the design of musculature and so on -- that might be a mistake if nanotech will provide better designs. So, overall I'd say that the abstract requirements for machines to do work for us, at our direction, are pretty much independent of the physical realization of the worker(s). Focus on the abstractions and you should come out just fine. derek and good luck! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 12:14:38 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Eric slams vegetarianism again. X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission In an aside in an otherwise fairly reasonable article, esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond), notes that he thinks that > nearly everything the > vegetarian/environmentalist/self-panicker axis thinks it knows about > nutrition and environmental toxins is wrong. Now, I don't mind your comments on environmental toxins. Of course, you happen to lump "vegetarian" into the heap, so I feel honor-bound to respond. Its o.k., Eric. You don't have to believe controlled studies. You can die an agonizing death of heart disease or colon cancer if you like. No one will stop you. I suspect that no one will even bother you -- most of us are pretty extreme in our view that people should be allowed to suicide any way they damn well please. You probably aren't even going to enjoy getting there -- I suspect you aren't the type that eats his steaks at Peter Luger's -- but you will at least have comfort in knowing that nothing has interfered with your will to eat meat. Many of the rest of us will live long and healthy lives instead and hopefully will make it to the advent of strong nanotechnology and practical immortality under our own power. Given that you've chosen to conduct an experiment on yourself on the effects of a high-fat low-fiber diet, I sincerely hope that you at least have your Alcor dues paid up. You ARE an Alcor member, right? Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 11:37:11 MDT From: hammar@cs.unm.edu Subject: POLY: HSG theory, a question for the group... rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) wrote: >I am a little bit curious; it has been a few weeks since I posted >my original 7 part post, and then the all-in-one version of my >theory, and the response, was, ummm, a bit underwhelming, and I >was a little curious as to why such a (lack of) response. One of the 10 majors I had in my extended undergraduate career was BS (Behavioral Sciences, that's really the initials used in the course catalog) and my personal BS-meter went into overdrive when I read a post telling me how much "research" you did when you didn't even notice that you used the same name for your theory as one of the better known theories in psychology. Simply reading the list of undergraduate courses available at any decent university would have told you Gestalt Psychology already existed, as would the subcatagories of psychology in a good library catalog. And Fritz Perls did a very good job at popularizing Gestalt Therapy. It's better known among pop psychology than many theories that are more popular among working therapists. >Hmmm (thinking out loud...) did the theory sound too nutty for you, >another flying swami kind of thing? But what you posted wasn't a theory. Some vague philosophizing with a few buzzwords thrown in, but nothing testable, nor any hint of how to apply it usefully. > Some people have responded with "Oh, that's nice...", >but so far, Gestalts that I have identified through the process of >personal interview, have almost (scaringly at times) always accepted >it at face value, with nary a "sounds nutty to me" in the bunch. Sounds more like simple politeness than acceptace to me. Very few people I know waste their time argueing with people who have "theories" unless it is important. (Except on sci.sceptic.) >Or, wasn't there enough "concreteness" to it for you? Not as an >excuse, but an explanation; other than a (very large) bunch of >mostly anecdotal information, there isn't a hard body of evidence. Again, there is no hard evidence because there is nothing to get evidence for. You predict there is "something" different in the brain. Big deal! _Any_ new discovery about the brain fits that description. Dopamine is involved? That narrows it down a lot. There's only going to be a few thousand papers published in the next few years that fit that "prediction". Post real, testable statements where your theory predicts results different from what the current theories say, and (whether the prediction turns out to be right or wrong) I'll take you seriously. Post usable advice on how to identify your Gestalts, and how they can improve their (our?) lives and you have a workable theory which can be tested. But vague handwaving and buzzwords with a few well-know facts tassed in don't make a science. Neil Hammar hammar@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 14:35:44 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: SPACE/FREE: Governments in Space X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Robin Hanson says: > Space may indeed be marginally a better place to found an anarchist > colony, but the margin may not be high, and not much due to a superior > defensibility of space colonies. I think you miss the major benefit of space migration: being able to go to unclaimed territory. There is no place left on earth where a state has not claimed the right to rule you -- on the other hand, history has shown that it is hard to rule the frontier, and the frontier in this case is infinitely larger than in the past. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 10:53:19 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) >> Utterly fascinating, if true. > >Yes, I agree. I guess colour vision, being a recent re-invention by our >primate ancestors, is far from optimal (although, of course, it will >soon be superseded by full-spectrum sensors we will soon have). Interestingly enough in this connection, I came across a mention a while back that a particular American Indian language, I believe either Navajo or Hopi, used the same word to indicate both blue and green. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 13:44:19 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: calendar numerology > As we drive deeper into the Nineties, at least one reader is > heartily sick of sentences that begin this way. > > *\\* Anton (top Tetris score: 10531) In today's competitive marketplace, you need an antacid that works FAST against pounding verbiage!-) -fnerd don't quote me (oof! ouch!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 12:04:12 MDT From: hammar@cs.unm.edu Subject: Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) wrote: >> I thought it was a new red colour. Humans are evolving a cone >> sensitive to red, allele on the X-chromosome (presumably a >> differentiation of the primary red sensitive molecule). >> Result: some women see four primary colours and other men and >> women have different sets of three. If you and I have the same >> set of cones, we can agree on colours and their mixing. If you >> and I don't have the same one of the three possible sets then >> we won't agree. Back when I was a BS major (Behavioral Sciences) one of my professors passed out a fasinating article on this. The focus was how we build our collective view of reality, using color vision and the errors known to occur as an example. Besides the usual color-blindnesses, there was a long section about the ability to see in the ultra-violet. Aprox 1 out of 10,000 people can see a color up into the ultraviolet spectrum. So can bees, and many of the flowers we consider to be drab weeds are quite spectacular in those ranges. If what they are looking at has only pigments in the colors we recognise, they see just what we do. But if the ultraviolet color is in the mix, it changes what they see, so two identical shades (to us) become two very different colors (to them). The kids with this ability soon learn to shut up and stop pointing out the "pretty" flowers. They learn that there is something "wrong" with them, with all of the attendant problems and adjustments that come from that. (And they really hate art class, where they can't cover up their differences.) The fact that they don't test out as color-blind (becuase they aren't) just makes things worse. Neil Hammar hammar@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 13:28:00 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: Sex Differences: Who's talking? Valerie Lambert ~ BioCAD Corporation ~ valerie@biocad.com sez > > In X-Message-Number 0775, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) wonders aloud why > there aren't more women participating in fun technical discussions. > ... > I've not noticed my expressed point of view being blatantly disrespected in > a room full of men... I have to turn > my almost non-existent aggression _way_ up to get a word edge-wise into the > fray. Our [mish-mash American, patriarchy rooted] culture has taught us, > by example, that men have the right--nay, the responsibility--to lead > discussions. Women are supposed to listen. These deep programs take > considerable effort to overcome, even when the participants consider > themselves modern thinkers who do not discriminate on basis of gender. I always wonder where girls and women get the idea to be quiet. The whole idea of what's "expected" is foreign to guys, at least to a first approximation. I get the feeling it's a lot of little things instead of a couple big things. A bunch of different little habits amongst various people that give rise to patterns that we see. Spontaneous order, only it's not always nice. Sometimes I think it's what *mothers* tell their daughters. Sometimes I think girls pay attention to clues from jocks not nerds. Just had a date with a woman telling me how she hid her smarts in school. Told her how I always quietly pined for the nerdy smart girls. Just read an article by a woman surprised by male business associates steering conversation toward her pregnancy. Is patriarchy the right word for this big sadness? -fnerd quote me i deleted a much longer first attempt hope klaus! appreciates :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 13:56:13 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: Cats posting Tim may sez > (My two cats are sitting > here near me whenever I'm at my Mac, but they have too much sense to post!) Cats post on a different network. Take another look at those ears. -fnerd quote me ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 11:12:21 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Eric slams vegetarianism again. >Its o.k., Eric. You don't have to believe controlled studies. You can >die an agonizing death of heart disease or colon cancer if you like. I have to say, Perry, regardless of the correctness of your position, this kind of ranting makes you sound uncannily similar to the worst sort of fundametalist Christian. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 14:23:45 -0400 From: Alexander Chislenko Subject: LIFE-EX: Milk > In British middle-aged males the high milk drinkers had fatality rate, > from heart disease, _1/8_ of their low milk consumers. There was a > smaller (statistically non-significant) effect for females. I can imagine that high milk drinkers may well be low-alcohol drinkers, low smokers, and in general have a healthier life style, which may mean lower heart disease levels regardless of their milk consumption. I don't know whether in this particular case the statistics were taken for groups similar in everything but the milk consumption, but judging by the general inability of health (and lots of other :-( ) folks to tell the difference between correlation and causality, and by the very strong (8 times!) result, I wouldn't put too much trust in it. After Chernobyl accident, Soviet officials published the research results showing that high level of radiation is beneficial for health, based on the extensive statistics on many world cities. (people in cities with high natural radiation levels do live longer, but these cities lie higher above the sea level, are smaller, have cleaner air, less industry, crime, etc.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Alexander Chislenko | sasha@cs.umb.edu | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 11:51:18 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: SOC: Birth Order and Extropians Well more poll responses may trickle in, but let my summarize the 28 responses so far received. Amazingly, only 9 of these 28 folks are not first borns, though the average # children is 2.7! Perhaps less surprisingly, only 6 of these 28 said they were anything other than more likely to support new theories, and only 2 said they were less likely. Frank Sulloway's much more thorough statistics said that "the overall probability that a firstborn will support a scientific revolution is 34%; the odds that a later-born will do so are almost double: 64%". So either my stats are too low, I'm getting a biased sample, extropians violate the more general pattern, or there's a big difference between what people say and what they do here. Btw, to deal with borderline cases, I'm just counting children born to both the same parents, and counting all the folks who say they just consider new theories more than others under "supporting" more. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT) From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: NANO: what hope for normal robots? I agree with Derek; I'd love to see Rich Walker post a description of his work. Working on robotics is quite useful. Full-Drexler[tm] nanotech is not "around the corner" until many of the assembly automation problems have been solved on a macro level first. Robotics and teleoperation are critical to taking advantage of both the nano frontier and the space frontier, both vast sources of 21st century wealth waiting to be cracked open. Too many people are researching problems because they are "hard". It's silly to try to solve a problem _because_ it's difficult to solve. What a setup for failure. Furthermore, such problems could become easy to solve in a few years, given the solution to other much simpler problems now being neglected. My argument about AI software applies here too -- it is interesting to mimic human capabilities, but ultimately the stuff that stokes the economic engines is vast improvement over human capabilities. Here are some simpler areas of robotics with vast potential, that have been overly neglected: * Robots with high-frequency operations (eg 100's of simple assembly operations per second) * Non-anthropomorphic robots: eg the many-DOF electromagnetic bearing floating robot, flying robots, etc. * Work on and integration with related highly flexible industrial automation: CAD/CAM software, 3D printers, mills, lathes, size-sorting machines, etc. Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 15:08:14 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) Extropian price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) wrote: > Besides the usual color-blindnesses, there was a long section >about the ability to see in the ultra-violet. Aprox 1 out of 10,000 >people can see a color up into the ultraviolet spectrum.[...] I believe I have this ability. My opthomologist wears these weird pink/ purple glasses. One time, he tried to sell me a coating for my glasses that would cut out UV. I asked if it was the same weird pink/purple that was on his glasses, and he claimed it was invisable because it blocked out only UV and not the visable spectrum. He really did not believe that I could see the color, and got out a whole bunch of demo lenses. The UV blockers looked purple/pink, while the uncoated lenses looked clear. He had a device that measured the frequency of light that he used to tell the lenses apart and to demonstrate to customers that there really was a difference. No one else in his office could see the difference in the lenses. He later got back to me and said that rare individuals can see farther into the UV spectrum. I would like to get equipment to test this for myself. I wonder if this has any usefulness (or money-making value)... __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 14:35:57 -0400 (EDT) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: Eric slams vegetarianism again. > Given that you've chosen to conduct an experiment on yourself on the > effects of a high-fat low-fiber diet, I sincerely hope that you at > least have your Alcor dues paid up. You ARE an Alcor member, right? You're making presumptions about my diet that are (a) false, (b) not justified by any evidence you have available. You are also managing to sound exactly like a religious fanatic. "You'll burn in hell for your sins while I and the rest of the smug elect live forever!" Sheesh. And there are people on this list who think *I'm* a mystic... -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 14:44:58 -0400 (EDT) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) > Interestingly enough in this connection, I came across a mention a while > back that a particular American Indian language, I believe either Navajo or > Hopi, used the same word to indicate both blue and green. That's quite common. Some languages have as few as *two* color words. There's a hierarchy of color distinctions such that if a language has color distinction A from B, then it has distinction X from Y. Turns out the blue/green distinction is the "last" to get made ("warm vs. cool" is the first). For a good discussion of the color-distinction hierarchy and underlying optical/neurological issues, see Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things". -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 15:19:51 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Eric slams vegetarianism again. X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Lefty says: > >Its o.k., Eric. You don't have to believe controlled studies. You can > >die an agonizing death of heart disease or colon cancer if you like. > > I have to say, Perry, regardless of the correctness of your position, this > kind of ranting makes you sound uncannily similar to the worst sort of > fundametalist Christian. And Eric doesn't sound like a fundamentalist with his insistance that its fine to guzzle saturated fat as much as you like and that it won't hurt you, because, after all, we don't really know anything at all about diet? Yeah, I've got to admit I'm a fundamentalist. I believe that there is such a thing as truth and such a thing as falsehood, and that when I have enough evidence I can distinguish the one from the other. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Some people can indeed guzzle liquified pasturized pig fat all day long and smoke big cigars into the night without it hurting them that much -- there are genetic components here. There are also indeed some people for whom no diet will help them -- there is a rare mutation that causes extreme cholesterol production and usually kills its victims from athrosclerotically induced heart attacks and strokes before they hit their 18th birthday. However, for the majority of us, eliminating most of the meat in your diet and increasing your fiber intake is a good thing, period. The evidence is in. If Max will take it, I'm going to support this statement in an article for Extropy, which I have decided to actually write. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 15:01:00 -0400 (EDT) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: Sex Differences: Who's talking? > I always wonder where girls and women get the idea to be quiet. Ditto. > The whole idea of what's "expected" is foreign to guys, at least to a first > approximation. Yes. And this is a really, really important point. >From this man's point of view, the biggest behavioral difference between men and women may come from the differing socialization they get about self-assertion versus "doing what's expected". Men are taught from birth that "what's expected" is a sort of technical constraint, that a "real man" has the right and duty to break convention when good reasons present themselves. Women seem to be taught that "what's expected" is the critical glue holding society together, and that self-assertion is rude, disruptive and threatening. Result: women see men as unhousebroken barbarians, and men see women as vaguely contemptible doormats who oppress themselves and then blame men for it. I'm exaggerrating, of course. But we can all see some truth here, can't we? -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 93 14:18:43 EDT From: Sandy <72114.1712@CompuServe.COM> Subject: MEDIA: Jurassic Park ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort@attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander Chislenko wrote: I, too, found "Jurassic Park" very spectacular, and would recommend it to anyone. Not for small children though: it's a bit too scary. Took my 4 year old granddaughter on Sunday. She loved it. She did offer to hold my girlfriend's hand if my girlfriend got scared. Of course, I don't know about long-term trauma, but hey, I'm the grandparent. Not my problem! . . . the movie attempts to build and exploit *fear* - a feeling that may not be very beneficial for the technological progress, though quite understandable in such small animals as humans. I agree that there was an anti-science thread to the movie. As Damon Knight(?) said in his book, _New Maps of Hell_, most science fiction movies are really -anti-science fiction movies. I don't really worry about the author, screen writer or directors intent, however. They subvert their own subversion by so graphically showing the *wonder* of they thing the decry. After seeing JURASSIC PARK, I *really* want to see dinosaurs cloned from ancient DNA. I would bet dollars to donuts most people who see the movie would vote for the dinos regardless of the "risk." How many science and techno types were weaned on '50's monster movies and space operas? Just keep those F/X movies coming and the public will clamor for dinosaurs. Leepin' Lizard -- Little Orphan Annie Arf! -- S a n d y (arbitration volunteer) >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort@attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 12:26:27 -0700 (PDT) From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: RANT: Oral religious sacraments & culinary bigotry Lefty: > I have to say, Perry, regardless of the correctness of your position, this > kind of ranting makes you sound uncannily similar to the worst sort of > fundametalist Christian. Eric Raymond's anti-veg comment, to which Perry was responding, was equally religious in nature. As was an earlier carnivore's rant about my "paranoia" because I asked some questions about the relative safety merits of microwaving vs. frying. (Following, admittedly, my rather flippant comments over his precious religious sacrament of barbequeing steaks. :-) Alas, just about everybody seems to get religious when it somes of diet. We have vocal vegans, vocal carnivores, high-brow food bigots ("I'll spend hours a day preparing food before I'll touch a frozen dinner"), etc. My primary "religion" on this issue is longevity, and the related issue of not wasting those extra years in food preparation. If I violate somebody's notion of the "proper" diet, that's their problem, not mine. Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 93 14:18:59 EDT From: Sandy <72114.1712@CompuServe.COM> Subject: MILK: IT DOES A BODY GOOD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort@attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simon Kinahan wrote: There is an old wives tale to the effect that excess milk products make colds worse and can exacerbate other allergies in *just about everyone*. A freind of mine who is a professional herbalist says that this is widely accepted as fact in the far east. While I was in Singapore, my girlfriend was hospitalized for a short time. Even though she is the quintessential Northern European (Scotch-Irish) milkmaid, the Malay and Chinese nurses tried to keep her from drinking as much milk as she wanted. "It causes diarrhea" they said. Well, maybe for POCs (people of color), but not my gal. What is "widely accepted" in the Far East might be little more then ethnocentrism. Milking this for all I can, S a n d y (arbitration volunteer) >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort@attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 15:13:25 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Sex Differences: Who's talking? X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission FutureNerd Steve Witham says: > I always wonder where girls and women get the idea to be quiet. > The whole idea of what's "expected" is foreign to guys, at least to a first > approximation. Perhaps the mechanism is similar to that that prevents women from asking men out on dates. Here is how that one works out: B1) Boys hit about the age of 15 and realize that they would like to date girls. They know that society expects them to take "the first move". B2) Boys ask a few girls out and get rejected the first couple of times after investing great emotional content into the act. B3) Boys sulk for a while. B4) Boys then realize that they are never EVER going to get a date just sitting around, so they keep trying until someone says "yes" and they learn to live with rejection. G1) Girls hit about the age of 15 and realize that they would like to date boys. They know that society does not expect them to take "the first move". G2) Some adventurous girls ask a few boys out and get rejected the first couple of times after investing great emotional content into the act. G3) These girls sulk for a while. G4) These girls then realize that they can, in fact, just sit around and passively wait for boys to ask them out, so rather than learn to deal with rejection they become passive and spend the rest of their dating carreers waiting for the phone to ring. I think that this actually DOES happen this way, although I base the information entirely on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Similarly, I think it is possible that most women, after their first experience of getting "rejected" in an intellectual context, realize that society does not require them to be agressive in this context and decide that its emotionally easier to become passive, whereas the men, with the expectation that they have to balls their way through the rejections, learn to be debaters. I wonder how different society might be if women were expected to ask men out, or if men could still be respected if they refused to engage in strong-willed discussions. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 12:16:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott C DeLancey Subject: Colour Cones Mutation (was diet) > >Yes, I agree. I guess colour vision, being a recent re-invention by our > >primate ancestors, is far from optimal (although, of course, it will > >soon be superseded by full-spectrum sensors we will soon have). > > Interestingly enough in this connection, I came across a mention a while > back that a particular American Indian language, I believe either Navajo or > Hopi, used the same word to indicate both blue and green. Aagh. I knew this would come up, as soon as people started talking about color vision. MOST languages in the world don't distinguish blue and green. It's been demonstrated that this has nothing at all to do with perception; Navajos (and Hopis, and Chinese, and everybody else) see the difference between blue and green just as well as English speakers do. There's a good, though not perfect, correlation between the number of colors distinguished in a language and the degree of technological development of the culture. Best guess is that it has to do with the development of non-vegetable dyes, which then create a need for a more elaborate color terminology. Scott DeLancey delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Department of Linguistics University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403, USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 12:09:29 PDT From: tribble@memex.com (E. Dean Tribble) Subject: out of touch Hi. Things are currently in flux, so I will be off the group for a little while. Talk to you all soon. dean PS Habs: I took care of it at this end. ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0325 ****************************************