76 Message 76: From exi@panix.com Fri Jul 23 13:25:08 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA29716; Fri, 23 Jul 93 13:25:06 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA24866; Fri, 23 Jul 93 13:24:48 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA02705 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Fri, 23 Jul 1993 16:18:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 16:18:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199307232018.AA02705@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com (List Processing System) Subject: X-Extropian-Date: July 23, 373 P.N.O. [20:18:33 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: R Fri, 23 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 203 Today's Topics: 133 years old [1 msgs] Designer babies (was IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT...?) [2 msgs] Domain template submission; extropy.org (fwd) [1 msgs] HEX: Clarification on public information [1 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [3 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [1 msgs] I confess, I'm "Bland Parenthood" [1 msgs] I confess, I'm "Bland Parenthood" [1 msgs] My Worry, Guns, and Social Security [2 msgs] Wage Competition [1 msgs] Administrivia: Approximate Size: 51461 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 12:34:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Domain template submission; extropy.org (fwd) Good news. a conscious being, Domain Registration Role Account wrote: > From domreg@internic.net Fri Jul 23 08:18:05 1993 > From: domreg@internic.net (Domain Registration Role Account) > Message-Id: <9307231618.AA28817@internic.net> > Subject: Re: Domain template submission; extropy.org > To: habs@panix.com > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 12:18:05 EDT > In-Reply-To: <199307211532.AA20067@panix.com>; from "Harry Shapiro" at Jul 21, 93 11:32 am > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2] > > > Your request for registration of subject domain has been completed. > The InterNIC WHOIS database has been updated; see the record below. > Please let us know if any changes need to be made. > > Before this information is released to the Internet (normally > accomplished via root zone file updates on Mon, Wed, and Fri > evenings, about 17:00 Eastern time) we will check to see that the > primary and secondary name servers are reachable and contain the > appropriate SOA and NS resource records. > > If your name servers are not properly configured, we will place your > registration on hold until we hear from you. When you are ready to > have the domain released to the network, contact us at any of > the addresses below. > > InterNIC Domain Registration > > email domreg@internic.net > whois -h rs.internic.net or 198.41.0.5 > voice (800) 444-4345 #1 or (703) 742-4777 > fax (703) 742-4811 > > ==================================================================== > Extropy Institute Inc. (EXTROPY-DOM) > 11860 Magnolia Ave. > Suite R > Riverside, CA 92503 > > Domain Name: EXTROPY.ORG > > Administrative Contact: > Shapiro, Harry (HS4) habs@PANIX.COM > 212 228-0505 > Technical Contact, Zone Contact: > Rosen, Alexis (AMR8) alexis@panix.com > (212) 877-4854 > > Record last updated on 22-Jul-93. > > Domain servers in listed order: > > NS1.ACCESS.NET 198.7.0.1 > NS2.ACCESS.NET 198.7.0.2 > > -- Harry S. Hawk habs@panix.com Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. List Administrator of the Extropy Institute Mailing List Private Communication for the Extropian Community since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 09:51:23 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: My Worry, Guns, and Social Security J. Michael Diehl asks: >But do you remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The ant saved >all summer, and the grasshopper played all summer. In the end, the ant >supported the grasshopper by feeding him through the winter. How would we >avoid this problem if we abolished Wf? Not in the version _I_ heard. In in the version _I_ heard, the grasshopper _starved_, the shiftless bastard. Besides, if the ant _voluntarily_ feeds the grasshopper, does this represent a problem? After all, I voluntarily feed my five-year-old. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 10:48:04 -0800 (PDT) From: phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu (Sin and maul evil!) Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Having followed the exchange between Tony Hamilton and Perry Metzger, I think Perry is reading too much into Tony's case. I may be wrong, but what I got when I read Tony was that he was asking if _some_ homosexuals might become that way because of their environment, specifically peer pressure, and offering as evidence a group of similar individuals, the strongest willed of which (himself) is heterosexual, and the rest homosexual. Perry is intrepreting this as a claim that all homosexuals are formed environmentally, which goes too far. -- ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{Phoenix<>Damien R. Sullivan<> X-) Kiljoy}<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<- || 6x9=42 | AIXELSYD | 1374245896=4 | Libertarian Dictatorship! || || Honk if you're American and have heard of Steeleye Span... || {phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu,same as above} ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 11:00:43 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: I confess, I'm "Bland Parenthood" I posted the two messages about the "GT1" libertarian gene... not with the intent to deceive (since I had planned all along to follow them up with this confession), but to make a point. It seems plausible to me that libertarian, egoist attitudes might indeed have a genetic component. Males possessing the XYY set of sex chromosomes are considerably more aggressive than "normal" XY males, for example. With the recent publication of the discovery of the so-called "gay" gene, it is not too great a stretch to imagine that the absence of sheep-like obedience might result from a single gene. How convenient for governments if such a gene could be screened for, and potentially troublesome fetuses aborted! (To the humor-impaired folks who thought I was seriously proposing such measures, well, I pity you.) The reason such musings occurred to me is, of course, the discussion of the "gay" gene and the implications for societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Those pseudonymous posts were my way of putting the ontological shoe on the other foot -- how would you feel if a component of your personality, something you consider to be integral to your present identity, were identified as a genetic characteristic that was detectable, screenable, and, given the motivation, abortable? I don't think being a fag gives me any more of a privileged reference frame than Tony or Perry on this subject; like them, my evidence of "what gays are like" is strictly anecdotal. I doubt if the number of gays I have known in my lifetime is large enough to be a statistically-significant sample. However, my impression of the overall tenor of the gay population is different from both Perry's and Tony's, for what I think is a straightforward reason: Tony lives in Folsom, CA (a somewhat rural area) and, before that, as I recall, in St. Louis; Perry lives in New York City; and I have lived most of my post-graduate life in L.A. If Tony lived in Antarctica and Perry in the Florida everglades, should we be surprised if Tony thought birds were all short, black, and flightless, and Perry thought they were all leggy and pink? I don't dispute the observations of either; I'd just like to point out that, like me, they can only see the part of the picture they're standing in. The point I think Perry was trying to make to Tony was, "homosexuals aren't necessarily effeminate". I think Tony misinterpreted this as "no homosexuals are effeminate", which is just as absurd as "no heterosexuals are effeminate". (Any Saturday Night Live fans out there? "Iiiit's Lyle, The Effeminate Heterosexual!") Stereotypes to the contrary, the two qualities are really independent variables. I don't even think (again, in my limited, anecdotal experience) the correlation is significant. Tony went on at length about the alleged relationship between gender roles and sexual orientation: >Perry, you then go on to talk about _what_ "feminine" means. Well, I >apologize for not _explicitly_ stating this (I thought it was implied, but >if you misread it, it must not have been), but I was implying "sterotypically >feminine". And yes, some of the very things you speak of. Whether its talking >a certain way, being of diminutive muscularity (I don't know if I said that >right, but it sounded good ;-), taking on certain roles, doing certain things, >or whatever, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ This is stating it explicitly? The only specific trait you have mentioned here is musculature. There are three axes being confused here, which may or may not be orthogonal: Sexual orientation Physical gender characteristics (muscles, breasts, yata yata yata...) Gender roles Of these three, the first two are pretty much independent of your society or culture, but the third is culturally determined. In one African tribe (I think they're called the Kikuyu; help me out here, folks), the men paint their faces and nails and look for all the world like pretty Western women, while the women do all the actual work of raising the crops and running the society. In the Farm Belt where I come from, "masculinity" has a lot more to do with competence and confidence than with machismo and athleticism, and those are the attitudes I internalized while growing up. When I find out, for example, that a male acquaintance of mine is completely incapable of handling simple mechanical repairs or troubleshooting his own computer system, my hindbrain labels him "helpless" and therefore "feminine", no matter how macho he is or how good he is on the volleyball court. >its no so important as what is _perceived_ as being feminine, >and typically, especially in youth, such attributes are often seen as >indicating homosexuality in males. I'm not talking logic, I'm talking about >the way it is. I am such a "feminine" male. Sure, I exhibit a number of >typically-masculine traits, but I am extremely more feminine than what I >observe to be "average". And, I will say again, I have never in my life had >any homosexual urges. My sexual orientation is extremely heterosexual. > >But yet, I have (or do in some cases): >1. Worn women's clothing. [details...] >2. Fantasazied about being a woman! [details...] >3. Acted stereotypically feminine in many ways. [No details.] > >The point to all this is that, without qualification, these things would >certainly make me _seem_ homosexual. What Tony's talking about here are gender roles (what this society considers proper behavior for men/women), which have nothing to do with which sex someone is attracted to. As Tony mentioned, conventional wisdom would have there be some correlation between the two, but my own anecdotal observations don't indicate one. >It's not unlike the recent >"realization" that males can exhibit what was previously thought to be >feminine charactersitics, and still be "macho". Things like crying, taking >care of the kids, doing housework, and so forth. My argument is that, at >least in my case, one can be "extremely" feminine and still be perfectly, >and _naturally_ heterosexual, therefore proposing that such things as >behavior or even thoughts (all but homosexual thoughts, that is) are >completely separate from sexual orientation. Sure. But, even if you want to raise your kids and do housework, those are considered "female" jobs _only in some societies_. I think you are accepting a whole lot of unnecessary emotional baggage if you let those roles get tied to your gender identity. The "masculinist" movement contends that men, not women, have traditionally gotten the shitty end of the stick in the assignment of gender-appropriate behavior; I'll let other list members who have more of an interest in that subject elaborate further. >That being said, I again return to my friends who are, in many ways, like >my self, and yet are homosexual. What I am really asking is, is homosexuality >physical or mental (the usual question), but if it is physical (or at least >characterized by the act or desire to engage in relations with those of >the same sex), then _can_ there be people who _live_ as homosexuals, but >are physically and naturally heterosexual? Herewith, Dave's theory of sexual orientation: Sexual orientation is, fundamentally, desire, and the behavior that stems from desire. (In my experience, the genetic component of desire is physically independent of the genetic determination of physical sex characteristics. I have not read any of the news reports about the "gay gene", but I would be very surprised if it correlated positively with physically androgynous characteristics.) Desire is partially genetic and partially conditioned. The genetic component partially controls the conditioning process, by determining which stimuli (same-sex or opposite-sex) are experienced as reinforcing; the rest of the conditioning comes from society, as primarily represented by the family. This conditioning is in two phases. The first is in early childhood, around ages 2-4, when the underlying "real" sexual orientation gets baked into place. During this stage, societal conditioning is haphazard because society doesn't recognize that children at that age are developing their sexual aesthetic. The second stage is the rest of childhood, when all the forces of peer pressure, the media, church, and state are brought to bear to try to inculcate an orthosexual orientation (locking the barn door after the horse is gone). This has the effect of making most queer children miserable and most straight children insufferable. If by "physically and naturally heterosexual" Tony means "don't possess the gay gene", it's certainly possible for there to be such people who nevertheless have same-sex relations but I think it's much more frequent that people who are genetically inclined toward their own gender get conditioned in the opposite direction. Our social systems provide a great many incentives to "be" heterosexual and very few to be queer. >Now, to all this, Perry can only say that I myself am actually a homosexual >who just doesn't know it, which of course would blow my whole theory since >I can't possibly be objective about it, since my primary data point, me, >is incorrect. Why wonder? Get your DNA tested. As a staunch Objectivist, if the gene test comes up positive, that would mean you "are" a homosexual, therefore you'll have to divorce your wife and start dating men :-) :-) (I am making fun of Objectivism here). Perry says to Tony: >You are making a very very astonishing claim -- that somehow peer >pressure brainwashes people into becoming gay. You are making this >claim without evidence and in the presense of much evidence of the >inaccuracy of your claims. I'm certain that given sufficient >brainwashing you could temporarily get a person to behave in a manner >contrary to their normal sexual identity, at least for a brief period. I would go further than that, and say that, given sufficient brainwashing (which, in my lexicon, includes the normal process of growing up in a culture and being socialized to it), you can make a lot of people behave contrary to their normal sexual attraction, for years or for an entire lifetime. This is still the default case for most homosexuals in America (though it is becoming less prevalent). My dream sociology experiment is to raise some statistically-significant samples of children in different social environments: one where the societal pressure is to be same-sex-oriented; one where the societal pressure is to be exactly bisexual; and one where, as much as possible, there is _no_ pressure toward any particular repertoire of sexual behavior -- and see what proportion of people end up in which bins on the Kinsey scale. Well, after I get my Jupiter-sized brain perhaps... dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 11:13:08 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Hi Perry. I think my problem is that I was just trying to _propose_ something based on observation. You keep claiming that I have some "thesis" of sorts, and that I am _claiming_ outright what I have proposed to be true. THis was never the case. You take my arguments provided for the sake of discussion as actual arguments for the validity of what I am saying. I proposed the ideas I did for the sake of discussion, and for no other purpose. > > Again, I find it difficult to respond to any of your conclusions, since > > your premises are so unfounded. You have already taken the typical stance > > that a significantly feminine male must either be gay or just does not > > acknowledge it. > > Pardon, but you are so completely wrong here that words fail me. I > said NOTHING about being feminine -- I indeed repeatedly have stated > that many gay men have no feminine attributes at all. Furthermore, I > stated, explicitly, later on in my article, that femininity in men is > a largely artificial concept with no real correlation at all to > sexuality. How you could so completely misinterpret my words, when > they were so explicit, is beyond me. Didn't you read a word I said? Yes I did. And, when I asked if it was possible for someone to be lead down a path of believing they were what they weren't, you replied in the positive by claiming that I was such a person you. Based upon my question and what you further said, this was an _explicit_ implication, not a theory, on your part that I am in fact a homosexual that won't acknowledge it. This I could assume was because of my explanation of who and what I am. If you would now like to speak to why you came to that conclusion if not because of my description of myself, then I am listening. > > > > Well, the point is, had I been a weak-minded individual, I can almost > > > > believe that enviornmental influences might have caused my own sexual > > > > orientation reversal. > > > > > > Really? Honestly? Can you say that envisioning having sex with a man > > > is equally appealing to as having sex with a woman? There ARE > > > > Again, what are you reading in what I wrote? > > What I am reading is someone who somehow believes you can become gay > via "peer pressure" and who has no evidence for it. Observation is evidence in my book. Hell, I've been told flat out by one of my friends that he doesn't _believe_ he would be homosexual today if he had not been consistently told by his parents and his peers in his youth that he was gay. He believes that, just as many people often attempt to be what others want them to be or see them as, he became what others saw him being. He is a practicing homosexual, but has certain regrets and misgivings about that lifestyle, just as many of us do when reflecting upon certain decisions we made early on in life. Is he really a heterosexual who is deluding himself into believing he is homosexual? What then defines his sexual orientation? Is it what he practices, or what he believes may be his true nature (he doesn't believe he has any "genetic" inclination for being homosexual)? If it is _not_ just a matter of ones actions, then how do we really know whether or not homosexuals are truly _inclined_ to be homosexuals, or are just living a lie? Kind of like polling to find out if men masturbate. How do you find out the truth, especially if it is theoretically possible that this truth may be supressed on a subconscious level? We're constantly told by pychiatrists (and I don't have much faith in that profession, but it serves to argue this point) that we are often motivitated by factors that we are not consciously aware of (some of us anyway). So what is it? We are all so eager to find an absolute answer. Can there be one? > You are making a very very astonishing claim -- that somehow peer > pressure brainwashes people into becoming gay. You are making this > claim without evidence and in the presense of much evidence of the > inaccuracy of your claims. I'm certain that given sufficient > brainwashing you could temporarily get a person to behave in a manner > contrary to their normal sexual identity, at least for a brief period. > However, I think that the question here is why normal individuals with > normal childhoods one day realize that they are interested in members > of the same sex. These people have NOT been placed in dark rooms and > beaten for weeks and given psychotropic drugs. Neither have they been > horribly abused, or pressured -- if anything they have experienced > large amounts of pressure against their sexual orientation, not > towards it. Your thesis has no way to explain these individuals, who > make up the bulk of the homosexual community. Again, Perry, this is no thesis, this is discussion. But where do derive your claims that these childhoods were "normal"? What is normal? How can you measure influences? Overt influences are often only a small subset of what is really going on. I for one had what most people would deem to be a "normal" childhood, or at least typical. Yet, my perpective is that it was quite traumatic. So who are you to say that the "bulk of the homosexual community" is made of "normal" people? Has it ever occurred that "normal" influences in ours and similar cultures may now be more inclined to affect this? Given the cultural changes our society, and those in Europe and other similar places, have undergone in the past century, I'd hardly say that we can claim we understand the effects of those cultural influences - which affect _everyone_, have on homo sapiens. I'm no scientist, and don't care to be. I only proposed this so that others who _are_ more learned in this matter can provide intelligent comment. I'm sorry if this is just subjective opinion, but based upon your arguments, which are no more of an expert nature than my own, I'd hardly consider you to be in a position to absolutely refute what I am proposing. You are indeed making many assumptions which are based on premises which are, at the very least, understood very little to this day. Now, if you would like to argue against my proposals by providing argument based on assumptions, and state those assumptions as such, and not as fact, as you have done, then I might be more inclined to at least agree with your logic. After all, if your _assumptions_ which you put forth as fact are true, then your logic is sound, but its those assumptions that I question. > > More exactly, I am asking for discussion on this matter, > > since I wouldn't absolutely claim this, but it just seems plausible. > > No, you aren't asking for discussion. You are persisting in making a > fairly wild claim that doesn't seem to have any basis in fact, and you > are disappointed in me for pointing out that it doesn't seem to be > consistant with reality. Except that what you are claiming to be "reality" may not be. My questions _deal_ with questioning exactly what you claim to be reality. Reality is what it is, and neither you nor I _know_ what it is for sure, but that seems to be what you are claiming. Wild claim? Hey, its just thoughts based on observation. Why is that wild? I didn't dream this up. I've observed, I have my own experiences to work with as a data point, I have discussions I've had with other intelligent people. Why should these ideas be so wild? ANd please, I'm not arguing _against_ genetic inclination. I'm just providing more thoughts and ideas on a different theory, which _may_ be able to coexist with genetic theories. > I gave consideration to what you said. It doesn't seem correct, thats > all. Your method of explaining yourself needs work, in my opinion. It's a given that it didn't seem correct to you, or else you wouldn't be discussing it. But "that's all" is hardly fair to say, since you go much farther than just saying "I think what you are saying is incorrect". You give counterarguments based on premises you choose to accept as fact. Either provide your arguments as just that, arguments, and not proof of invalidity, or provide that proof. I don't think anyone can provide _proof_ on this matter one way or another. What I am asking then is for folks to consider the possibilities and what the implications of those possibilities might be. Of course, if you don't believe you can derive value from considering possibilities rather than dealing only with facts, then we have no reason to talk. I for one think there is great deal of value in examining and analyzing what we do know, even if we cannot arrive at an absolute conclusion - it at least arms us to deal with the issues more effectively. -- Tony Hamilton | -Intel Corporation | voice: 916-356-3070 --Folsom Engineering Services | mailstop: FM2-55 ---Engineering Resource Group | email: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com ----Software Technician | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 10:20:23 PDT From: "Mark W. McFadden" Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) I've been following the thread, and I have to say that both Tony and Perry have made some valid observations, but I can't whole-heartedly agree with either's conclusions. Such as: Tony's premise that the "homosexual gene" doesn't guarantee homosexuality so much as predispose toward traits that _in this country_ will make homosexuality the path of least resistance (which, since we are talking about influences below the conscious level precludes arguments about "chosen' lifestyles) has possibilities. A good case can be made for it, especially at this stage of our knowledge. Does that seem kinda murky and stilted? Sorry, I'm talking about friends and family members like lab subjects. But by the same token, Perry's points that homosexuality _in this country_ is not a lifestyle that most would voluntarily choose (for religious, family, health, career, reputation, etc. reasons) if there were a choice. There are micro cultures in our society where homosexuality is accepted to such an extent that the peer pressure towards heterosexuality is almost totally negated. Theatre, Hollywood, fashion, ballet are some of the more notable or at least legendary. Sometimes the demographics can get so one- sided that a heterosexual will feel like an outsider at parties. I can remember a Theatre Dept. New Year's party in L.A.. At midnight everyone kissed and hugged, but all the men took on deeper voices and gave _me_ hearty handshakes. An illuminating experience on several levels. Observations of men in isolation have led me some hypotheses but no conclusions: 1) A large percentage of men are capable of being temporarily homosexual when that is the path of least resistance (or _to_ the most sex). Perhaps they should be classed as sexual with no prefix. OR 2) There are more homosexual men than are accounted for, but they are usually heterosexual because _that_ is the path of least resistance. Which would explain a lot of hetero misogyny and hatred. Also frat boys and the Tailhook scandal. Hey, they prefer the company of men and treat women like shit. :-) OR 3) Bisexuality is the average and hetero/homo polarity is culturally imposed. Of course along with this is the observation of a character in "P.S. Your Cat Is Dead", "homosexuality is like height, everyone's got some, but some guys are taallll and others are short". I do know that since _I_ am reflexively hetero, that is by definition normal and proper and the state that everyone should try to emulate. :-) Of course, if Sean Connery made a pass at me and I was horny at the time....... ______________________________________________________________________ Mark W. McFadden | Been there.....done that. mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com | ___________________________________|__________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 10:27:58 PDT From: "Mark W. McFadden" Subject: My Worry, Guns, and Social Security On Fri, 23 Jul 1993 09:51:23 -0800, Lefty wrote: >J. Michael Diehl asks: >>But do you remember the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The ant saved >>all summer, and the grasshopper played all summer. In the end, the ant >>supported the grasshopper by feeding him through the winter. How would we >>avoid this problem if we abolished Wf? > >Not in the version _I_ heard. In in the version _I_ heard, the grasshopper >_starved_, the shiftless bastard. > >Besides, if the ant _voluntarily_ feeds the grasshopper, does this >represent a problem? After all, I voluntarily feed my five-year-old. > > > >-- >Lefty (lefty@apple.com) >C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. I think the version where the ants fed the grasshopper was the Disney version. It should be mentioned that the grasshopper paid his way by fiddling all winter, thereby entertaining and relaxing the little myrmidons, and recharging them for another Spring/Summer/Fall of relentless Type-A behavior. But then the grasshopper got an NEA grant....... ______________________________________________________________________ Mark W. McFadden | Been there.....done that. mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com | ___________________________________|__________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 14:29:01 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: HEX: Clarification on public information It has been brought to my attention that the INFO posting is quite explicit about certain kinds of information being public and others being private. No mention is made, however, of whether the owner of record of a reputation is public or private information. Since there was no way of retrieving this information, it was in a bit of a gray area. At the suggestion of several HEx customers, this information is now explicitly public, and available with the DESCRIBE command. The INFO posting has been updated, and a future regulation will detail exactly which data is private and which future. Rowan Hawthorne Chairman, The Hawthorne Exchange (HEx Symbol: HEX) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:34:37 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: I confess, I'm "Bland Parenthood" Dave Krieger says: > >Now, to all this, Perry can only say that I myself am actually a homosexual > >who just doesn't know it, which of course would blow my whole theory since > >I can't possibly be objective about it, since my primary data point, me, > >is incorrect. > > Why wonder? Get your DNA tested. Just so everyone knows, Tony was hallucinating -- I never even remotely implied he was gay. How he got that idea, I'll never know. Anyone can re-read my post and see for themeselves. I did state very frequently that I thought that he had an incorrect view of there being a correlation between what our society calls effeminate and homosexuality -- and that his so called "feminine" characteristics or those of his friends have little to do with sexual orientation. I personally couldn't figure out what Tony's viewpoint was other than a bunch of odd beliefs about correlations between peer pressure and sexual orientation. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 14:35:48 -0400 From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) Subject: 133 years old eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: > It is not unusual for someone to claim a greater age than they > really are to avoid military service or receive a government pension. Clearly the man is a 2 or 3 sigma(std dev) person if his claim is valid. As an individual certainly he is statistically insignificant. Frequency data on people above the composite human average would be interesting. > In the case of this man, if he added 20 years to his real age, he > would actually have been born in 1890, and would thus have been in > his 40's and 50's during the 30's and WWII. Claims of extreme Given the region of the world though, he probably was extremely "lucky" rather than deceptive. I wouldn't care to speculate on the man's character. > age need to be carefully documented, and the Guinness people have > taken that care in their book, and I believe it is a more reliable > guide than a news report from Syria. Also, for most of us, the > extreme age is of little practical relevance. A more useful figure The number struck me as being close to the theoretical limit... Also if he was religious, perhaps diet was a factor it's hard to tell from a report like that. There is no indication of the quality of life this person had. He quite probably was a burden to his family although they might not have seen it that way. > would be the country with the highest age at which 5% of the population > survives (I would call this the 95%ile life expectancy), as a guide > to what we can expect with a healthy life but no special interventions. > I count vitamins and calorie-restricted diets as such interventions, > which may give us more years, but of an undetermined amount. As I siad I thought this was near 130, or at least that's the number that I recalled. Any references out there? -sjm ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean J. Merritt | Dept of Physics Boston University| "You leave me dry." merritt@macro.bu.edu | P.J. Harvey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 11:47:37 -0800 From: Romana Machado Subject: Designer babies (was IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT...?) Bob Angell asks: >are you saying that ALL "birth-defects" even slight and somewhat manageable >such as timmy's is justification for an abortion? Any minor whim of mine is justification for an abortion, if that baby's going to live on my flesh, blood, and bones, and I'll fight to defend my choice. I am looking forward to a future where designer babies are possible, and if a gay couple wishes to have a child that is also gay, technology can help them to have their wish. I doubt that the discovery of the "gay gene" will mean the death of homosexuality. P.S. I have been considering the design of a confidential poll on sexual orientation on this list, because I suspect there are statisically significant differences from the general population. I would poll on Kinsey types, but I'm not familiar with the Kinsey scale, and I don't expect everyone else is, either. If you can help me design a useful questionnaire, please contact me in private email. Romana Machado (romana@apple.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I want to have control / I want a perfect body I want a perfect soul / I want you to notice..." - Radiohead, "The Creep" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:49:56 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Just so everyone knows, I'm not being hostile to Mark's views here -- I am just making some points of my own. "Mark W. McFadden" says: > But by the same token, Perry's points that homosexuality _in this country_ > is not a lifestyle that most would voluntarily choose (for religious, > family, health, career, reputation, etc. reasons) if there were a choice. > There are micro cultures in our society where homosexuality is accepted > to such an extent that the peer pressure towards heterosexuality is almost > totally negated. Theatre, Hollywood, fashion, ballet are some of the more > notable or at least legendary. Sometimes the demographics can get so one- > sided that a heterosexual will feel like an outsider at parties. Yup. And being at a party where you are the only occidental among a crowd of Koreans can make you feel like an outsider too. The number of young white men being corrupted into turning into Koreans these days is astounding. Young strapping blonde men from Minnesota who spend years on plastic surgery, makeup and hair dye so that they can fit in at parties. Really sad if you asked me. Yeah, there are places in our society where homosexuals feel fairly comfortable -- but lets remember doesn't mean that other people get the urge to turn gay because of it. It also doesn't mean that there isn't still tremendous trouble for gay people in our society. Even here in New York, there are regular gay bashings all the time which the police do virtually nothing about. There is still extensive predjudice, and there are many things that straights don't generally notice occuring. Queer Nation has spent a bunch of time in the last few years taking its members on trips to straight bars where some of their number will sit down and start kissing. Now, heterosexuals doing that sort of thing go unnoticed, but when gays do it a riot nearly ensues every time. (Most of why they do this sort of thing is to try to break that barrier.) Sure, you can go to a party where everyone else is gay and feel comfy -- but what happens as soon as you take a walk outside with your lover? > I can > remember a Theatre Dept. New Year's party in L.A.. At midnight everyone > kissed and hugged, but all the men took on deeper voices and gave _me_ > hearty handshakes. An illuminating experience on several levels. I've hung out a lot in the "club culture" of New York and with friends and aquaintances of my girlfriend who is a fashion designer. I spend a disproportionate amount of time around homosexuals as a result. There have been many times when I've felt left out -- but I can't say that I've ever had the urge to become gay as a result. > I do know that since _I_ am reflexively hetero, that is by definition > normal and proper and the state that everyone should try to emulate. :-) > Of course, if Sean Connery made a pass at me and I was horny at the > time....... Myself, it would do nothing for me. I find it difficult to impossible to think of circumstances where a man's advances would turn me on. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 14:54:02 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: Designer babies (was IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT...?) > I would poll on Kinsey > types, but I'm not familiar with the Kinsey scale, and I don't expect > everyone else is, either. Get a copy of the Kinsey questionnaire, and just use that. It's in the literature. Anyone have a citation of the top of their head? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 11:59:40 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: Wage Competition Hal writes: >I'm not sure how Robin's suggestion about human capital markets really >solves this problem, motivating people to save more. If people could sell >off their future income, I'd be afraid that most people would just view it >as a fancy credit card and spend the new money. People who don't value the future are no more irrational than people who value doing baseball over physics in their spare time. The goal is to help those who do value the future to better diversify their investments. To hold investment constant but improve diversification, trade your wage shares for those of others, or trade them for annuities. >In some ways it seems to me that credit works similarly to the >proposed capital markets Yes these are similar, but funding via equity vs. debt distributes risk differently. Perry writes: >Hal and Robin, you've so disappointed me. Does not anyone here >understand the notion of comparative advantage? > >Here is a clue to solving this whole connundrum for you: imagine that >all the humans who work themselves live in one country, and all the >humans with robots live in another, and imagine the trade patterns >that would arise using the standard logic from Ricardo's proof that >free trade is good because of comparative advantages. Then, of course, >do the gedanken experiment again, this time without the silly >transformation -- the result is, of course, identical. No one is proposing that we prohibit trade between robot and human workers! The issue is what risks there are that one's marginal productivity, and hence one's wages, may drastically decline, even if one retrains in a booming economy. Ricardo certainly doesn't prove marginal productivity of labor can't decline, and in fact worried greatly that the marginal productivity of capital might decline. In my (long) post starting this thread I mentioned several mechanisms by which this might happen. The examples of leather tanners who still do well using centuries old methods are sorta beside the point. Marginal productivity depends on how many other people are doing something. It makes perfect sense for the number of old-style leather tanners to have decreased to the point where they can make a living wage. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ End of V93 #203 **************** &