82 Message 82: From exi@panix.com Sat Jul 24 01:26:20 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA19832; Sat, 24 Jul 93 01:26:17 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 AA18155; Sat, 24 Jul 93 01:26:02 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA06510 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sat, 24 Jul 1993 04:20:54 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 04:20:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199307240820.AA06510@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com (List Processing System) Subject: X-Extropian-Date: July 24, 373 P.N.O. [08:20:44 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: R Sat, 24 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 204 Today's Topics: AI Succeeds!: (was) Domain template submission; extropy.org [1 msgs] Designer babies (was IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT...?) [1 msgs] Enslaved AIs [1 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [4 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [1 msgs] Machine Slavery (Was: Re: Wage Competition ) [1 msgs] Machine Slavery (Was: Re: Wage Competition ) [1 msgs] My Worry, Guns, and Social Security [2 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] Slave Robots [2 msgs] Wage Competition (LONG) [1 msgs] Wage Competition (irrelevant humor) [1 msgs] Administrivia: Approximate Size: 55739 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 18:04:43 -0600 (MDT) From: J. Michael Diehl Subject: My Worry, Guns, and Social Security According to Lefty: > 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. I laughed my ass off at this one! ;^) > Besides, if the ant _voluntarily_ feeds the grasshopper, does this > represent a problem? After all, I voluntarily feed my five-year-old. Unfortunately, much of society refuses to help people whom they do not know. If it weren't for Welfare, we COULD have (more?) people with absolutely no hope for survival. I too, am against State-instituted Welfare, but I wonder what would happen if we abolished it. I think that there are people out there who honestly can not support themselves for one reason or another; they should be guanranteed help of some sort. I also believe there are people on welfare who can and should get off their lazzy asses and get a job. I'm not quite sure that I can support the utter destruction of the Welfare system at this point in time, but I do think we are in desparate need of (MAJOR!) reform. > +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY | | mdiehl@triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available| | mike.diehl@fido.org | | Ask Me! | | (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+ | | +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ | Politically Incorrect!" | +-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+ +----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 18:08:18 -0600 (MDT) From: J. Michael Diehl Subject: My Worry, Guns, and Social Security According to Mark W. McFadden: > 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. > > 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 May have been. ;^) > 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....... ;^) +-----------------------+-----------------------------+---------+ | J. Michael Diehl ;-) | I thought I was wrong once. | PGP KEY | | mdiehl@triton.unm.edu | But, I was mistaken. |available| | mike.diehl@fido.org | | Ask Me! | | (505) 299-2282 +-----------------------------+---------+ | | +------"I'm just looking for the opportunity to be -------------+ | Politically Incorrect!" | +-----If codes are outlawed, only criminals wil have codes.-----+ +----Is Big Brother in your phone? If you don't know, ask me---+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:36:07 -0700 From: davisd@pierce.ee.washington.edu Subject: AI Succeeds!: (was) Domain template submission; extropy.org > From: Harry Shapiro > Subject: Domain template submission; extropy.org (fwd) > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 12:34:33 -0400 (EDT) > > Good news. Yes, it appears so. > a conscious being, Domain Registration Role Account wrote: Eureka! AI has finally succeeded! Consciousness at last! Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:29:54 -0700 From: davisd@pierce.ee.washington.edu Subject: Slave Robots > From: Hans Moravec > > No, no the conditioning system is a program inside the robot. The robot > feels good when its psychology module says its owner is happy. I agree with your proposition that an AI could be based on slave motivation. Begging your pardon if you go through this in your 100K post, but I just wanted to add that this kind of programming would be tricky in the extreme. This robot designed to make you "happy" may decide to knock out a lot of your higher brain functions and keep you a gibbering, but smiling, idiot, feeding you and tending your potty until the end of your days. In general, anyone more concerned with your welfare than his own has a high likelihood of becoming an extreme danger to you. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 17:31:48 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Wage Competition (LONG) Grrrr. Steve, I dislike your writing style, because you heap multiple implicit assumptions into every sentence. At 6:50 PM 7/23/93 -0400, FutureNerd Steve Witham wrote: >> fnerd writes: >> > 2) I don't think a smart AI can be produced with the *desire* to >> > remain a slave to someone. This is the interesting point to me. >And Hans Moravec replies: >> Just as mothers cannot be built that will slavishly provide food, >> shelter and protection for their babbling infants, at detriment >> to their own existence? >If we had four billion years, it would be no problem, I admit. As I said to >Perry, the problem is to accomplish it *during* the "singularity." (Or to >postpone the singularity until it's accomplished, also problematical.) You're postulating that we would need only a few decades to create them from scratch, but then require four billion years to shape their behavior? Explain to me why this isn't silly. We build in their motivational structure from the start, or we don't build them at all. >> The motivational structure of a robot can be quite separate from >> its problem-solving intelligence. >I'm not sure how separate. For instance, if the goal is to make the robot >do what the owner wants, how do you make a system *separate from the >intelligence* figure that out? But see my example next paragraph. Is your libido (one component of your motivational structure) under the control of your problem-solving intelligence? That is, can you, at will, re-orient yourself sexually for rational reasons? This includes not only gender preferences but age, race, species, and activities preferences... for example, can you reprogram yourself to enjoy getting it from a dolphin? Then you are yourself an example of a robot whose motivational structure is separate from his problem-solving intellect. >> If its internal structure has >> a conditioning system like higher animals, then it merely needs >> detectors that generate internal rewards for doing whatever its >> builders want it to like doing, and punishments for taboos. >Yes; the simplest would be a button under control of the owner. No, no, fnerd; read what was written: _detectors_ that generate _internal rewards_. What you want is mechanisms that do _not_ require the owner's active input (but can be guided by it), and that are independent of the robot's control, but that are capable of evaluating the results of the robot's actions and administering reward/punishment accordingly. (Examples: Give the robot a jolt if he monkeys with his own pleasure/pain circuitry. Give the robot a pleasurable jolt every time the master makes another 100,000 thornes.) Presumably we can give such mechanisms access to the content of the robot's thoughts as well; then it can make the robot feel blissful and content when contemplating the master's pleasure, and anxious and distraught when contemplating his displeasure (and, most importantly, agonized and nauseated when the robot contemplates pushing his own buttons!). >My argument against ideas like the pleasure button is that owner-button- >slave becomes a single system, and if slave is the vast majority of the >intelligence in the system, then "owner" becomes a small subsystem. Sure, but the owner is the tail that wags the dog, because 1) although the slave has some input to the owner in the form of its behaviors, it does not directly control reward/punishment of the owner; 2) the slave is not the sole source of input to the owner... the owner can check other sources of information to verify that the slave is carrying out his wishes; 3) what's wrong with being a small subsystem, if you're the subsystem that sets the goals for the entire system? The Board of Directors of a typical big corporation is an infinitesimal fraction of the total bulk of the company, but it is the portion that sets the agenda. >In other words, the smart slave knows better than the owner how to make >the owner press the button, until the slave figures out how to get (the >owner to give it) control of the button. You are assuming the motivation of freedom in order to prove it. The slave would have to _already want to assume control_ in order to carry out such a scheme. How does a robot get to such a state, from an initial state in which the goal is to please the master, not to take control from the master? >Think of it this way: the slave >has control of the things it does for the owner. These please or displease >the owner. The slave is conditioning the owner--less directly but more >intelligently. The slave does not have control over the things he does for the owner. He has a simple binary choice -- he can do what the owner wants, or he can do something else. If he does what the owner wants, he receives his reward (sometimes -- sporadic reinforcement schedules are the most effective). If he does not, he doesn't. If what he does is "wrong" enough, he gets punished. The owner, on the other hand, can choose whether or not to reward or punish the slave at any juncture -- if the slave obeys, the owner does not have to reward; but in order for the owner to reward, the slave must obey. >Also, what are the effects of the contradictory, irrational patterns >of wishes of the owner on this giant slave brain? A sufficiently complex slave brain will develop heuristics for predicting the owner's wishes, including multiple contingency plans and multiple-choice menus of activities and delectations, so that at least one correct option will (the robot hopes) always be available. If the slave is truly superintelligent, he will be able to develop highly elaborate fuzzy models for what is or isn't likely to please the master under a particular set of conditions (time of day or week, weather conditions, master's emotional set, etc.). >> If its structure is strictly rational, then its axioms can be >> structured to the same end. > >I don't believe the idea of a "strictly rational" intelligence makes sense. >Emotions are the aspect of intelligence that figures out what to think about >and what works. I think those issues are central, not peripheral, to making >intelligence work. This paragraph makes me think you have failed to grasp the structure of Hans' argument; he is enumerating the possible cases of motivational structures: first, a conditionable emotional intelligence; second, an axiomatic rational intelligence. For reasons that have to do with Go"del's incompleteness theorem, I too am uninclined to believe that strictly axiomatic systems will ever be useful for much of anything. If they are, they're a trivial case; make the first three axioms Asimov's Laws. > "Reason is, and by rights ought to be, slave to the emotions." > --Bertrand Russell >I would substitute "by necessity has" where he says "by rights ought." > >> The intelligence acts to achieve a-priori goals. You and Hans are saying the same thing here... the robot's thought and action will always follow the dictates of the robot's emotions. You seem to think that the robot, _a priori_, wants to push his own buttons, but there's no reason to think that. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 17:42:58 -0700 From: davisd@pierce.ee.washington.edu Subject: Designer babies (was IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT...?) > 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. Unfortunately, you'll probably have to. Seems that one of the new waves in freedom restriction is coming through picking out people who are doing things for reasons that shock Joe Blow. Don't ban things outright, just ban things done "for the wrong reason". Blech. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 18:45:10 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Well to put in my .02 DigiBucks' worth, I'd agree with Perry that for the most part there is very good evidence of genetic factors at work in homo/bi-sexuality, but I'd also suggest that that is not a complete explanation, and more than being fat is entirely genetic, or any other moldable trait like this. I personally know several people who were straight, became gay or bi, got tired of it, and went back to being straight again, both male and female; most of them are or were theater students, and given that theater is one of the concentration areas for gays and bis, I cannot help but think peer pressure had something to do with it. I'd also suggest that social attitudes and the like (which includes peer pressure) shape our sexuality more than anything else. Do you like large breasts? Do you think this is genetic? Do you like a well muscled man, or a fat man? Do you think that's genetic? As for the parts about whether gays are stylin', or geek slobs, that all strikes me as utterly irrelvant. I know my experiences are anecdotal, but they are common enough to suggest to me that the "ONLY genetics causes homosexuality" idea it bunk. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 21:19:25 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Machine Slavery (Was: Re: Wage Competition ) Rens Troost says: > >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:44:55 -0400 (EDT), Edward J OConnell said: > > ejo> Expect Searles ridiculous Chinese room thought experiment to be > ejo> seen as proving something. > > I agree with most of the attitudes you express (except that I feel > _really ill_ when I use MS word :) but it escapes me how you can write > off the chinese room model as ridiculous. Please expound. I for one write it off. Searle's argument, transposed, seems to be "a simulation of a computation is not the same as the computation", which seems silly. I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary, though. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 19:21:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) -=>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. Again, I'd beg to differ. Your later example doesn't really say much, since you were not trying to be IN this subculture, but were just visiting, at these fashion parties and gay clubs and the like. But those who want IN may feel pressure to "be" gay, and several of the genderbenders I mentioned told me this was the reason they "tried" it, often for many years. One said he did it because "it was cool." If that's not peer pressure I don't know what is. As for the point that gays are still slammed regularly throughout our culture (such as it is), I certainly agree with that. Anyway, it's not a matter of "urges" to be gay, but rather the intense desire to fit in with a particular subset of people. This is yet another of the reasons I detest "joiners". I mean, really. If it turned out that a large percentage of neurosurgeons liked screwing dogs, and did so at parties, and you wanted a career in neurosurgery, would this make you any more likely to give rover the bone as it were? Not I. But I suspect for a certain group of people they'd do it gladly, and really get into it. [That's not to suggest neurosurgeons are bestialists; that was just an ad absurdium example]. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 17:29:42 PDT From: "Mark W. McFadden" Subject: Wage Competition (irrelevant humor) On Fri, 23 Jul 1993 17:31:48 -0700, Dave Krieger wrote: > That is, can you, at will, re-orient yourself sexually for rational >reasons? This includes not only gender preferences but age, race, species, >and activities preferences... >for example, can you reprogram yourself to enjoy getting it from a dolphin? Male or female? Am I pitching or catching? And how warm is the water? Incidentally, there appears to be some good evidence that dolphins can reprogram themselves to enjoy getting it from humans. Which doesn't invalidate your point, maybe dolphins weren't the best example. ______________________________________________________________________ Mark W. McFadden | Been there.....done that. mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com | ___________________________________|__________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 19:34:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) -=>There are two kinds of evidence in the world. Sometimes people claim -=>"maybe most cats are black", and for that you have to go out and do a -=>cat census. There are also the occassions where people say "no cats -=>are black" or "very very few cats are black", and then simply showing -=>a white cat or two is evidence enough. Methinks you got that backwards. If you say "most cats are black", simply bringing me the first few dozen cats you find, and showing me that they are black, should be evidence enough. If you say "no/few cats are black", then you have to provide much larger numbers of cats to demonstrate this. Showing 1 or 2 white cats in this case would lend credence to nothing. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 21:46:39 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Enslaved AIs FutureNerd Steve Witham says: > So, copying and culling AIs sounds like a very powerful and monstrous > technique, but I'm not sure it's enough to do the trick fast enough. Well, if there is any way to do it, I don't put it past humans or our successors to find it. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 21:53:04 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Slave Robots I feel Hans has made a mistake (or he didn't elaborate enough) in the first quarter of Chapter 4 where he describes how robots will eliminate scarcity transforming the earth into a garden of eden with modern conveinences. It may very well be possible (and I wouldn't argue with it if it occured), but I don't think it will happen. Robots will not be able to drive the cost of products to near zero because there is a minimum amount of labor/time needed to get the material resources extracted and prepared, plus a minimum amount of time for manufacturing. With robots introducing new products and designs onto the market unimaginably faster than today's high tech human corporations, I doubt robots could keep up with new demand. Thus, scarcity would arrive and humans would drive the price up. Humans would have to continually raise taxes or robots would have to start rationing. Either way, sooner or later people would have to wait in line for the next robot product to come off the assembly line. Maybe people will be content to get free products if they have to wait 1-2 months, but I believe the future will get faster, not slower. People will want things on demand. The whole thing might work better if each of the 5 billion humans on Earth were given a personal manufacturing robot to make anything they desire. New designs could be selected by "downloading" them from consumer nets. There is still the material resource allocation problem which may only be solved by nanotechnology. (I get the picture that your robots still work with bulk matter like industrial robots do.) -Ray -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 21:57:35 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Stanton McCandlish says: > -=>There are two kinds of evidence in the world. Sometimes people claim > -=>"maybe most cats are black", and for that you have to go out and do a > -=>cat census. There are also the occassions where people say "no cats > -=>are black" or "very very few cats are black", and then simply showing > -=>a white cat or two is evidence enough. > > Methinks you got that backwards. If you say "most cats are black", simply > bringing me the first few dozen cats you find, and showing me that they are > black, should be evidence enough. If you say "no/few cats are black", > then you have to provide much larger numbers of cats to demonstrate this. > Showing 1 or 2 white cats in this case would lend credence to nothing. I just reversed black and white -- I meant that if you claim "all cats are black" showing one white one is enough. .pm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 21:38:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Machine Slavery (Was: Re: Wage Competition ) Quoth Perry E. Metzger, verily I say unto thee: -=>> I agree with most of the attitudes you express (except that I feel -=>> _really ill_ when I use MS word :) but it escapes me how you can write -=>> off the chinese room model as ridiculous. Please expound. -=> -=>I for one write it off. Searle's argument, transposed, seems to be "a -=>simulation of a computation is not the same as the computation", which -=>seems silly. I'm willing to entertain arguments to the contrary, though. I haven't seen the original, but if this characterization is correct, I don't see how that's silly. Ex: I draw a series of pictures of my computer doing stuff (which requires computations), in Windows PaintBrush, then combine these into an .AVI animation file, and play it with the new Media Player. I've just simultated computation, but I see a pretty big difference between what the simulated computer in the animation is 'doing' (or more accurately NOT doing), and what my real computer is doing in the process of displaying this little anim file. The .AVI is useless, except as entertainment, but the real computer can do much useful work (like making useless .AVI files ). Or must the simulation somehow be a "special" simulation, for it to apply to Searle's argument? -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 23:59:58 EDT From: The Hawthorne Exchange Subject: Nightly Market Report The Hawthorne Exchange - HEx Nightly Market Report For more information on HEx, send email to HEx@sea.east.sun.com with the Subject info. --------------------------------------------------------------- News Summary as of: Fri Jul 23 23:59:01 EDT 1993 The owner of record for a reputation is now listed with the DESCRIBE command. MULTI-mode is your friend! If you have more than one command to send to the Exchange, use the MULTI command. You'll get faster response, my machine will spin less, and everryone will be happier. Newly Registered Reputations: TCMAY Timothy C. May LEARY Timothy Leary VINGE Vernor Vinge NEWTON Sir Isaac Newton AI Artificial Intelligence 80 Lifespan == 80 90 Lifespan == 90 110 Lifespan == 110 150 Lifespan == 150 200 Lifespan == 200 1000 Lifespan == 1000 LP Libertarian Party OCEAN Oceania Project ALTINST AltInst mailing list CYPHP Cypherpunks Movement SSI Space Studies Institute PLANET Planetary Society NSS National Space Society BIOPR Biopreservation MED21 21st Century Medicine HEINLN Robert A. Heinlein New Share Issues: Symbol Shares Issued TCMAY 10000 LEARY 10000 VINGE 10000 NEWTON 10000 AI 10000 80 10000 90 10000 110 10000 150 10000 200 10000 1000 10000 LP 10000 OCEAN 10000 MED21 10000 ALTINST 10000 CYPHP 10000 NSS 10000 SSI 10000 PLANET 10000 BIOPR 10000 CHAITN 10000 HEINLN 10000 Share Splits: (None) --------------------------------------------------------------- Market Summary as of: Fri Jul 23 23:59:02 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 - .10 - 10000 - - 110 - .10 - 10000 - - 150 - .10 - 10000 - - 200 - .10 - 10000 - - 80 - .10 - 10000 - - 90 - .10 - 10000 - - ACS - .50 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI - .20 - 10000 - - ALCOR 2.00 2.00 2.00 10000 2931 5862.00 ALTINST - .15 - 10000 - - ANTO - - - - - - BIOPR - .10 - 10000 - - BLAIR 5.00 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CHAITN - .05 - 10000 - - CYPHP .15 .20 - 10000 - - DEREK - 1.00 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR - 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 DVDT .25 .90 1.25 10000 3490 4362.50 E .40 .70 .75 10000 5487 4115.25 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.25 2.50 2.50 10000 3000 7500.00 FCP 11.50 - 11.50 10000 540 6210.00 GHG .30 .50 .54 10000 1755 947.70 GOBEL .30 .90 1.00 10000 767 767.00 H 2.00 3.80 2.10 10000 6250 13125.00 HEINLN .30 .90 - 10000 - - HEX 100.00 125.00 100.00 10000 3218 321800.00 HFINN 2.00 10.00 10.00 10000 1005 10050.00 IMMFR .50 .80 .80 10000 501 400.80 JFREE .10 .20 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JPP .25 .40 .50 10000 5010 2505.00 LEARY - .20 - 10000 - - LEF .25 .30 .30 10000 1526 457.80 LEFTY .15 .30 .30 10000 1951 585.30 LIST .30 .50 .50 10000 5000 2500.00 LP - .25 - 10000 - - LSOFT .52 .58 .60 10000 5050 3030.00 LURKR - 3.00 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 - .12 - 10000 - - MLINK - .02 .02 1000000 2602 52.04 MORE 1.50 3.00 1.50 10000 3000 4500.00 MWM .15 1.50 1.50 10000 1260 1890.00 N 20.00 25.00 25.00 10000 98 2450.00 NEWTON - .20 - 10000 - - NSS - .10 - 10000 - - OCEAN - .10 - 10000 - - P 20.00 25.00 25.00 1000000 66 1650.00 PETER 1.00 - 1.00 10000000 600 600.00 PLANET - .05 - 10000 - - PRICE - 4.00 2.00 10000000 1410 2820.00 R .49 .90 .50 10000 5100 2550.00 RJC .20 - .50 10000 3100 1550.00 ROMA - - - - - - SGP - - - - - - SHAWN - - - - - - SSI - .10 - 10000 - - TCMAY .75 1.50 .75 10000 2000 1500.00 TIM 1.00 - - 10000 - - TRADE 8.00 9.00 - 1000000 - - TRANS - .10 .40 10000 1511 604.40 VINGE - .20 - 10000 - - WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 420218.79 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 20:51:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) -=>What I _really_ want to get at is, if my thesis is correct, what does that -=>mean in an extropian society? If the gene is only a prerequisite (or simply -=>a strong prerequisite), than would there be homosexuals in an extropian -=>society? If it implies that homosexuals are not _necessarily_ homosexual, -=>but that they are naturally heterosexual, does that mean this condition -=>could possibly complicate their lives (anytime you act in complete -=>discordance with your fundamental nature would seem to potentially -=>precipitate other problems) and therefore restrict them from being as much -=>as they would hope to be? Well, _actually_, that sounds a little too far -=>fetched to me, so I'd probably be inclined to agree that at least _some_ -=>homosexuals may be so by nature, for one reason or another (genetics, -=>divine influence (!?), physical disorder (?!)) (just groping for alternatives -=>here - however strange). That's a pretty non-Extropian viewpoint. What do you think "self-transformation" is? It generally involves quite a lot of "discordance with your fundamental nature", as I see it. Still, as this whole passage is quite vague, it is difficult to know what you mean. But by ANY definition, the Extropian dream of "uploading" would seem to be against anyone's "fundamental" nature as a doomed biological organism. I am not trying to be "EC" here, but rather pointing out that your characterization of the motives behind Extropianism whether you or I or anyone else likes them, hates them or is neutral, is incorrect. As Romana implied, there is likely to be MORE genderbending going on among Extropians than among the general populace, and I've seen some evidence to suggest it holds true on this list, which is preceeding the potential Extropian society you Nostradamusize upon, by quite a large span; given that, I'd expect it to increase, not cause problems due to some nebulous "fundamental nature". As evidence, I'd point the skeptical to messages over the last 6 months in which the poster mentions they have had sex with MOSS. No one really commented upon this, the statements were matter of fact, and did not have the tone of "confessions". In other words it was 'as if' bi- and homosexuality are considered a non-issue on this list, which is likely representative of Extropia-at-large. I say "'as if'" because I believe this to be the case in fact, no "iffing" necessary. I just had a long debate in the IN!DEBATE conference of IndraNet on just this matter of whether bi/homosexuality is "natural". There's a great deal of evidence from anthropology, sociology, psychology, and zoology, to suggest that one's "fundamental nature" is bisexual to start with, and that pure homosexuality, and pure heterosexuality, are entirely "artificial", being engineered by large societal structures like "The Church", etc., and negative reaction to same. Indeed, I find the whole idea of a "gay gene" rather silly; more likely a gene that makes one less likely to be socialized into being heterosexual, for whatever reason. Since bisexuals are fully accepted by neither "side", and heterosexuals tend to lump both gays and bis into one (detested) group, it is not surprising that people with this gene "turn gay". I'd like to see a study of a "naturally bisexual" culture (any of several in Africa) and see what this gene does there. If I may borrow the Nostradamus hat, I'd bet that you'd not find such people to be any more homosexual than bisexual, though perhaps more strongly bisexual and more resistant to attempts to force them into hetero behaviour patterns. "Divine influence" I won't even comment on. -=>My predictions: -=> -=>Case 1: homosexuality is genetic: an extropian society would probably allow -=> for the free expansion of this lifestyle. Homosexuals would find more -=> acceptance, and therefore be more free to being competitive and basically -=> extropian. The gene thing might even help them find homosexuals sooner and -=> make sure that true homosexuals don't get bludgeoned into being heterosexual. What makes you say this? I think you know little of Extropian ideas (not saying I'm an expert by any means). Stupidity is also often genetic. You don't see us whining for a "Dumbass Rights Movement". I see very little "respect" for phenotypes here. Indeed, I see direct challenges to genetic effects. And I for one would gladly engineer myself a new body, and engineer my progeny to be as perfect as possible. Fundamental nature my ass. I doubt many people in this Extropian World of yours would care one way or anyother if someone was gay or otherwise, since it has no relevance outside the bedroom. In cases where it DOES (e.g. someone acting queeny in a business environment), as Perry points out this has little if anything to do with the fact of sexual orientation. Such behaviour would be a personal problem having more to do with subcultural identity and the like, and perfectly ripe for "discrimination", just as one is not barred from "discriminating" against people who show up to a job interview in a dirty teeshirt with "Fuck you" printed on it. -=>Case 2: Most homosexuality is genetic, but a certain amount is not. I think -=> in this case homosexuals will still survive in an extropian society, there -=> just wouldn't be quite as many. I think you've got it backwards. -=>Case 3: Mostly environmental, but some genetic: Here I think you have a -=> chance of homosexual behavior becoming extinct, due to natural selection -=> (or competition, or whatever you what to call it, since I'm no proponent -=> of the original "Natural Selection" theory as applied to modern man). This is the most likely theory of "why people are gay" if you ask me. As for your analysis, again I think you have it backward. I'd say it's more likely for Extropians (and do remember you are talking about an "Extropian society" which I assume means "society composed largely or entirely of Extropians") to judge people by what they DO. I've met few groups more capable of ferretting out the subjective and prejudicial/expectation-based BS in their own heads. And natural selection would select out the genetic homosexuals just a readily as the environmental homos. I'd suggest that the envirohomos may even have an edge, since it isn't hard wired in them (presuming this interpretation IS correct, and not all gays are that way genetically), and they'd be more likely to adapt if necessary to conditions which would force (at least seeming) heterosexuality, should such re-arise. -=>Case 4: no such thing as genetically predispotioned homosexual tendency: -=> the outcome here is obvious. In an extropian society in this case, there -=> would be no homosexuals. I'd say just the oposite, even from your side of the fence. You seem to think Extropians would find homosexuality "bad" unless it could be proved "the poor fags can't help it." I dare say, Extropians in such a scenario would just attempt to breed the trait out by genetic manipulation, since that is a tractable problem. Forcing beliefs on people is generally not an Extropian practice (though the "love it or leave it" paradigm certainly holds strong sway.) BUT, since I doubt Extropians would be anti-gay anyway, the outcome is indeed obvious: homosexuals would be tolerated just fine, just like Extropians are unlikely to persecute those with fetishes for Motzart playing in the background during sex, a fondness for redheads, or whatever. It's simply irrelvant to anything but that particular person's private life. If such a person tries to make it otherwise, this is a personal problem of an entirely different nature, and doesn't have jack to do with sexual practices. -=>Personally, I'm betting Case 3 is more accurate. At least we agree on something. >:) -=>any of the above scenarios. Of course, Cases 3 and 4 assume that existing -=>homosexuals do not achieve immortality via scientific means. If we find the -=>means to biological or self-immortality before society is largely extropian -=>in nature, we'll always have homosexuals one way or another. Again, considering the evidence of "natural" bisexuality, you'd have guys boffing guys and women screwing women regardless. Another fallacy: what makes you think that "immortality" would keep gays safe if someone DID decide they should be swept away? I have yet to see any even remotely realistic immortality scenarios that preclude the possibility of killing someone if you try hard enough. Uploaded? Erase them. All-but-invincible body? Nuke them. Etc. If Extropians somehow got corrupted and turned Hitlerian, and decided Gays Must DIE!, I assure you they'd DIE! for better or worse. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ End of V93 #204 **************** &