From extropians-request@extropy.org Fri Sep 3 10:50:35 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA09295; Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:50:33 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed (ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA02334; Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:50:19 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA12096; Fri, 3 Sep 93 13:44:46 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA12091; Fri, 3 Sep 93 13:44:13 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA21978 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Fri, 3 Sep 1993 13:44:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 13:44:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199309031744.AA21978@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 3, 373 P.N.O. [17:43:44 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: O Extropians Digest Fri, 3 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 245 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] )-: "Dilbert" cartoonist insufficiently Extropian [1 msgs] Admin/Meta: All Recent Requests [1 msgs] Eco-centrism vs. ego-centrism [1 msgs] Green Goo [3 msgs] HEx: Market valuation exceeds 500,000 Thornes! [2 msgs] Human Population [3 msgs] Human Population [1 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] PHIL: Galt Strike (was: Re: Extropaganza: goodwill) [1 msgs] WAR/NANO/LAW -- oops! [1 msgs] WAR/NANO/LAW, "nanarchy" [1 msgs] WAR/NANO/LAW: Against Nanarchy [1 msgs] phys: gravitational anti-energy [1 msgs] unsubscribe [2 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 54348 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 00:10:03 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 Sep 3 00:10:03 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) Market Summary as of: Fri Sep 3 00:00:03 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .20 .40 .20 10000 4000 800.00 110 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 175.00 150 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 175.00 1E6 - .05 .02 10000 25 .50 1E9 .01 .05 - 10000 - - 200 .10 .20 .20 10000 4075 815.00 80 .01 - - 10000 - - 90 .01 - .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS - .10 .05 10000 2724 136.20 AI .01 .50 .30 10000 1000 300.00 ALCOR 1.50 2.25 10.00 10000 3174.50 31745.00 ALTINST - .25 .05 10000 4000 200.00 ANTON .27 .28 .27 10000 367 99.09 ARKU .27 .28 .27 10000 5001 1350.27 BIOPR .01 .10 .05 10000 3000 150.00 BLAIR 1.25 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CYPHP - .08 .05 10000 1700 85.00 DC1000 - .10 - 10000 - - DC200 - .15 .10 10000 1500 150.00 DC7000 - .10 - 10000 - - DCFLOP - .10 - 10000 - - DEREK - .49 .49 100000 8220 4027.80 DRXLR .65 .85 .75 10000 4256 3192.00 DVDT 1.40 1.55 1.55 10000 9900 15345.00 E .58 .75 .75 10000 6787 5090.25 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.54 3.20 3.00 10000 3025 9075.00 FAB - - - - - - FCP - 1.60 1.50 80000 15845 23767.50 GHG .02 .60 .60 10000 7180 4308.00 GOBEL .01 1.50 1.00 10000 767 767.00 GOD - .10 .10 10000 3000 300.00 H .76 .76 .76 30000 19290 14660.40 HAM .10 .50 .50 20000 15460 7730.00 HEINLN .01 .25 .05 10000 3100 155.00 HEX 100.00 101.00 100.00 10000 3413 341300.00 HFINN 1.50 6.00 6.00 10000 1005 6030.00 IMMFR .25 .70 .80 10000 1838 1470.40 JFREE .02 1.00 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JOHN - - - - - - JPP .40 .57 .30 10000 3500 1050.00 KARL .50 1.00 1.00 10000 500 500.00 LEARY .20 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 LEF .35 .50 .05 10000 3026 151.30 LEFTY .01 .45 .45 10000 3551 1597.95 LIST .40 10.00 .75 10000 5000 3750.00 LP - .30 .15 10000 4625 693.75 LSOFT .59 1.00 1.00 10000 9150 9150.00 LURKR - .01 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 .01 .19 .02 10000 3400 68.00 MLINK - .01 .01 1000000 52602 526.02 MMORE .10 1.25 .10 10000 3000 300.00 MORE .75 1.25 1.25 10000 3160 3950.00 MWM .15 1.50 1.50 10000 1260 1890.00 N 20.00 25.00 25.00 10000 148 3700.00 NEWTON - .20 - 10000 - - NSS - .03 .01 10000 25 .25 OCEAN - .12 .10 10000 3100 310.00 P 22.50 25.00 25.00 1000000 94 2350.00 PETER - .01 1.00 10000000 600 600.00 PLANET .01 .02 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .30 .65 .30 10000 1400 420.00 PRICE - 4.00 2.00 10000000 1410 2820.00 R .25 .70 .60 10000 6000 3600.00 RAND .05 .06 .05 10000 1500 75.00 RJC 1.00 999.00 .60 10000 5100 3060.00 ROMA - - - - - - RWHIT - - - - - - SAMEER .61 .60 .45 10000 9810 4414.50 SGP - - - 10000 - - SHAWN .01 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI .22 .29 .22 10000 4700 1034.00 TCMAY .75 1.50 .82 10000 5000 4100.00 TIM .50 2.00 .20 10000 1700 340.00 TRANS .01 .60 .02 10000 3011 60.22 VINGE .75 1.00 .50 10000 2000 1000.00 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 527945.40 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 21:38:22 -0800 From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Subject: )-: "Dilbert" cartoonist insufficiently Extropian This is the cartoonist I mentioned: >Return-Path: >Received: from mser.hp.aol.net by mail.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id >AA18573; Thu, 2 Sep 93 21:08:05 -0700 >Received: by aol.com (16.8/16.2) id AA18269; Fri, 3 Sep 93 00:02:11 -0400 >From: scottadams@aol.com >X-Mailer: America Online Mailer >Sender: >Errors-To: >Reply-To: >Message-Id: <9309030002.tn44660@aol.com> >To: dkrieger@netcom.com >Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 00:02:09 EDT >Subject: Extropian > >Well, that Extropian stuff is pretty strange. But thanks. > >Scott Adams > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 00:44:40 -0400 (EDT) From: DavePowell Subject: unsubscribe please unsubscribe me from the list. Thanks. Dave Powell Ice Nine Publications dave9@telerama.pgh.pa.us ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 05:48:17 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: phys: gravitational anti-energy Mark Grant says: > D. Anton Sherwood wrote on August 7: >> Between two masses there is negative gravitational potential energy >> (-Gmm/d). > > If it was anywhere, it would be spread across the entire system, although concentrated near and between the two masses, varying with the gravitational field density. > and in any case would be very small compared to the mass of the > objects in the system. Not always. A black hole has radius 2Gm/c^2. Substitute that into Anton's Newtonian PE formula and we get a GPE of -mc^2 /2 - ie the field energy (AKA potential energy) is starting to (significantly) cancel out the mass-energy. That's why an object falling into a black hole can radiate a significant proportion of it's mass-energy away in gravitational and other radiation. Remember, commonly received wisdom says that the universe is on the verge of forming a black hole, so this gravitational balancing could be very significant at the universal level. (This fits well with an increasingly popular view that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero - which implies the existence of negative energy.) > D. Anton Sherwood wrote: >>... and goes on to imply that kinetic energy isn't real, either, >> which was news to me. Are potential and kinetic energy just a >> fiction that physicists use to keep the books square? Energy is a bit of a book-keeping device in non-gravitational physics. The zero-point can be chosen for the convenience of the situation under analysis since the dynamics is a function of energy _differences_ and not absolute energy values. When gravity is included the freedom to choose a zero point is more restricted since energy gravitates (yes it does!) and hence contributes to the dynamics. That is to say a Schelling zero point emerges that is more natural (ie simple) to adopt than others. > Mark Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:46:06 PDT From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: WAR/NANO/LAW: Against Nanarchy Mark Grant: > [programmed AI vs. acting on its own] > This kind of programming > would be easy for an algorithmic organism, but also easily spotted, I'm not so sure about this. The programmer can use encryption and self-destruction ("digital flash paper") to hide the algorithm. The AI might in other ways pass a "free choice Turing test" but still have this assasin module built in. There's also the whole question of *intent*: did the AI intend to kill the victim, or was it accidental, in which case (a) could the AI have been reasonably expected to be programmed to avoid the situation, or (b) could the AI have been reasonably expected to make the free choice to avoid the situation. > *joint* responsibility, and/or compulsory termination of the AI ? This might be a good idea. Pets or wild animals that kill people are typically destroyed, and their owners sometimes found negligent. Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 22:55:57 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Human Population Jay writes: > It seems to me that the key to the difference of opinion that we seem > to have elicited here is how you define the condition of Earth being > "overpopulated" (by non-uploaded _Homo_sapiens_ -- I have no objection > to uploading or exodus). Would anyone care to address the issue of said > definition? If it weren't bed-time, I'd be able to discuss this mathematically, but basically, I don't feel the issue needs to be addressed at all. First, in order to enforce population control, you have to use initiatory force. If we at least assume an extropian world (hmmm, should I?), then this is not likely. Next, even given the inevitable expansion into space, I cannot imagine any scenario where the population on Earth would not still increase. So, whether any one person likes it or not, the population will continue to rise. What does this mean? I think nothing. I strongly feel (and this is where anyone can jump in and provide an inverse square formula or some such thing, something I think we can all visualize regardless) that as resources become more scarce, the efficiency with which we utilize those resources will increase proportionately. Why? Because otherwise, extropians (non-uploaded) might have to either lower their standard of living, or die. And, I think that, along the way, we will therefore work, successfully, at ensuring this is not necessary. Simply put, we will adapt. It is somewhat pointless to go into details, because we all know about nanotechnology, virtually inexhaustible energy sources (a number of which seem to be feasible in the future), and so on. So, we'll _appear_ to keep approaching zero resources, but I don't think it will every happen. We'll just get more efficient. So, what if the world _isn't_ all-extropian? Well, then I guess Darwin comes back into the picture and simply speeds the process along by making survival a bit more difficult for those who do not adapt. I assume extropians are likely to be most apt to be best at adapting to diminishing resources. What might Earth be like someday, with all these people, then? I kind of envision something like Asimov's Trantor, except that I believe Earthlings will remain self-sufficient. And, of course, the assumption here is that non-uploaded humans can still survive in a society mixed with uploaders. If not, then a complete transition of the human race to an uploaded existence would change everything. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 23:15:10 -0700 From: drexler@netcom.com (K. Eric Drexler) Subject: WAR/NANO/LAW, "nanarchy" Some comments regarding Robin Hanson's recent message regarding "nanarchy": On terminology: "nanarchy" is a cute but misleading term. I didn't originate it and haven't been using it, so please don't blame it on me. An idea that I think worth exploring is the use of automated systems to provide a stable framework for security (in a military sense and perhaps a police sense). In the absence of some idea of how a future political system could legitimately decide to violate certain basic principles, one might attempt to build those principles into the system and then throw away the key. These ideas are touched on, rather gingerly, in Engines of Creation. Some specific responses to Robin's comments: >Post-enforcement is not "trashed" by AIs and upload copies. One viable >alternative is to (except for human biological children), always hold >"parents" always retains responsibility for the "children"; if parents >can't be found then siblings take their place. Parents might sell this >obligation to an insurance company, but if that company goes bust, they are >responsible. Under these conditions, I do not understand how we can expect post-enforcement to work, in the absence of additional (universal?) rules. With distributed computational systems linked by encrypted communications, for example, how does one trace parent and sibling relationships? What does it mean to punish a piece of software? >The risk that any anarchy we might create now could evolve into something >else, and then evolve again, must be weighed against the risk that any >"permanent" solution may turn out to be terribly wrong. Unless the >permananent solution is clearly better than the "average" expected future >political regimes, risk averse folks should prefer the mixture. If we are in a biological (predation-based) rather than a market (trade-based) ecology, major evolutionary steps are likely to kill us. A risk-averse person might prefer enforcement of conditions that stabilize a market ecology, for example, suppressing the transfer of resources by forcible seizure. "Permanent solution", by the way, is a curious choice of phrase: this was a Nazi euphemism for the genocidal policies of the Holocaust. Similar monstrous violations of human rights are more likely to be part of Robin's "mixture" than to be part of a world with stable, automated security arrangements. If a security system works, and is vastly less intrusive than modern governments while taking over some portion of their function, just what terribly-wrong outcome should we fear? >If we are considering whether to offer our political support to some >growing "movement" in favor of nanarchy, we must consider the possibility >that this movement will get out of hand, implementing something that looks >to most people like nanarchy, but not to us. If technological means emerge for projecting military and police power with highly automated systems, then it is likely that they will be used in some manner. It seems prudent to formulate a picture of how they might be used beneficially, or at least less destructively than when military and police power has been subject to discretionary political control. >If this nanarchy must be designed and implemented, and a global political >consensus formed in its favor, all before the first wave of intersellar >colonization, there is likely not enough time left. My expectation is that some political entity will (for a time) be able to dominate the world, and will be terrified of the consequences of not doing so, because of the risks associated with an arms race arising in a more symmetrical situation. If this happens, then it would be desirable to have a clear understanding of how this power could be relinquished without turning it over to potential enemies. >If technology continues to improve, it's not clear how a nanarchy built on >old technology could prevent more advanced attempts at "coercion". If >technological improvement must "run out" before nanarchy, then this seems >unlikely before the first intersellar colonization. If machine intelligence systems can perform a million years of R&D per calendar year (and it seems they can), then it may well be that a good understanding of the limits of military technology can be developed rather quickly. >Now let's get to the central point. Mark clearly thinks that colonization >of the universe naturally leads to a single military power.... We will seemingly face a time when multiple technological capabilities will expand by orders of magnitude, quite rapidly, and in a world closely coupled by transportation systems. Why did tiny Britain rule so much of the Earth in the late 1800s? Largely because it had ships and was first out the starting gate in the Industrial Revolution -- a relatively slow and small transition in technology. To understand what may be ahead, imagine a history in which the Industrial Revolution had faster payoffs: in which Britain had built aircraft carriers and a substantial nuclear arsenal (and so forth) before other nations managed to build a steam locomotive. Dominance by a single power (or coalition) during the next revolution is not certain, but would be unsurprising. >If at least one of the largest expanding powers were "open", allowing us >all to buy shares in it, or to immigrate into it, then there is little risk >that the universe will be shut off from us. Yes indeed: if the dice fall the right way, there is (then) little risk. >I encourage one or both of them to >now submit their ideas, in detail, for critical scrutiny by a larger >community. Actually, the ideas are insufficiently detailed, at present, to be submitted in detail to anyone. I've spent much of the last ten years trying to explain simple molecular machines, to provide a basis for understanding just how large the coming jump in technology will be. I sympathize with the view that large jumps should be discounted based on historical experience and the prevalence of false alarms ("Boys have cried wolf."), but I am persuaded that, this time, we face one. I would encourage Robin to present ideas for addressing issues of short-term and long-term military stability during and after a rather abrupt transition to a world with molecular manufacturing and machine intelligence, without begging the question by assuming that the effects of this transition will necessarily be small or gradual. To restate a basic motivating problem: It is plausible that a political entity or coalition will achieve unilateral military dominance based on a technology so different from today's that past military experience provides no basis for predicting the stability of a multilateral competition. With this (absolutely corrupting) power in hand, how can that political entity or coalition relinquish its power safely? Who could it trust? To state a motivating question: Assume that one favors constitutions and law over dicta and force. Assume that we will find ourselves in a world containing entities far more stable and predictable than human beings and able to think orders of magnitude faster. If constitutional and legal systems are, ideally, impersonal systems of rules and enforcement mechanisms, should one insist that they forever be structured so as to depend on the decisions (or whims) of persons? If so, why? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 23:42:13 -0700 From: drexler@netcom.com (K. Eric Drexler) Subject: WAR/NANO/LAW -- oops! >"Permanent solution"....was a Nazi euphemism for the genocidal policies... Oops! I confused "permanent" with "final". The point is good, but the verbal linker is bogus. My apologies. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 03:01:17 -0400 (EDT) From: DavePowell Subject: unsubscribe Please unsubscribe me from the list. Thanks. Dave Powell Ice Nine Publications dave9@telerama.pgh.pa.us ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 07:12:38 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: Human Population To: Extropians@extropy.org F >the population is too high when people are dying off due to lack of F >some key resource, despite our various efforts to procreate and keep F >ourselves alive. We could then enter a thick can of worms in trying to F >establish how close to that condition we are, how likely we might be to F >be in that condition in the forseeable future. We don't seem to be too close with resource prices at historic lows and still heading down. I'd wait until prices trended up before worrying. Duncan Frissell View of the uneducated -- "The US doesn't make anything that anyone wants to buy anymore." The truth -- "In 1991, the US exported more goods than any nation had ever exported before in the history of the world." --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 07:12:37 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: Human Population To: Extropians@extropy.org F >I suspect that a rich, diverse and viable human culture could F >obtain with no more than a few million people alive. We could reach F >such levels without too much fuss in a few centuries if we could obtain F >a reproductive rate of 0.5 children per adult rather than the 1+ which F >is more typical now. But since wealth (in humans) increases with larger (free) populations, a larger population of humans (and/or AIs) would be richer. Humans differ from other animal populations in that they "cheat" and work around their limitations thus locally overcoming enthropy (hence the name of this list). Duncan Frissell ************************************************************************* ATMs, Contracting Out, Digital Switching, Downsizing, EDI, Fax, Fedex, Home Workers, Internet, Just In Time, Leasing, Mail Receiving, Phone Cards, Quants, Securitization, Temping, Voice Mail. - Not as sexy as Tim May's signature line but just as important. --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 08:47:50 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: HEx: Market valuation exceeds 500,000 Thornes! You may have noticed that the last line of the market report is "Total Market Value". It has been steadily increasing since mid-July, and has just passed the 500,000 Thorne mark. The money supply held by investors other than the Exchange itself is currently 285,101. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 09:09:31 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: HEx: Market valuation exceeds 500,000 Thornes! > The money supply held by investors other than the Exchange itself > is currently 285,101. One hundred and one?? Sorry, that was a typo. That should be one hundred. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 09:37:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Admin/Meta: All Recent Requests As I indicated last week I would be away and not processing list admin stuff. I am now back and will spend the bulk of the afternoon catching up. Note, all requests can take up to 5 business days. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 09:48:36 -0400 From: jd21@prism.gatech.edu (Jim Demmers) Subject: Green Goo Subject: re: Green Goo > Our "claim" on the biosphere is nothing more than our ability to take >advantage of it. Why humans must be held to a higher standard I do not >know. The beaver does not consider the consequences of the dam he builds >anymore than the wolf cares about lamb population. > >-- Ray Cromwell Ah...but is the beaver sentient, and is he aware of the greater environment that surrounds him as we are. I think THAT awareness, coupled with the act of taking responsibility for one's own actions, is key in determining the standard by which our actions should be measured. I make no "claim" to the biosphere other than my right to inhabit the space in which I find myself at any given moment. If I find that I must intrude into the space of another, I make a reasonable attempt at accomodation (reasonable being a relative term). Being at the top of the food chain, it behooves us to pay attention to the ripple effect our actions have on the lower echelons. - jim |========================================================================| | | | Jim Demmers Public Domain, Inc. INET: jdemmers@.pd.org | | P.O. Box 8899 jim.demmers@oit.gatech.edu | | Atlanta, GA 30306-0899 pdomain@emory.edu | | Phone: 404-612-7529 FAX: 404-894-9135 | | | |========================================================================| ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 10:50:01 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@east.sun.com (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: Eco-centrism vs. ego-centrism > Ah...but is the beaver sentient, and is he aware of the greater environment > that surrounds him as we are. I think THAT awareness, coupled with the act > of taking responsibility for one's own actions, is key in determining the > standard by which our actions should be measured. Why? > I make no "claim" to > the biosphere other than my right to inhabit the space in which I find > myself at any given moment. I make a much bigger claim than you. I claim the sole use of that portion of the biosphere that is delineated by the property lines around my house. I allow some creatures use of this space (in particular, pollinating bees, amusing and attractive birds, and certain insects). I deny others such use and kill them for trespass (including the squirrels and mice that my cat likes to stalk and kill, the slugs and other garden-eating things that I crush beneath my heel, and various biting insects that I squash with dismaying regularity). In addition, whether I am there or not, none of these beasts may enter my dwelling. I also claim, through intermediaries, the use of vast areas of the planet, to grow my food, provide me with clothing, and various other raw materials that are transformed into the necessities and luxuries of my life. > If I find that I must intrude into the space of > another, I make a reasonable attempt at accomodation (reasonable being a > relative term). Does "another" refer to another human, or another living thing? I assume you mean the former. If not, what of all the bugs, grass and such that you step on daily? (As the Jains say, "All life is suffering"). > Being at the top of the food chain, it behooves us to pay > attention to the ripple effect our actions have on the lower echelons. Well, I certainly find that such attention is quite profitable, in that it improves my quality of life, I am only concerned with how such ripple effects may come back to me and mine. What else could I be concerned with? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 11:36:37 EDT From: eisrael@suneast.east.sun.com (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: Green Goo Andy Wilson writes: > On the one hand, many environmentally conscious people do not feel that > the human race has more of a claim to the biosphere than any other species, > and I tend toward this view myself. > > On the other hand, the human "population explosion" is seen as the worst > nightmare imaginable. But I don't see what makes humans special in this > regard. Starvation is the what all species are faced with when they are > overpopulated. Moreover, human overpopulation is a myth. The history of capitalism is doing ever more with ever less (which is one of the reasons that countries whose economies rely primarily on raw materials rather than finished goods or information are doing ever worse). The basic premise behind overpopulation -- that resources can get "used up" -- is flatly untrue of humans who discover and create new resources every day. Resource creation, distribution, and allocation are not zero-sum as the "overpopulation" statement implies. The whole notion of overpopulation is entropian. I doubt whether even a four-fold increase in the human population would seriously tax the biosphere or the global economy. Rather the opposite, in fact. The added labour available should dramatically increase the wealth of the planet. > The cause of famine as it exists in the world today is the inefficiency > of the world economy in getting the food which does exist to the people > who need to eat it. This is a result of a combination of beaurocratic > ineptitude and actual and threatened violence on the part of nations > and political factions. Widespread hunger has virtually always been caused by war and tyranny, and the situation is little changed today. The hunger in Africa, that perennial political basket-case, certainly falls into this category. I think Nick Szabo's raised an important issue that ought to be considered carefully. Rising technological levels can be counted on to put ever more powerful weapons into the hands of lunatics like the Gaia Liberation Front. It's too easy to think of the future as a gentle, happy place where danger and disaster have been banished. It's good to remember that though we can conquer many things, human nature is certainly not one of them and evil people won't give up and go home when we finally invent mature nanotech or fully realize the promise of virtual reality. That's the "end-game" fallacy. As in "I do this, and the game is over." The game is never over. Elias Israel eisrael@east.sun.com HEx: E ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 08:41:42 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: PHIL: Galt Strike (was: Re: Extropaganza: goodwill) Eli whacks me upside the head by reminding me: >> Hmm. The only thing I find more difficult to believe than that someone >> could get on the radio and talk like that for six hours is that anyone >> could bear to listen to him. > >Tangent: I recently reread a chunk of Illuminatus! and found the >commentary on the (fictional) novel _Telemachus Sneezed_ absolutely >hilarous, and rather on the mark. I'd quote some, but I seem to be >a victim of state-dependent memory. Hey! I'd completely forgotten about that! Well, I guess I know what _I'm_ (re)reading this weekend... Thanks, Eli. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 12:01:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Edward J OConnell Subject: Human Population On Thu, 2 Sep 1993, Ray wrote: > Phil G. Fraering () writes: > > > > >We could reach such levels without too much fuss in a few centuries if > > >we could obtain a reproductive rate of 0.5 children... > > > > I guess the best way to handle this is nuclear detterence: someone > > has to get enough nuclear weapons and say "If anyone tries massive > > involuntary sterilization or killoff of humans, we'll waste enough > > of what's left for the new pristine ecology to not have anything > > higher than a cockroach." > > > > Mutual Assured Destruction? > > Introducing, the Spermatozoa Liberation Front. > > We pledge that if any sperm is killed as the result of an artificially > engineered sterilization virus we will immediately commit acts of terrorism > against old growth forests, cute rabbits, natcatchers, and spotted > owls. Even now, our agents are distributing plutonium filled carrots > into feeding centers which will be automatically triggered to release > the carrots in the event of virus detection. > > > -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- > -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- > -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- Ha! Oh, I laughed. Not. We do indeed desperately need to get off the planet. Let us stupid 'bunny lovers' build a L5 Colony where we can wander pleasantly through parks, live in huge, low gravity trees, Reproducing every century or so, and leave fast breeders living in piles of their own excrement. Just you, your e-coli, and some genetailored organisms that allow you to eat your own waste products. Maybe shove you into tiny cubicals, and cut your legs off, to make room for more. And you can all agree that there is not too many of you, when the genome consists entirely of humans, their parasites, rats and cockroaches. Even Drexler admits that Malthus is right. Geometric growth is impossible. These are aesthetic choices, of course. You can have the human/e-coli world. The first meme you should plant is the one that there is, and can never be, overpopulation. Make sure you don't look at any statistics concerning soil erosion, arable land, desertification.... Oh, I forgot, the entire biological science community is part of a VAST LEFTEST CONSPIRACY and there is really NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. ;-) The Earth is the ultimate tragedy of the commons. I want out. I want the complete genome of the planet in my pocket before I leave, though. What of it is left after the breeders are done turning it into human excrement, of course. Have a nice day. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 12:23:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Edward J OConnell Subject: Green Goo Yes. Its important to realize that powerful tools will one day be in the hands of dangerous lunatics who might not like the shape of capitalist wealth distribution. Your choices will be police state or some sort of welfare type appeasment. Take your pick. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 09:32:10 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: Human Population > [ Phil G. Fraering, Tony Hamilton, Duncan Frissel and Ray Cromwell make assorted interesting comments on this thread ] Interesting. Several comments on possible means and/or lack of them, and on their morality/immorality or extropianness/non-extropianness. I'm still curious what people think is a *desirable* non-uploaded human population of Earth. Duncan Frissel stated: > But since wealth (in humans) increases with larger (free) populations, a > larger population of humans (and/or AIs) would be richer. I think you mean "richer" in the sense of "more wealth per capita", thus higher standard of living, and so forth. I am not sure that I agree that such is necessarily the case in an extropian future, because of the wealth- multiplying capability of technology. As a model of a high-tech, high-wealth, low-population-density society, consider the colonized world visited by Lije Baley in Asimov's _Naked_Sun_ (which is not on my bookshelf so I can't give its name). Phil Fraering and Ray Cromwell discuss force and its undesirability as a means of human population control: The intended thrust of my comment about reproductive rates of 0.5 was not to suggest sterility viruses, but to suggest that a human society with rapidly declining population need be no odder than one in which everyone is an only child (and most of them aren't any weirder than me ...). Such a society might thus be attainable by persuasion or economic means. As a point of theoretical interest, suppose for purposes of discussion that a number of extropians and/or libertarians decided that substantial reduction of the human non-uploaded terrestrial population was a desirable goal. Is there an extropian and/or libertarian means of implementing that goal that has a reasonable chance of working, that is less coercive than, say sterility viruses and backyard nukes? Private law? Economic transactions? Buying up the child futures market? My tongue is a little in cheek for some of these comments, but not entirely so. I explicitly do not ask readers of this thread to agree that such population reduction is desirable -- that topic seems to be quite controversial. Rather I am using population control somewhat as a test case for how an extropian society might coordinate to achieve goals which in other contexts might require massive coercion and centralization. In the context of possible near-term overpopulation, Duncan Frissel says: > We don't seem to be too close with resource prices at historic lows and > still heading down [...] For the "not too close" conclusion to follow strictly, I think one must assume that (a) the market is right, and that (b) its horizon for discounting is farther in the future than is our ability to predict. I am not sure of either (a) or (b), thus I am inclined to wonder about the near-term notwithstanding low resource prices. For the sake of clarity and honesty, I should probably state explicitly that my personal preference would be for a much reduced non-uploaded human population of Earth, for personal reasons (or perhaps I consider human-free habitat a valuable resource). How much reduced? I don't know. If I could sample different terrestrial human population densities, I would try one at a tenth of the present value to see how I liked it. I suspect I would regard it as a substantial improvement and end up picking a value another order of magnitude or two lower as my personal choice. -- Jay Freeman, the other "Jay", the other "Freeman" ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #245 ********************************* From extropians-request@extropy.org Thu Sep 2 21:08:22 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA10829; Thu, 2 Sep 93 21:08:18 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed (ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA07428; Thu, 2 Sep 93 21:08:12 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA11627; Fri, 3 Sep 93 00:05:22 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA11622; Fri, 3 Sep 93 00:04:56 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA07371 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Fri, 3 Sep 1993 00:04:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 00:04:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199309030404.AA07371@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 3, 373 P.N.O. [04:04:37 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Fri, 3 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 245 Today's Topics: FUN: For PostScript Fans -- Universe Shares [1 msgs] Green Goo [4 msgs] Human Population [5 msgs] META: list software agent docs wanted [1 msgs] Meta: I have a problem using the list software with MH [1 msgs] PHIL: Galt Strike (was: Re: Extropaganza: goodwill) [3 msgs] PHYS: grav. anti-energy [1 msgs] SCIFI: Vernor Vinge Article [1 msgs] WAR/NANO/LAW: Against Nanarchy [1 msgs] nominalism is what the other says [1 msgs] phys: gravitational anti-energy [1 msgs] unsubscribe me [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51869 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 93 09:04:25 -0500 From: "Patrick M. Fitzgerald" Subject: Meta: I have a problem using the list software with MH In message #93-9-32 davisd@nimitz.ee.washington.edu writes: > > I use MH through emacs. MH automatically inserts a blank line between > the headers and the text. I don't think MH is your problem. You probably need to check with extropians-request to make sure the list software is correctly recognizing your address (otherwise, it won't accept commands from you). I had that problem for a couple weeks, until habs fixed me up. The only problem I had with MH is that the list software did not recognize the default MH In-reply-to: header; thus, I could not reply to a message and, for example, put "::exclude thread" at the top. But since MH lets you customize your headers, I just changed the replcomps file from %<(nodate{date})%{date}%|%(pretty{date})%>."%<{message-id} %{message-id}%>\n%>\ to %<{date}In-reply-to: %{message-id}\n%>\ and now everything works fine. -- ______ Patrick M. Fitzgerald pmfitzge@ingr.com / ___ ) --------------Intergraph Corporation-------------- / __)/ /__ Senior Software Analyst TIM & DBT Documentation (_/it(_____) (205)730-3741, Bldg 30, Room 122m, Mailstop GD3002 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 09:52:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Edward J OConnell Subject: Green Goo I've been thinking about the Green Goo myself. Of course, I believe that some sort of population control is necessary, near term. (Next thousand years--I'm pessimistic about nanotech timetables) So I represent an interesting viewpoint for study. I'm more or less sympathetic to the aims of green goo. The sterilizing kind, anyway. One thought I've had is to embed it in a recreational drug, so that those who take it do so voluntarily. Also, it would be reversible, temporarily, with some agent that would allow conception for a short term--it would flip the human reproductive default. You'd have to take a pill to have a kid--not vice versa. Accidental reproduction is for animals, IMO. My other thought has been biotech organisms, gas bags, that excrete a mana that has within it a temporary contraceptive. Those that eat the free food can't reproduce. An end to famine with malthusian growth... Of course, this smacks of 'class warfare,' as does all green goo, so it will offend many liberals. Freeze sperm, and OVa, and maintain a population of women in hermitic bubbles, and you'll have a freemarket workaround for the rich. The middle class might be able to afford it with mechanisms like mortgages--I imagine it would cost a lot. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 2 September 1993 00:08:45 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: nominalism is what the other says In <9309012114.AA10395@netcom3.netcom.com>, dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) wrote: > > A long time ago, in fact on August 8, James Donald wrote: > > For example if nominalism was correct, then what the > > classical Greeks said would be largely meaningless to us, > > for example it is unlikely that they would use a word > > corresponding to "liberty" in a sense similar to that which > > we use. This prediction is obviously false. Liberty and > > similar concepts are plainly true universals, thus plainly > > universals exist. > > Plainly. Except that when Westerners tried to promulgate liberalism in > China, they had to invent a word for liberty. True, but when Confucius, describing that conduct of citizens which is an indicator of a legitimate government, mentions what we would call freedom of speech, he is very plainly pointing at the same thing as we point at, even though he has no word for it. Plainly he saw what we saw, and his description of it is sound, even though his understanding of it is unsound. Our understanding, the Greek understanding, is better than the Chinese, but we both saw the same thing in the world, and we both described that thing in terms easily recognizable, and we both recognized that thing as very important and an indicator of legitimate government. Chinese use multi word metaphors very extensively. The absence of a specific word does not mean that there was no thing in the world that the Chinese pointed at from time to time, a thing that we call liberty. A great many things in Chinese are only referred to by metaphors, but obviously this does not mean the Chinese lack the concepts. The Chinese did point to it from time to time, particularly when governments were weak. Thus liberty is a true universal, in the East as in the West. The category is recognizable, but during period of authoritarian and unified rule the thing referred to was so rare that they had little use for such a word. Liberty is not a word, it is a condition. The absence of the word does not make the condition meaningless or unknowable, though the absence of the condition certainly does make the word meaningless and unknowable. When Chinese comment on the fall of communism, they use extended metaphors, or they use western symbols, like the statue of liberty, but their meaning is quite clear. They imported the statue, but they would not have imported the statue if they had had to import the meaning for which it stood. > > Thus all theories based on nominalism, for example Marxism > > and Utilitarianism, must be false, Marxism because of its > > nominalist definition of value, utilitarianism because of > > its nominalist definition of the good. > > Why shouldn't a Marxist say *our* definition of value is > nominalist? After all we do say one person's measurement > of value is as good as another's, You may say that. I do not. It is in fact plainly false, especially when one attempts to measure, as the Marxists attempt to measure, value for other people, value in transactions, value as in equity, value as in torts. > while Marxists have an objective definition of something > that they call "value" (though "cost" is a better word for > it). The Marxists thought that "society" could give, did give, an arbitrary definition to "value", and implicitly assumed that people could continue to act as if that arbitrary thing was in fact value, merely because "society" decreed it to be. This expectation, deduced from nominalism, proved false. Anton Sherwood's form of nominalism probably would not lead to that particular kind of error, but it would lead to the errors discussed by Robert M. Persig in "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance, printed by Bodley Head, 1974, and probably would lead to the errors discussed by Bruno Leoni in "Freedom and the law", published by Liberty Press, 1991 Nominalism now appears to be in retreat, losing ground at roughly the same time as the most infamous nominalist theory is collapsing. Categories exist in the world, not merely by definition. If a category is meaningful and valid, then the things belonging to this category have some property in common, and we invent a word for this objectively existing property, and define the word by pointing at examples of things that have this property. Words are one means of pointing at things in the world. Some categories are universals. Words are not defined by definitions. Definitions, like examples, hint at meanings, by invoking our common sense knowledge of the world. If definitions literally defined things, this would involve circularity. Consider for example Euclid's definition of a line and a point. Because nominalism falsely describes the meaning of words and our relationship to reality, theories based on nominalism always err. Popper falsely deduced from nominalism that Marxism was unfalsifiable. But plainly Marxism has been falsified! Marxism was unscientific because it fabricated favorable experimental results, and concealed unfavorable results with force and violence. It was not unscientific because it failed to meet Popper's arbitrary, unscientific, and provably false definition of science. >From my understanding of what Anton Sherwood is saying, a few years ago he would have agreed with Popper on this matter, another example of nominalism leading people astray. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:21:33 BST From: Mark Grant Subject: phys: gravitational anti-energy D. Anton Sherwood wrote on August 7: > Between two masses there is negative gravitational potential energy > (-Gmm/d). Energy is equivalent to mass, so this negative energy has > negative gravity. Where is it? That is, somewhere in the system there > should be a locus of (very weak!) repulsion; is it in the masses, in a > cloud between them, in their joint center of mass, or what? If it was anywhere, it would be spread across the entire system, and in any case would be very small compared to the mass of the objects in the system. D. Anton Sherwood wrote: >... and goes on to imply that kinetic energy isn't real, either, which was >news to me. Are potential and kinetic energy just a fiction that physicists >use to keep the books square? I think you'll find that the real problem is that you're trying to mix relativity and newtonian physics. I'm not certain, but I strongly suspect that if you used general relativity instead of newtonian gravity then this whole situation would disappear. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:06:43 +0100 From: Ken MacLeod Subject: unsubscribe me Please remove me from the Extropians mailing list. This is because of a temporary problem with our email and I may ask to be put back later. Thanks Ken MacLeod~ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:24:19 BST From: Mark Grant Subject: WAR/NANO/LAW: Against Nanarchy Robin Hanson wrote: > I proposed that "a viable alternative" to nanarchy is to always hold > "parents" responsible for their "children" "(except for human > biological children)". > > Hal Finney responds: > >why in this alternative would one except humans? > > Just as a grandfather clause, because we're used to this, and it doesn't > fail terribly. Hmm, I don't think so. Surely if human X (whether a parent, friend, enemy, whatever) had 'programmed' in some sense human Y to perform an action (e.g. go and kill human Z), then X could at least be charged with conspiracy or something. I think the real difference is that humans are generally regarded as being able to think for themselves, and therefore (at least beyond a certain age) capable of making their own decisions which they take responsibility for. I would suggest that this would be a better alternative. Unless the AI "children" could be shown to have been programmed to carry out an action, then they should be assumed to be responsible for it. This kind of programming would be easy for an algorithmic organism, but also easily spotted, and the only possible defence from the human programmer would be negligence. For neural networks (which AIs look more and more likely to require), programming of this nature would be very tricky (just like a human), and if you relied on programming the network rather than an obvious algorithmic layer on top of it, would be likely to vanish over time as the network reprograms itself ('learns to think for itself'). This does, obviously, leave the possibility of creating an AI which was programmed to carry out an action, then suicide. If you're lucky, you'd still have a core dump to analyse, if not, well, it's up to the courts to decide, as it would be today with a human... Maybe in *that* case, the "parent" should be assumed responsible. > >I don't think it makes sense to hold human "parents" always responsible > >for the actions of their AI "children". ... If you created the AI twenty > >years ago and it has been living on its own all this time. If you did adopt the suggestion above, this might be a neccesary part of it, i.e. the AI might have to have been free from direct "parental" control for some time before it would be held responsible for its actions, to allow it to grow out of any parental programming. > I didn't say it would be optimal, just "viable". (Though given scenarios > like those sketched by Nick Szabo, my proposal may well be optimal.) > Crime could be deterred at an acceptable cost. Nanarchy is not *required* > to deal with future crime. I'm not sure it's really even that viable. Suppose you're an AI, created by a human, and you've met a human you dislike and would like to kill, and have found a method to do so. If your "parent" is held responsible, then you're free to kill anyone you like without fear of reprisals. Or were you intending *joint* responsibility, and/or compulsory termination of the AI ? [Comments on nanotech universe colonization] > This makes no sense. With two exponential growing things, it is the one > with the larger exponent (time derivative of log of amount) that grows to > be biggest. If the exponents are the same the ratio between the two is > constant. So I ask again, why should the first colonizer have the biggest > exponent? And ordinary economic growth is (at least) exponetial, so why > doesn't this argument apply to that? I think it makes a certain amount of sense if there is a reasonable length of time between the two colonizers starting out, given that both will be starting from the same place. Even if one can spread faster, if it is not from a much higher tech level, when it arrives in any of the nearby systems the colonizer that's already there is likely to have defence systems that will win simply based on force of numbers. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 14:55:21 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Green Goo Absolutely Brilliant essay Nick! I hope you get the guts to post it to sci.environment. It's about time a counter offensive was made against the forces of ecocentrism and genocide. I myself have been contemplating an essay called "the post biological world" which details how the earth will become less and less important as a life support system. The thing which irritates the ecocentrists most is absolute utilitarianism. -- Ray Crowwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:02:01 EDT From: Andy Wilson Subject: Green Goo Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 09:52:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Edward J OConnell I've been thinking about the Green Goo myself. Of course, I believe that some sort of population control is necessary, near term. (Next thousand years--I'm pessimistic about nanotech timetables) So I represent an interesting viewpoint for study. I'm more or less sympathetic to the aims of green goo. The sterilizing kind, anyway. I sense a paradox here. On the one hand, many environmentally conscious people do not feel that the human race has more of a claim to the biosphere than any other species, and I tend toward this view myself. On the other hand, the human "population explosion" is seen as the worst nightmare imaginable. But I don't see what makes humans special in this regard. Starvation is the what all species are faced with when they are overpopulated. The cause of famine as it exists in the world today is the inefficiency of the world economy in getting the food which does exist to the people who need to eat it. This is a result of a combination of beaurocratic ineptitude and actual and threatened violence on the part of nations and political factions. As countries become relatively more educated, their tendency is toward population levels that are fairly stable. This can be seen in the U.S. population and in western europe. Given the necessary technology for birth control, there is no "population explosion". Also, although I know of no good studies on the subject, I think that an increased rate of homosexuality and bisexuality is a natural brake on population growth, which explains why it is often taboo in more conservative and/or primitive cultures, which are organized around population growth as a goal. If there are any human rights, then the right to procreate is among them. Coupled with that is the responsibility to care for the children. I don't think anyone has a right to have a child if they don't have enough resources to care for it. When the human race, or whatever it becomes, begins to expand beyond this planet, then population growth will again be fashionable. I am absolutely opposed to any and all involuntary methods of "population control". Andy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:40:50 -0700 From: mcpherso@lumina.ucsd.edu (John McPherson) Subject: SCIFI: Vernor Vinge Article "Award-winning writer up for another honor" Vernor Vinge sold his first science fiction short story in 1964, when he was a senior in high school in Okemos, Mich. But the Wisconsin native wasn't thinking of a writing career then; he wanted to be "an astronaut, a physicist or a mathematician," he recalls now. Math won, and after graduating from Michigan State University, he came to San Diego in 1966 to do graduate work at UCSD. A couple of years later he sold his first novel. "That novel was solicited based on a short story I had had published," said Vinge, a math sciences professor at San Diego State University since 1972. [Vernor's pic here] "Breaking into writing books is hard, but if you've established a reputation with magazine writing, it's easier. The pay isn't good, bu you get all sorts of exposure." Since then, Vinge's profile has steadily risen among science fiction fans and his fellow writers. Over the years, he has been a runner-up for the prestigious Hugo Award four times, for his novels "The Peace War" (1984) and "Marooned in Realtime" (1986), a novella "True Names" (1981) and a novelette. His latest novel, "A Fire Upon the Deep," is also a Hugo contender, nominated for this year's prize to be presented Labor Day weekend in San Francisco. Vinge says he writes science fiction because "it's what I know. Actually half of the trick for success ... is being familiar with the genre, which is a high-flown way of saying I wasted a great amount of time reading an enormous number of stories." Recently, Vinge has been intrigued with the almost incomprehensible speed of change anticipated in the next 30 years as computers become more and more "intelligent." Many people have talked about that, but most just stop there," he said. "But what happens three months later? ... It makes it very hard to write science fiction since one option is all-encompassing disaster, the other is bugs in the wall -- humans become a lower life form." Vinge's solution in "A Fire Upon the Deep" was to create interstellar empires that "allowed me to be faithful to the notion that these changes are going to happen and yet still have human-size activities going on." In this excerpt, the human Johanna works in a hospital, unaware of the danger she faces from a guard Tine, a "pack" creature composed of many members, that has human intelligence. -- Mary Hellman, Books Editor $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "A tale of survival in a world where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" "All Chitiratte need do was give the signal, and the duo would tead the human apart. A great tragedy." $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The Times are a race of packs. Each individual is a group of four to seven members. Apart, those members are about as smart as a bright dog: together, the members of a pack make a be- ing of human intelligence. Johan- na is a lone human caught deep in the medieval intrigues of the Tines' World: "Now that Vendacious had found a way past the ene- my's defenses, everyone was anxious to break camp, but ..." [[The excerpt, from Chapter 35, went from p.460 line 2 to p.465 line 14, and Vernor (who apparently edited the excerpt) made some appropriate substitutions so that readers could follow it. Instead of "mantis" he used the word "human"; instead of "Flenserist forces" he used the word "enemy"; etc. ]] "One of Kratzi's heads was looking in Chitiratte's direction, waiting for the signal. Now the human picked up the bowls and knelt beside the duo ---" John McPherson mcpherso@lumina.ucsd.edu (619) 534-4717 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Life --> Individual --> Net Extropic --> Free --> Free Market Human Action Production Trade Economy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury, you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant if you judge the law itself to be unjust." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 15:55:57 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: Human Population There are a couple of data points that might be useful in discussions of human population size -- I apologize that my references are at home so I cannot dig out original citations: (1) Up through about the end of the Pleistocene, roughly 10,000 years ago, the world population of _Homo_sapiens_ did not exceed several million individuals. (2) The population size required for an animal species to avoid "genetic bottleneck" (assorted catastrophes from lack of diversity) is presently believed to be as small as a few hundred individuals. (3) There are many non-"endangered" vertebrate species whose entire population contains no more individuals than there are humans in a small town. (Hmn, the thrust of the "non-'endangered'" point is that I am not talking about species whose population has recently been dramatically reduced by human activities.) I suspect that a rich, diverse and viable human culture could obtain with no more than a few million people alive. We could reach such levels without too much fuss in a few centuries if we could obtain a reproductive rate of 0.5 children per adult rather than the 1+ which is more typical now. -- Jay Freeman the other Jay the other Freeman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:01:49 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Green Goo Andy Wilson () writes: > On the one hand, many environmentally conscious people do not feel that > the human race has more of a claim to the biosphere than any other species, > and I tend toward this view myself. Our "claim" on the biosphere is nothing more than our ability to take advantage of it. Why humans must be held to a higher standard I do not know. The beaver does not consider the consequences of the dam he builds anymore than the wolf cares about lamb population. -- 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: Thu, 2 Sep 93 16:23:11 PDT From: "Randall M. Clague" Subject: PHIL: Galt Strike (was: Re: Extropaganza: goodwill) <> Which would have been useless was he not VERY persuasive. This requires personal magnetism. <> I deny socialism every day. I'm talented, and this allows me to make a pretty good salary. A Strike would do a lot of damage - in AS, it destroyed the world (OK, it speeded the already inevitable destuction of the world) - I would need to be certain it would bring about a much better world before I would support a Strike. Randall -- Randall M. Clague | "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great Coast Micro Inc. | peace of mind." rclague@netcom.com | -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 16:39:54 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: PHIL: Galt Strike (was: Re: Extropaganza: goodwill) ><> > >Which would have been useless was he not VERY persuasive. This requires >personal magnetism. Hmm. The only thing I find more difficult to believe than that someone could get on the radio and talk like that for six hours is that anyone could bear to listen to him. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:34:42 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Human Population Jay R. Freeman () writes: > I suspect that a rich, diverse and viable human culture could obtain with > no more than a few million people alive. We could reach such levels > without too much fuss in a few centuries if we could obtain a reproductive > rate of 0.5 children per adult rather than the 1+ which is more typical now. ...And assuming we all agree to live a finite lifespan. If technology succeeds in lengthening the human lifespan to centuries, what then? What we really need to do is do away with the idea that the earth is overpopulated. The earth isn't overpopulated and even if it was, the way to reduce the population isn't to reduce the number of humans living, but expand civilization off earth. -- 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: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 17:01:52 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: FUN: For PostScript Fans -- Universe Shares Download this to your favorite LaserPrinter. Why wait for the auction? --------------------cut------------ %! % Universe share card % Created by Andrew Plotkin, ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu % Public domain -- distribute freely 48 48 translate % Work in inches. 72 dup scale /cardwidth 3.5 def /cardheight 2 def 1 288 div setlinewidth /simplewidth {stringwidth pop} def /centershow {gsave dup simplewidth 2 div neg 0 rmoveto show grestore} def /rightshow {gsave dup simplewidth 1.6 sub neg 0 rmoveto show grestore} def /leftshow {gsave -1.6 0 rmoveto show grestore} def /setonefont {/Times-Bold findfont 2.4 6 div scalefont setfont} def /setbig {/Helvetica-Oblique findfont 1.9 6 div scalefont setfont} def /setbold {/Helvetica-Bold findfont 1 6 div scalefont setfont} def /settiny {/Helvetica-Bold findfont 1 11 div scalefont setfont} def /setitalic {/Helvetica-BoldOblique findfont 1 11 div scalefont setfont} def /oneseal { gsave newpath gsave 0 setgray 0 setlinewidth 1 1.2 scale 0.095 0.11 0.22 0 360 arc closepath gsave 0.007 setlinewidth clip newpath 0 15 360 { 0.095 0.11 moveto dup cos exch sin exch rlineto stroke } for grestore 0.01 setlinewidth stroke 0.095 0.11 0.19 0 360 arc closepath gsave 0.9 setgray fill grestore 0.007 setlinewidth stroke grestore setonefont 0.05 setlinewidth 0 0 moveto (1) true charpath stroke 0 0 moveto 1 setgray (1) show newpath grestore } def % oneseal /lemcolor 0 def /lembordercolor 0 def /lemniscate { gsave translate 0.002 dup scale -171 -657 translate 171 648 newpath moveto 126.07 688.71 115 666 115 657 curveto 115 648 131 629.87 171 656.87 curveto 210.89 684.07 227 666 227 657 curveto 227 648 215.93 625.29 171 666 curveto 131 702 99 684 99 657 curveto 99 630 139 612 171 656.87 curveto 206.59 706.45 243 684 243 657 curveto 243 630 211 612 171 648 curveto closepath lemcolor setgray gsave eofill grestore 2.5 setlinewidth lembordercolor setgray stroke 171.5 663.95 178.75 657.7 171.75 649.2 163.25 656.45 newpath moveto 2 1 4 {pop lineto} for closepath lemcolor setgray eofill grestore } def % lemniscate % Draw the boundaries of the card. /startall { gsave 0 0 moveto 0 cardheight lineto cardwidth cardheight lineto cardwidth 0 lineto closepath 0 setlinewidth stroke grestore gsave cardwidth 2 div cardheight translate setbig 0 -.53 moveto (Universe Share) centershow gsave -1.50 -.53 translate oneseal grestore gsave 1.33 -.53 translate oneseal grestore settiny 0 -.75 moveto (This bond represents one (1) fractional Share of the) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (Universe, including all stars, planets, nebulae, and other bodies) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (therein. The bearer has plenipotentiary powers within the) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (Share, and is fully responsible for all orbits, conjunctions,) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (supernovae, and other astronomical phenomena in that) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (region. Sentient species must be negotiated with. Valid for) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (all eternity; after that, contracts will be reviewed based) centershow 0 -0.1 rmoveto (on performance. Not guaranteed beyond event horizons.) centershow setitalic 0.15 -1.64 moveto (Warning: this Share includes) centershow 0.15 -1.74 moveto (more than you can expect) centershow newpath -.65 -1.66 lemniscate -1.6 -0.1 0.019 0 360 arc fill 1.6 -0.1 0.019 0 360 arc fill -1.2 0.2 1.21 { -0.1 0.019 0 360 arc fill } for -1.3 0.2 1.31 { -1.9 0.019 0 360 arc fill } for gsave 0 setlinewidth 1 0.96 scale 0 0.04 1 { dup -1.3 mul -.7 add -1.63 exch moveto 180 mul sin 0.22 mul 0 rlineto stroke } for 0.02 0.04 1 { dup -1.3 mul -.7 add -1.63 exch moveto 720 mul cos -1 mul 1.6 add 0.11 mul 0 rlineto stroke } for -1 1 scale 0 0.04 1 { dup -1.3 mul -.7 add -1.63 exch moveto 180 mul sin 0.22 mul 0 rlineto stroke } for 0.02 0.04 1 { dup -1.3 mul -.7 add -1.63 exch moveto 720 mul cos -1 mul 1.6 add 0.11 mul 0 rlineto stroke } for grestore grestore } def %startall gsave 2 2 scale currentscreen 3 -1 roll 2 div 3 1 roll setscreen startall grestore 0 6 translate startall showpage --------------------cut------------ -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 17:28:49 PDT From: "Randall M. Clague" Subject: PHYS: grav. anti-energy Anti-energy? Is this a satire like Tim's ExInq, or what? <> That would be a neat trick. At infinite separation, all the energy in a system (assuming closed two body system for simplicity - somebody jump in if I've oversimplified) is potential energy. That potential energy is equivalent to the kinetic energy at their combined escape velocity. Randall -- Randall M. Clague | "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great Coast Micro Inc. | peace of mind." rclague@netcom.com | -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 18:07:21 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: Human Population > [ Jay Freeman and Ray Cromwell exchange comments that hint that their respective definitions of what constitutes "overpopulation" (of Earth, by non-uploaded individuals of _Homo_sapiens_) differ by at least three orders of magnitude. ] It seems to me that the key to the difference of opinion that we seem to have elicited here is how you define the condition of Earth being "overpopulated" (by non-uploaded _Homo_sapiens_ -- I have no objection to uploading or exodus). Would anyone care to address the issue of said definition? I suspect there are at least two broad ways to approach the matter. One might be relatively objective, in the tradition of science (possible tongue in cheek here), based on the notion that the population is too high when people are dying off due to lack of some key resource, despite our various efforts to procreate and keep ourselves alive. We could then enter a thick can of worms in trying to establish how close to that condition we are, how likely we might be to be in that condition in the forseeable future, and what we could and/or ought to do if our prognostications were worrisome. These are possibly matters relevant to extropians, for even if one believes in dynamic optimism and boundless expansion, it doesn't follow that we can't mess up in the near term sufficiently to miss the opportunity to enjoy them. Possibly a more interesting definition of overpopulation is based not on what is possible but on how one would like things to be. What non-uploaded human population of Earth is desirable, and why? I personally would set a number well below the maximum sustainable yield of humanity, on grounds which are entirely personal and in substantial part aesthetic. By way of analogy, I might venture that I usually keep the quantity of stuff in my living room well below the point at which it takes four friends shoving to push me in through the door. -- Jay Freeman the other "Jay", the other "Freeman" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 19:31:55 PDT From: Eli Brandt Subject: PHIL: Galt Strike (was: Re: Extropaganza: goodwill) > Hmm. The only thing I find more difficult to believe than that someone > could get on the radio and talk like that for six hours is that anyone > could bear to listen to him. Tangent: I recently reread a chunk of Illuminatus! and found the commentary on the (fictional) novel _Telemachus Sneezed_ absolutely hilarous, and rather on the mark. I'd quote some, but I seem to be a victim of state-dependent memory. > Lefty (lefty@apple.com) Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 21:34:40 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Human Population >We could reach such levels without too much fuss in a few centuries if >we could obtain a reproductive rate of 0.5 children... Or if we simply nuked all the cities. Which is worse, in your mind? They're both the same in mine, if you're thinking about roving sterility viruses... I guess the best way to handle this is nuclear detterence: someone has to get enough nuclear weapons and say "If anyone tries massive involuntary sterilization or killoff of humans, we'll waste enough of what's left for the new pristine ecology to not have anything higher than a cockroach." Mutual Assured Destruction? pgf And No, Permission is _NOT_ granted to repost it. Someone could take it out of context, since we've already considered the possibility of genocide of one sort or another, and possibilities for diverting it... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 22:06:19 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: META: list software agent docs wanted Hey! Who "owns" the list software? Could it be liscenced to other lists for money for the programmer and/or ExI? (whichever is appropriate; I don't know). It seems to me there is a need for software like this out there. Esp. for the people gettinthe linux groups via mail. pgf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 23:39:44 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Human Population Phil G. Fraering () writes: > > >We could reach such levels without too much fuss in a few centuries if > >we could obtain a reproductive rate of 0.5 children... > > I guess the best way to handle this is nuclear detterence: someone > has to get enough nuclear weapons and say "If anyone tries massive > involuntary sterilization or killoff of humans, we'll waste enough > of what's left for the new pristine ecology to not have anything > higher than a cockroach." > > Mutual Assured Destruction? Introducing, the Spermatozoa Liberation Front. We pledge that if any sperm is killed as the result of an artificially engineered sterilization virus we will immediately commit acts of terrorism against old growth forests, cute rabbits, natcatchers, and spotted owls. Even now, our agents are distributing plutonium filled carrots into feeding centers which will be automatically triggered to release the carrots in the event of virus detection. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #245 *********************************