From extropians-request@extropy.org Wed Sep 8 14:45:21 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA28144; Wed, 8 Sep 93 14:45:04 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA22298; Wed, 8 Sep 93 14:44:50 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA05564 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Wed, 8 Sep 1993 17:37:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 17:37:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199309082137.AA05564@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 8, 373 P.N.O. [21:37:10 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 8 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 250 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] CHAT: AFUTD names? [1 msgs] PHIL: Ethics etc. [6 msgs] PHIL: Ethics etc. [1 msgs] Resources [1 msgs] The Idea of Free Speech i [2 msgs] The Idea of Free Speech is Slipping Away [3 msgs] depression [2 msgs] human population [3 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 52875 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 09:04:27 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: CHAT: AFUTD names? I need a hostname for my new PC at work, and it occurs to me that some name from _A Fire Upon the Deep_ would be good -- but my copy, having ridden around in my car for months, is safely at home. Anyone have suggestions? I need them RSN. TIA, ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO; ISGS 9/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here (sometimes) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 07:47:14 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. > By the right by might theory, squirrel's may in fact get rights [...] In the context of right by might and non-human animals, the First Extropian Squirrel is carefully avoiding issuing slogans involving the right to arm bears ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 07:50:07 PDT From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. > > Why should we care? I can see a reason to preserve the environment for > HUMAN purposes -- even I will admit that Mark Desilet's environs in > Boulder Creek are a lot more pleasant in many ways than downtown > Manhattan. However, this is an aesthetic choice made for the benefit > of humans -- not for the redwoods and squirrels -- and is purely > selfish, providing no reason at all other than personal desire for > natural surroundings not to blow the brains out of any passing animal > one feels like. Yeah, and I'm on the verge of blowing the brains out of a couple of deer that have thoroughly destroyed my vegetable garden and fruit trees too. You can look at it this way, I was happy to let them hang out and be nice to look at, but now they're trashing my property, and even my food supply (although I can certainly replace the food). They are more of a nuisance than a boon, so I may well kill them, and eat them if I think I can get away with it. They have no rights, except insofar as I project rights onto them. Whereas I had projected the right to be peacefully left alone onto them, I am now considering projecting the right to be stew onto them. Its all a matter of rights, you see. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 10:52:34 WET DST From: smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Shawn O'Connor) Subject: human population > > On 09-07-93 09:34, Timothy C. May wrote to Michael Morgan > regarding: "human population"... > > TCM> I get very anxious when I hear the reference to "our populations." And > TCM> to "control our populations." > > I think we all should be more than a little concerned about the > subject. I appreciate your responses. > > TCM> Seems to me to create a thought pattern that leads to the wrong > TCM> solution: central planning and coercive social policies. What economic > TCM> or political groups set the rates? China tells Americans? > > It's a tough problem. My point is that with a lack of real spaces > (oceans or space itself) to expand to our biological programming > could kill us. I haven't had a chance to read Julian Simons' books. > I'm to busy changing career tracks right now. Got a nutshell > synopsis of his work? > > TCM> Besides, what's the "right" population? Is Hong Kong overcrowded or > TCM> not? (It is for _me_, but apparently not for a lot of others.) > > I don't know. I assume that when the quality of life has reached a > certain degree of degradation due resource depletion we should > consider that an issue for population control. Even that opens > great cans of worms. What if a dictator takes all the resources for > himself and lets his people starve? > > TCM> As Jay > TCM> Leno used to say, "Don't worry about a million starving peasants, > TCM> they'll make more." > > And what happens when some bright extropian soul sells those > starving peasants weapons suitable to take your resources? A > starving father is a pretty motivated warrior I think. And he > doesn't even have to be successful in taking your resources if he's > successful in taking your life or a loved one's before his is > taken. > > TCM> Economic development tends to reduce the incentives and social > TCM> pressures for very large families, resulting in the so-called > TCM> "demographic transition," whereby developed countries tend toward a > TCM> very slow population growth. > > I agree. It doesn't seem that bad now. But what about later? > > TCM> Controlling government beats controlling population levels. > > Agreed. > > ... !retupmoc siht edisni deppart ma I !pleH > --- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 > > > ---- > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Ed Hopper's BBS - Home of uuPCB - Usenet for PC Board | > | Node 1 - USR HST - 404-446-9462 Node 2 - V.32bis - 404-446-9465 | > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1993 11:02:25 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. Jay R. Freeman says: > The F. E. S. reiterates that his personal position is to award > rights of various sorts to diverse creatures neither capable of understanding > them nor of negociating about them. Hey, you are free to say that rocks have a right to remain undisturbed -- but you won't get very far at convincing us we should pay attention to you. If your contention is that squirrels should have rights, the burden is on you to show us why we should give a damn about them. Rights arising from contract or from capacity to fight need not be justified -- they are self executing. "Rights" which are not self executing must somehow be justified to us -- and I can see no reason to believe in the rights of squirrels. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 08:03:55 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. Continuing side discussion between Perry Metzger and the First Extropian Squirrel about evolution and the possible nature of advanced economic game-players: > Extremely unlikely that one AI could manage to run things hundreds or > even millions of light-years away. Exploitation has physical limits. Reasonable point, though it depends how much one thinks technology will remove said limits ("boundless expansion", "dynamic optimism" and all that). In the case of all players being earthbound, though, I can certainly imagine one very successful AI ruling the roost. In the case of nonterrestrials, I suspect it would make little difference for emergent terrestrials whether they found themselves in a totally-dominated domain that was ten or ten million light-years across. > So? Why should evolution operate terribly differently, other than the > speed of change, in an environment with non-biological transformation? The mechanism I had in mind whereby biological evolution has produced lots of comparably competent players was that of species, which results in many individuals with similar genotypes and thus similar phenotypes. A successful AI or upload might have no reason to make lots of slightly altered copies of itself in order to instantiate desirable changes -- it might just modify itself on an ad-hoc basis. -- Jay Freeman, First Extropian Squirrel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 11:06:44 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: The Idea of Free Speech i T >But many educated Americans are increasingly calling for "speech T >codes," for the outlawing of "hateful" and "hurtful" speech, and for T >increased use of civil remedies (slander, defamation, damage) to T >control the words of those they want silenced. Hence the need to be judgment proof (which doesn't mean poor). Civil litigation is a meaningless weapon against the judgment proof. T >a substantial fraction (though still a minority, I sensed T >of the audience was arguing for these speech codes, and for laws T >designed to stop "aggression" by male computer users and other T >unsavory characters who make women on the nets uncomfortable, nervous, T >or just plain angry. Several women stood up and spoke of the need for T >laws to protect the "vulnerable" from "verbal assault." Handle this by saying (in exaggerated tones dripping with irony): "Oh you poor infants. I think it's terrible that you are so abused by big strong men. Since you are so obviously weak and pathetic, I don't think that you should be out here in the Agora. I think that you should go back into your houses, lock your doors and avoid these unfortunate confrontations that upset you so." It's really not necessary to argue the PC ideas. Just point out (as I'm sure you did) that the suppression of communications is no longer technologically possible. Since communications can't be stopped, they'll just have to adjust. Ask *them* how they would stop communications and then shoot down their technically pathetic proposals. Duncan Frissell How to handle fanatic environmentalists/animal rightists/commies: "What's the matter; don't you believe in cultural diversity? Look, these days I have to put up with whether I like them or not. If I have to put up with whether I want to or not, then you have to put up with perverts like me. --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 11:06:45 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: The Idea of Free Speech i S >Yep. But freeing ourselves from the sticky webs of coercion S >is probably not as easy as space settler wannabees, Oceanians, S >or even crypto-anarchists hope...for a while yet we still have to S >learn "how to be free in an unfree world" (Harry Browne). S > S >Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com S > It may turn out to be easier than you think. Many extropians are still hung up on the need for bullet-proof applications (the force field of old SF) to ward off coercion or some kind of unlikely transformation of 51% of the population into Austrian Economists. They may not hold these views explicitly but the ideas color their thinking. The ability of governments to regulate is related to the capabilities of those who are regulated (tactical issues) and the position of the government in the minds of those regulated (strategic issues). Tactically the technologies and organizational capabilities represented by Tim May's and my signature lines enhance the capabilities of individuals but the *strategic* problems that government faces are even worse. If we didn't exist, they would still have *loads* of enforcement problems. There is very little remaining belief in the sacredness of the State. Disobedience is on the upswing and shows no signs of reversing. If disobedience keeps rising, at some point it reaches unity and the state dissolves. At 22:00 on November 10, 1989 this point was reached in the case of the government of the Democratic Republic of Germany and the Wall dissolved. They now exist in another nation but the concept of nationhood has been weakened. The second State is easier to kill than the first. I expect that there will be governments around for quite a while just as there are still churches even though the church has lost much of its secular power -- at least in the OECD countries. As the individual powers that people have increase, they make more and more choices with their lives. At some point, the sum of all these choices swamps the ability of States to prevent choice. Technology is naturally empowering in this regard without libertarians, extropians, or cypherpunks. Someday I promise to write my essay on the Vector Arithmetic of Coercion. 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: Wed, 8 Sep 93 08:24:18 PDT From: GRAPS@galileo.arc.nasa.gov Subject: depression Christina (Ratha?) writes: >There is, however, a new book out, featured on the cover of a rather >recent (probably August) laissez-faire catalog. It's called _Good Mood: >The New Psychology of Overcoming Depression_. It's written by (I forget >who exactly) an economist who has written for years, and apparently also >struggled with clinical depression for years. Coincidently, the book is by Julian Simon, an economist mentioned in a couple of other threads here in the past couple of days. I read Laissez Faire's review, and am tempted myself to buy the book (you'll have to tell me how it is), but the topic that Simon expounds is not new. Simon's techniques are called Cognitive Therapy. An excellent book about this is by David Burns called _Feeling Good, the New Mood Therapy_. It is *not* a pop psychology book, even though the title sounds like it. The book is a dense read with exercises and examples about altering our thinking patterns. My favorite portion is near the beginning where Burns discusses the 10 most common cognitive distortions. I see people on this list engaging in these distortions all of the time (usually leads to flame-wars). I'll post them here if anyone is interested. Amara Graps graps@gal.arc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 11:26:14 -0400 (EDT) From: smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: human population Mike Morgan responds to Tim May: TCM> I get very anxious when I hear the reference to "our populations." And TCM> to "control our populations." I think we all should be more than a little concerned about the subject. I appreciate your responses. As I am sure you're aware, the words to cause concern in the quotes above are "our" and "control." I don't need anyone to place "controls" on me, and I certainly don't think I am better off with a few billion humans less. If anything I would argue for more population, the more people there are the more production, the more minds, the more innovation. TCM> Seems to me to create a thought pattern that leads to the wrong TCM> solution: central planning and coercive social policies. What economic TCM> or political groups set the rates? China tells Americans? It's a tough problem. My point is that with a lack of real spaces (oceans or space itself) to expand to our biological programming could kill us. I haven't had a chance to read Julian Simons' books. I'm to busy changing career tracks right now. Got a nutshell synopsis of his work? The point is there is not a lack of real space, nor is there a lack of resources. If there were a lack of space or resources then the costs of bringing new children into the world would be the only disincentive needed to reduce population growth. Simon has an article in the latest issue of Extropy that looks like a good introduction to his work. TCM> Besides, what's the "right" population? Is Hong Kong overcrowded or TCM> not? (It is for _me_, but apparently not for a lot of others.) I don't know. I assume that when the quality of life has reached a certain degree of degradation due resource depletion we should consider that an issue for population control. As has been mentioned, real cost of resources are at an all-time low, if there were a shortage this would not be the case. If you think the market is wrong then you should buy the mispriced resources and make a killing when it corrects. TCM> As Jay Leno used to say, "Don't worry about a million starving TCM> peasants they'll make more." And what happens when some bright extropian soul sells those starving peasants weapons suitable to take your resources? Why would they buy weapons when they could buy food? Shawn smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 8:32:28 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: The Idea of Free Speech is Slipping Away Tim May: > > We'll have to create our own libertarian and extropian future. Just as > > we expected. Isn't this the problem libertarians have always had - spending a great deal of effort attempting to preach their concepts to the masses, using traditional means to try to change the world? I certainly do hope extropians expected it would require more than this. Nick Szabo > Yep. But freeing ourselves from the sticky webs of coercion > is probably not as easy as space settler wannabees, Oceanians, > or even crypto-anarchists hope...for a while yet we still have to > learn "how to be free in an unfree world" (Harry Browne). I still have yet to read this (or most anything for a long time. I spend all my time doing homework for my schooling and signing papers to close on my first house.) But, regardless, isn't it simply a matter of extropians becoming the ultimate survivalists? Okay, not _simply_ a matter of that, but it seems to me that ultimately the extropian/libertarian (can I put those together like that? :-) ideals will eventually be put to the test. Either we'll all live much longer than our neighbors, or not. Either we'll all become more prosperous, or not (speaking to averages, here). Actions speak much louder than words. So, until it can be proven to be a beneficial set of principles, extropianism will have to remain in the ranks of the dime-a-dozen philosophies that ride the memetic currents of the so-called "enlightened" crowd of people. So, I'm all for putting some of these principles to the test. THis means proving that life extension pursuits are fruitful, that exploration and exploitation of space and its resources is convenient and economical, and that transhumanists are ultimately more likely to succeed in life. It would also be helpful to introduce a few world-changing technologies again, much in the way that the automobile and airplane changed the world, or the telephone, or even the computer. We haven't had many of these lately, and without any of these things becoming successful enough to affect the general population, interest in extropian-like concepts will remain low. This is evidenced in this country's (the US) recent focus on old issues and old philosophies. To think that in the 60's this was a country completely enthralled in the concepts of space travel and the prospect of powerful computers and robots, and today all we (as a country) can think about is family values and socialized entitlement programs. Oops, got off on a tangent, but I guess my point was made. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 11:51:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Massengale Subject: The Idea of Free Speech is Slipping Away please remove me from the list ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 8:58:29 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: The Idea of Free Speech i Duncan: > dissolves. At 22:00 on November 10, 1989 this point was reached in the > case of the government of the Democratic Republic of Germany and the Wall > dissolved. They now exist in another nation but the concept of nationhood > has been weakened. The second State is easier to kill than the first. I am not so sure. One might argue that the original state, by its very nature, was simply bound for an early demise. On the other hand, now that the people (or dare I say, the sheep) have been placated, it may be much more difficult to conjure up a common cause to move on again. Look here in the United States, where we supposedly have more rights and freedoms, and look at the people here. It is readily apparent that it is nearly impossible to rally these people behind any cause, because the State is constantly scrambling to placate the majority, the special interests, and so forth. Of course, at what cost is the topic of another discussion, but still, I think the point is valid. The closer you get to freedom, or anarchy perhaps, the harder it is to achieve it, or so it seems. > As the individual powers that people have increase, they make more and > more choices with their lives. At some point, the sum of all these > choices swamps the ability of States to prevent choice. Technology is > naturally empowering in this regard without libertarians, extropians, or > cypherpunks. The problem is, along with more people achieving the power to choose, comes more people who seek to enforce their values upon others. Thus, in the name of freedom and human rights you end up with hiring quotas, socialized medicine, heavy environmental restrictions, and so forth and so on. Behind each of those causes you will find those who will claim (perhaps in the manner of a celebrity accepting an award) that they couldn't have done it were it not for the "freedoms" and "rights" accorded to them in this new and "enlightened" society/world. And what of technology in the hands of the State? Here in America, we constantly whine (as is our nature) about the inefficiency of government to handle things such as income tax processing, criminal record tracking, and so forth and so on. Well, one way or another, whether it is at the hands of Al Gore or Ross Perot or someone else, this government is going to get better at doing these things. You can already see where I'm leading. In this case, technology finally affords the government the power to have _real_ and efficient control. The point is, just because a given variable works in the favor of one cause, does not necessarily imply that it detracts from another. This is invalid logic, and I certainly hope we're a bit more cautious (and I think most on this list seem to be) about the implications of these changes. Doing so will allow us to react and plan better. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 7 September 1993 23:33:39 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Resources Jeff claims that resource exhaustion has happened in the past, leading to severe difficulties or social collapse. In <9309080226.AA00473@professor-ed.elf.com>, jeff@PROFESSOR-ED.ELF.COM (Jeff Fabijanic) wrote: > I'm not denying that they don't often do, or perhaps even > usually, but it would be silly to assume that its always > the case. I can imagine many examples (both gedanken and > historical) where the necessary technical jump was too > great, or resource depletion had got to the point where > there wasn't enough to maintain *current* tech levels. > > Here's a couple: > > Easter Island and perhaps other island people who used all > possible boat-building materials and had their culture > decline both sociologically and technologically. The social collapse on Easter Island was caused by a revolution, a revolution in which every member of the upper classes - the educated technology using classes, was killed in a horrible fashion. Those who did not die in battle were burnt alive. Some people have speculated that the revolution was caused or worsened by resource exhaustion, but there is no concrete evidence of this. > Mayan culture which apparently used high-yield farm land > for urban use and grew beyond the ability of their food > transport system to support their population, with > catastrophic results. Again, this is speculation. The immediate cause of collapse was the development of highly centralized and authoritarian states, which engaged in total war against each other, using totalitarian means to sustain these wars. Such states do not need resource exhaustion to collapse, although warfare over land undoubtedly contributed to the collapse. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 12:51:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Christina M Grimes Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. I think this'll be my last post to this thread, because it's no longer going anywhere. We seem to be in a yelling match with the First Extropian Squirrel, and I don't think any more arguing would be constructive, but you know how everyone has to get a final word in. It seems that F.E.S.'s position is this: > The F. E. S. reiterates that his personal position is to award > rights of various sorts to diverse creatures neither capable of > understanding them nor of negociating [sic] about them. In light of the definitions that we have established for the sake of argument, this is logically impossible. The positon would therefore be more clearly and accurately stated as: : The F. E. S. reiterates that his personal position is to award : absolute and universal entitlements of various sorts to diverse creatures : neither capable of understanding them nor of negotiating about them. To me, that makes little sense, and is unfair to boot. The F.E.S. apparently wants to award the entitlements that a human generates and defends for semself--i.e., *deserves*-- to a being that simply cannot do so. Why? To be nice? The best answer I think was already given by Perry: > Hey, you are free to say that rocks have a right to remain undisturbed > -- but you won't get very far at convincing us we should pay attention > to you. If your contention is that squirrels should have rights, the > burden is on you to show us why we should give a damn about them. > Rights arising from contract or from capacity to fight need not be > justified -- **they are self executing.** "Rights" which are not self > executing must somehow be justified to us -- and I can see no reason > to believe in the rights of squirrels. (emphasis mine) I also wanted to personally ask the F.E.S. to lighten up: > (Quoting Perry, who was attempting vainly to dispel F.E.S.'s gloom 'n doom): > > Extremely unlikely that one AI could manage to run things hundreds or > > even millions of light-years away. Exploitation has physical limits. > > Reasonable point, though it depends how much one thinks technology will > remove said limits ("boundless expansion", "dynamic optimism" and all that). > In the case of all players being earthbound, though, I can certainly imagine > one very successful AI ruling the roost. [...] Where's *your" dynamic optimism? Do you really think that once we (or someone) jumps out of traditional evolutionary development, the rest of us will be automatically doomed to permanent obsolescence and servitude of the mighty? Do you assume, then, that the "mighty" will find that the most constructive and mutually beneficial way to deal with "lesser beings" is to use and/or walk on them? Call me naive, but I think not. Ratha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 13:06:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Christina M Grimes Subject: depression Julian Simon: I knew it was someone as obvious as that! Amara, you caught my intest with Burns's cognitive distortions, especially since you say that you see people on the list making them all the time. Would you mind terribly posting a kind of digest of them...? It sounds like the kind of thing that would be enlightening to everyone here. Thanks, Ratha (You seemed confused about my apellation(s): call me whichever you like. I prefer Ratha, however.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 10:27:30 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: The Idea of Free Speech is Slipping Away .... > Their stupidity in this issue truly amazes me. Do they really think > that the looney left will forever be able to set the rules? If we ever > get serious speech codes, the great redneck unwashed will be setting > the rules, and the PC crowd and those so unfortunate as to be defended > by them will be the first to get socks in their mouths. > > Buy Buy -- Dan Davis Yes, the left will be _crushed_ by such majoritarian speech codes and limits. I try to persuade my left-leaning friends (yes, I have some) that the dubious benefits of limiting hate speech will boomerang bang on them in a big way. I also find it useful when talking about "right wing extremists" and "guns" to mention the different political climate of 20-25 years ago, to cite the Black Panthers, the no-knock raids, the killings of Fred Hampton and many others. (The Panthers were villified for their un-American habit of arming themselves with shotguns. Buck niggers with guns! Can't have that--the Second Amendment was for good ole boys.) In the Cypherpunks groups there are, for whatever, many leftists. We avoid libertarian vs. socialist debate, for the most part, but I am greatly encouraged that nearly all of them understand that government per se is the main source of problems and that strong crypto is necessary. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 10:53:51 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. Ratha makes comments that suggest a personal definition of rights interim between one stemming from mutual utility arrived at by contract, and one based on personal choices such as those the F. E. S. prefers: > there are, empirically and rationally, > certain "rights" that can be considered "universal" to all intelligent > beings; i.e., existence, property, freedom, etc. Why? Because said > beings will defend them. If you don't understand rights, you can't > defend them. That's the distinguishing criterion. Hence, you can > "recognize" rights (the social convention part), but cannot "attribute" > them arbitrarily, because they are dependent on the being's ability to > hold them. The squirrel can't and won't reason with you if you cut down > its tree [...] The F. E. S. is not certain from these remarks, what mixture of ability to defend, ability to understand, and ability to conduct dialog, underlies the definition of "rights" hinted at. The relative proportions are important because the abilities to defend, understand and conduct dialog appear to be found separately in nature. That is, territorial defense is widely seen among animals, and some non-human animals act as if they had at least some cognitive awareness of their actions and environment, but very few non-human animals are able to conduct appropriate dialogs on those subjects. (Possible long discussion on how few is "very few" sidestepped.) The F. E. S. is interested because interim positions are rare in this discussion group -- they usually get blown away rapidly, in crossfire from the extremes. Would Ratha care to explain further the position quoted above? The F. E. S. hastens to add that he is not seeking a target for crossfire. > > Perhaps his only hope is that it will have chosen to be > > considerate of animals. > > Could this, perchance, be at the root of the F.E.S.'s argument? It's > reasonable that from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" > follows "treat lesser creatures well, you'd want greater creatures to > treat you well." This is an understandable conclusion, but [...] The F. E. S. is *not* of the opinion that the world operates according to the "do unto others" rule, nor does he believe that any possible adoption of that rule by him would induce others to do the same. The F. E. S. is, rather, led by Extropian principles and the philosophically parsimonious assumption of mediocrity, to the belief that both the present cosmos and the future Earth likely contain entities of vastly greater capability than his own. The F. E. S. acknowledges that speculation by small brains on the thoughts of large ones is perhaps intrinsically fruitless, but finds it interesting nonetheless to speculate on how such beings might behave. With respect to the wide cosmos, the F. E. S. calls attention to the "Fermi paradox", occasionally discussed here, which may be summarized as "Where is everybody?", in that long-lived technically advanced entities would have long since explored, colonized and perhaps chosen to undertake exploitation on a comprehensive interstellar scale. In the context of the present discussion, the F. E. S. notes that we have not all been bulldozed into some kind of cosmic subdivision, and wonders why. A large number of possible reasons might be advanced, among them that line reasoning we have not yet thought of might have led such beings to make different choices about how to interact with others. The F. E. S. enjoys speculating about such lines of reasoning. At risk of redundancy, the F. E. S. reiterates that he does not regard his personal ethics as absolute, nor does he seek to cause others to have similar beliefs, nor does he ascribe them to hypothetical advanced entities of whatever nature. > --Ratha, the philosophical perfectionist & nitpicker extraorinaire A commendable position, in the opinion of the F. E. S. -- Jay Freeman, First Extropian Squirrel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 93 10:58:33 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: PHIL: Ethics etc. Perry Metzger says: > If your contention is that squirrels should have rights, the > burden is on you to show us why we should give a damn about them. The F. E. S. is not contending; he seeks illumination, not converts, and believes we have all agreed that rights are not absolute. He has learned a great deal from the discussion so far. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1993 14:47:24 From: tim.hruby@his.com (Tim Hruby) Subject: multi book drs describe drs account report ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 13:08:21 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: human population In <5171.157.uupcb@ehbbs.com>, Michael Morgan writes: |> On 09-07-93 09:34, Timothy C. May wrote to Michael Morgan |> regarding: "human population"... |> [...] |> TCM> Besides, what's the "right" population? Is Hong Kong overcrowded or |> TCM> not? (It is for _me_, but apparently not for a lot of others.) I have some recent data from Hong Kong, as a friend[1] transferred there this Spring -- I don't _think_ he'll mind my sharing this, but I'll cc: him so he can chew me out if need be: "Small (600-700 sq ft) apartments rent for about $12000 to $16000 HK a month, and require 2 to 3 months deposit. There is a tax called "rates" paid directly to the government by the renter, which is 5% of the annual rent. There is also a 15% flat income tax (although there are lower percentages for the bottom end of the scale). About half a dozen items have sales tax. Otherwise there does not seem to be a lot of taxes. No social security tax (employer or employee). No capital gains tax. No tax on savings interest. The current conversion rate is HK$ 7.73 to US$ 1. [My] Lease is for two years with a one month notice cancellation clause at the end of first year. This includes a new "standard size" fridge, a 4 burner stove with oven (gas) and a washing machine. Also 3 window air conditioning units. No heat! It rarely gets cold enough to use it, and I can buy a small heater for those times. The size is 700 square feet. It has two bedrooms (about 8x10 each) with carpet (the rest has wooden parquet), one bath, a kitchen, a dining room and living room. **One this size would normally house a family of 5 or 6.** It will be the smallest place I've ever lived, but at least it will hold all my furniture. Looks like my monthly costs will be (in HK$): [Larry's business deleted, it's in the range cited above] As near as I can make out, my new address (as of April 15) will be: Larry Hughes Flat H, 25/F Hoi Sing Mansion, Taikooshing HONG KONG The 25/F means 25th floor - up above some of the worst air, and with an ok view (nothing real fancy, but nice). I can move in my furniture whenever it arrives. Larry" ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO ISGS 9/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here (sometimes) [1] Larry Hughes, a Libertarian/musician/gourmet cook/gentleman & scholar, not to mention computer wizard, used to work with me in Huntsville and is now, in the words of his .signature, "Living out the Clinton term in beautiful Capitalist Hong Kong". ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #250 *********************************