From extropians-request@extropy.org Sun Dec 26 19:17:19 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA24247; Sun, 26 Dec 93 19:17:18 PST 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 AA20486; Sun, 26 Dec 93 19:17:13 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA09879 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sun, 26 Dec 1993 22:09:39 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 22:09:39 -0500 Message-Id: <199312270309.AA09879@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: December 27, 373 P.N.O. [03:09:18 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Mon, 27 Dec 93 Volume 93 : Issue 360 Today's Topics: email addresses [1 msgs] ANARCHY: Eugenics and freedom [2 msgs] Eugenics (was Why Have Kids) [2 msgs] Kennita, Send me your email address [1 msgs] META: email addresses in headers [1 msgs] Massive Retaliation Policy [1 msgs] Media: Mondo2000 and Competition [1 msgs] Meta: How to start a PPL [1 msgs] Meta: Massive Retaliation Policy [1 msgs] Meta: Tale of two PPLs [3 msgs] Social Evolution [1 msgs] Speed of evolution/selection of traits in humans... [1 msgs] What is a simp-wimp? [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51448 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 00:11:46 -0100 From: carlf@media.mit.edu (Carl Feynman) Subject: Eugenics (was Why Have Kids) Oliver Seiler writes: >and to tell the truth, I don't think much would >ever come from colonization of a planet which isn't livable without lot's >of technology)... > Are you saying that we will never be able to live anywhere except on the Earth, or on earthlike planets circling other stars? I heartily disagree, and I welcome a chance to discuss the question. Let me point out that we couldn't live on Earth, at least not all five billion of us, without lots of technology like vaccines, steel plows, penicillin, genetically fiddled crops... >... As extropians, I would think more effort into improving the >gene-pool would be a good thing. There's a eugenic service running right now in New York. It's about ten years old, and the target market is orthodox Jews. A youngster goes to the service and is tested to see if he or she is a carrier of any of four recessive genetic diseases common among Jews. This record is stored under a six digit code number to ensure confidentiality. When a man and woman are considering dating, they call up the service and give their numbers. If they have matching recessives, they are told this. This is the only eugenic program I am aware of that is operating right now. It seems pretty cool. I don't know why things like this aren't more popular. >Some way's I can see of doing this: > > - More interest in the genetic aspect's of reproduction, to try to reduce > the risk of defects (birth defects, high cancer risks, etc) by looking > at each partner's background. > - Increase the birthrate of couples with such traits as long life, > immunity to disease, etc. A lot of this would have to be done by either: > - looking at the family tree > - artificial insemination with sperm of men with the sought after > characteristics > - when available, similar practice with frozen eggs > All of these techniques (except frozen eggs) have been available and well understood since the beginning of this century. They haven't caught on for a very simple reason: rational thought does not control the selection of mates or the creation of babies. Who someone marries is controlled by lots of powerful factors like love, parents, money, social esteem, etc, and the prospect of slightly increased genetic fitness for one's children doesn't have much influence. Another reason for the unpopularity of eugenics is that various States tried to make it compulsory earlier in this century, and people quite rightly detested this grotesque oppression. Fortunately, better methods are available. Right now couples at risk of bearing a double-recessive child can prevent this unfortunate circumstance by either amniocentesis followed by selective abortion, or in-vitro fertilization of several embryos followed by implantation of one. But these are expensive, scary, dangerous surgical procedures. They are also morally objectionable to many people because they involve killing embryos. What we need is a cheap safe way of stopping bad chromosomes before they get into embryos. Here's a way I thought of a couple of years ago. There are machines that can sort cells based on their surface proteins, at a rate of thousands of cells per second. They ought to be able to sort sperm, too. So if a man is worried that one of his copies of chromosome 19 (say) is carrying a bad gene, all he has to do is find a sperm surface protein gene that is different on his two copies of chromosome 19. He can then select the sperm that have the surface protein characteristic of the good chromosome 19, and squirt them into his wife. This lets people exclude bad recessives, and also make sure that desirable genes make it into the next generation, provided they are carried by a man. Of course, it's a sexually discriminatory system, because it's lots easier to manipulate sperm than eggs, but there you are. I'm not a biochemist, so I'm not sure this will work, but it sure is fun to think about. I suspect that if this system doesn't become availiable soon, some good method of selecting chromosomes will. The technology in this area is moving incredibly fast. Presumably the media will be able to find "ethicists" who say it's a terrible idea, but proponents will be able to argue that it's a private choice of the parents, and that with widespread use of this system, we could eliminate genetic diseases, and with them much human suffering. I suspect that such arguments would prevent it from being banned. Once the system has proliferated, it will start being used to select for intelligence, body shape, sex and appearance, which will give the ethicists fits, but by then it will be too late. We will be on the road to a race of superhumans. Yahoo! One consequence of being a futurophile like me is that I am frustrated by the antiquity of the technology I have to use every day. It's kind of like living in a poor country and thinking about how much better it would be to live in America. In this particular case, I wish I could make sure that my kids don't inherit my tendency toward ulcerative colitis, and my wife's bad back, and do inherit our IQs. But they will be born too soon. They have to take the luck of the draw along with the rest of the last unmodified generation. --carlf Internet: carlf@media.mit.edu Home phone: (508)635-9238 Office phone: (617)253-9833 Mail: 1 Gregory Ln., Acton MA 01720 Missile: 42d28'38"N 71d28'49"W +90m Holler: "Yo! Carl Feynman!" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1993 21:51:53 -0800 (PST) From: Oliver Seiler Subject: Eugenics (was Why Have Kids) On Sun, 26 Dec 1993, Carl Feynman wrote: > Oliver Seiler writes: > >and to tell the truth, I don't think much would > >ever come from colonization of a planet which isn't livable without lot's > >of technology)... > > > Are you saying that we will never be able to live anywhere except on the > Earth, or on earthlike planets circling other stars? I heartily disagree, > and I welcome a chance to discuss the question. Nope, didn't say never. I was refering to the idea (stated in Heinlein's book 'Time Enough For Love') that colonization of new lands (planets, environs, etc.) improves the quality of the gene pool, since the ones who go to colonize and survive are the more intelligent, hardy, etc. and must also reproduce (hence colonize) and so pass on these 'higher quality' genes... I meant by this statement that in an environment which required large amounts of support technology to survive, more people would choose not to reproduce, and even so, these people would probably not be colonists in the usual sense, but scientists, people doing their jobs (astronauts), etc (assuming a group like NASA was coordinating it)... No doubt these people would have many good qualities to pass on though... This type of mission would probably not be for colonization though... Not in the sense I mean where children will be born and raised for generations, etc. > > Let me point out that we couldn't live on Earth, at least not all five > billion of us, without lots of technology like vaccines, steel plows, > penicillin, genetically fiddled crops... > True, and this relates to the idea that the current human gene pool really isn't going anywhere. No genetic pressure for survival, although there may be some for higher intelligence... But if this technology disappeared, the entire race would not be destroyed (and those left would most likely be of better stock, unless all those alpha males took over...) > >... As extropians, I would think more effort into improving the > >gene-pool would be a good thing. > > There's a eugenic service running right now in New York. It's about ten > years old, and the target market is orthodox Jews. A youngster goes to the > service and is tested to see if he or she is a carrier of any of four > recessive genetic diseases common among Jews. This record is stored under > a six digit code number to ensure confidentiality. When a man and woman > are considering dating, they call up the service and give their numbers. > If they have matching recessives, they are told this. This is the only > eugenic program I am aware of that is operating right now. It seems pretty > cool. I don't know why things like this aren't more popular. I'm sure a business involved in similar things aiming for higher intelligence and lower disease risk would do quite well... In Canada a Royal Commision Study was recently released which recommended stricter control in the area of reproductive technology. I wonder if this sort of thing is covered? > > >Some way's I can see of doing this: > > > > - More interest in the genetic aspect's of reproduction, to try to reduce > > the risk of defects (birth defects, high cancer risks, etc) by looking > > at each partner's background. > > - Increase the birthrate of couples with such traits as long life, > > immunity to disease, etc. A lot of this would have to be done by either: > > - looking at the family tree > > - artificial insemination with sperm of men with the sought after > > characteristics > > - when available, similar practice with frozen eggs > > > > All of these techniques (except frozen eggs) have been available and well > understood since the beginning of this century. They haven't caught on for > a very simple reason: rational thought does not control the selection of > mates or the creation of babies. Who someone marries is controlled by lots > of powerful factors like love, parents, money, social esteem, etc, and the > prospect of slightly increased genetic fitness for one's children doesn't > have much influence. Another reason for the unpopularity of eugenics is > that various States tried to make it compulsory earlier in this century, > and people quite rightly detested this grotesque oppression. > I agree that this sort of thing should never be forced on anyone (well, nothing should be forced on anyone)... People marry for lot's of reasons, and it seems to me that if more people really understood that they can affect evolution of the human race, then maybe they would. Perhaps if more people saw that human evolution hasn't stopped at all, they could see how they can do their part... ie. If more people saw the goals of Extropianism (but this is already being discussed in another thread) > Fortunately, better methods are available. Right now couples at risk of > bearing a double-recessive child can prevent this unfortunate circumstance > by either amniocentesis followed by selective abortion, or in-vitro > fertilization of several embryos followed by implantation of one. But > these are expensive, scary, dangerous surgical procedures. They are also > morally objectionable to many people because they involve killing embryos. > What we need is a cheap safe way of stopping bad chromosomes before they > get into embryos. > Well if people find killing the embryos objectionable, I don't know if their is another way to do it. Checking genetic history before conception or in-vitro fertalization is the easiest thing to do, and I think that if done widely by many people interested in it, could have a statistically significant effect. > ... > Presumably the media will be able to find "ethicists" who say it's a > terrible idea, but proponents will be able to argue that it's a private > choice of the parents, and that with widespread use of this system, we > could eliminate genetic diseases, and with them much human suffering. I > suspect that such arguments would prevent it from being banned. Once the > system has proliferated, it will start being used to select for > intelligence, body shape, sex and appearance, which will give the ethicists > fits, but by then it will be too late. We will be on the road to a race of > superhumans. Yahoo! > And I have yet to see why some people don't like this idea. Does it ring to much of government controlled breeding programs a la the Nazi's? Are some people put off by the idea that there kids will be 'superhumans'? Since evolution is generally pretty slow, I doubt we'd see this... Maybe one could advertise like the environmentalists do it: Do it for your children... and your children's children... > One consequence of being a futurophile like me is that I am frustrated by > the antiquity of the technology I have to use every day. It's kind of like > living in a poor country and thinking about how much better it would be to > live in America. In this particular case, I wish I could make sure that my > kids don't inherit my tendency toward ulcerative colitis, and my wife's bad > back, and do inherit our IQs. But they will be born too soon. They have > to take the luck of the draw along with the rest of the last unmodified > generation. > Good luck to them, and may all your kid's be smart... > > --carlf -Oliver | Oliver Seiler + Erisian Development Group + Amiga Developer + | oseiler@unixg.ubc.ca +-------------Reality by the Slice--------------+ | oseiler@nyx.cs.du.edu | Phone: (604) 683-5364 Fax: (604) 683-6142 | | ollie@BIX.com | POB 3547, MPO, Vancouver, BC, CANADA V6B 3Y6 | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 01:30:55 -0100 From: carlf@media.mit.edu (Carl Feynman) Subject: Speed of evolution/selection of traits in humans... Phil Fraering writes >Nancy writes that one thing that would tend to be selected >for is submission to governments. > >Somehow I doubt that being very eager to sign up with the >government (or its largest branch in pre-industrial society, >the military) and go be killed in a border dispute with the >Steppe Barbarians/Oceanic Barbarians/(Pick your favorite bar- >barian type here) would be a survival characteristic. In a lot of cultures, signing up with the military was a great way to get ahead. In feudal Europe, the basic activity of the upper classes was leading gangs into hand-to-hand combat. If you could put together a fairly big gang, and carve out a territory, you could declare yourself a Baron, or Duke, or even King. Then you could father lots of kids on the peasant women, and be an evolutionary success. I sometimes wonder if this accounts for the height and brawniness of modern western Europeans. Because of this ability to rise in the ranks by violence, feudal Europe was a culture in which uppitiness was sometimes highly rewarded, thus preserving uppity genes for future generations. Anton Sherwood writes >Interesting notion. Can it be tested? Has literacy >been studied in children of nations that were recently isolated >and illiterate -- Eskimos or Polynesians, for example -- raised >in advanced cultures? Have Greeks and Italians outperformed >Scandinavians in America? Theories of genetic differences in intelligence are taboo. No one will investigate them. This is largely because such theories were devised, and used as a tool of oppression, in many countries during the first half of this century. In the second half of this century, these theories were revealed for the bad theories they were, unmotivated by evidence and advanced for purposes of State. Now anyone who investigates such theories is believed to be devising new tools for oppression. The null hypothesis reigns supreme. If there are differences in patterns of mental ability by ethnic group, they're pretty weak. Differences within a group are larger than the differences between groups. More a matter of bell curves that are displaced by 0.5 standard deviations than "all Latvians are idiots". And mostly they're swamped by cultural differences anyway. Simon! writes: >Carl Feynman writes: >>In such societies, genes that promoted dyslexia or >>short attention span would be selected against. >I agree with everything but the last sentence, because I don't see how >promotion to the upper classes implies genetic selection. When I think of >a successful trait, I think of sheer biomass -- i.e., how many organisms >carry the gene for that trait. I believe that this is the standard definition, >or is at least consistent with it. But isn't most of the world's population >lower-class and illiterate? Or, as someone once said, God must love the >common man, because he created so many of them. Promotion to the upper classes promotes the accumulation of biomass. In many cultures, a man in the upper classes will leave twice as many descendants in the next generation as someone in the lowest class. Of course, this means that half of the kids of the upper classes have to be kicked out into the lower classes every generation, or else the upper classes would soon overwhelm society. I'm not suggesting that there is a gene for "being upper class"; such a gene is clearly not very prevalent, since most people are peasants. But in a meritocratic society with a strong variation of reproduction with status, genes that promote moving up will rapidly accumulate more individuals. >I think I'm catching a whiff of social Darwinism here. Well, as I say above, Social Darwinism is a philosophy that is easily turned to support the elite at the expense of everybody else. I don't much care for it. But we ought to be able to seperate the scientific question of whether there are differences among ethnic groups in the genes that control mental characteristics from the moral question of whether low social status should be taken as a sign of irremediable genetic inferiority. Nick Szabo writes: >Whether there are "literacy genes", and whether there was pressure >in favor of such genes in previous centuries, the pressure is quite >the opposite now. Across a wide variety of cultures, >alleles of illiterate people are spreading at nearly twice the >rate of the alleles of literates. Illiterates are genetically >fitter than literates, and people with PhDs who use birth control >are the least fit of all. I think the difference between literates and illiterates in the world today is almost entirely cultural. It doesn't matter if you have the genome of William Shakespeare if you're born to a poor family in an isolated hill village in Uganda where there aren't any schools. You'll still be illiterate. On the other hand, almost anybody can learn to read if they go to a good school. Fortunately, people are more than just bundles of genes, and people generally realize that those who read lead a better life. This desire to read, coupled with increasing wealth, is raising literacy rates everywhere. I think that in one or two generations, almost everyone will know how to read. (Just in time to be obsoleted by the Singularity!) As is often the case, memes swamp genes. --carlf Internet: carlf@media.mit.edu Home phone: (508)635-9238 Office phone: (617)253-9833 Mail: 1 Gregory Ln., Acton MA 01720 Missile: 42d28'38"N 71d28'49"W +90m Holler: "Yo! Carl Feynman!" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 05:58:06 -0700 (MST) From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell) Subject: Kennita, Send me your email address Please send my your email address so that I can follow-up to you privately. Thank you. -Bob- -- Bob Angell | Data Integration (multi-platform) Principal | AWK, C/C++, RDBMS langs, Paradox Management Systems Engineering | Health Systems Engineering Applied Information & Management Systems | Database design/development 1238 Fenway Avenue - SLC, UT 84102-3212 | Simulation/Modeling/Neural Nets bangell@cs.utah.edu; Voice: 801-583-8544 | Freelance writer, major publications IBMLINK:DEV4534, TEAMOS/2 | OS/2 2.x Application Developer [Disclaimer: I don't speak for IBM or the University of Utah!] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 05:19:11 -0800 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: email addresses Please send my your email address so that I can follow-up to you privately. My email address is kwatson@netcom.com. Sorry if I forgot to .sig the message in question. Does anybody else not get my (or anyone else's) "From" address in their message header? Is it perhaps an attribute of the mailer one uses? Kennita Watson | Do I want to live forever? Maybe not, but give kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think HEx: KNNTA | it over. - KLW, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 06:32:40 -0800 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: Social Evolution Question : Do any Extropians have any desire , or believe that it is possible, to see our current State evolve into a more free one? Has anyone here drawn any sketches or ideas of how to actually make the transition from today's Real to tomorrow's Ideal? I've thought of a couple of ideas: 1) Decriminalize "victimless crime", while at the same time cracking down on crimes with victims (since nature abhors a vacuum, you have to give the authoritarians _something_ to distract them). For example, decriminalize prostitution, and at the same time fix the system that lets multiply-convicted rapists out on the street with piddly sentences. Decriminalize marijuana, and at the same time toughen up punishments for armed robbery and violent crime (supposedly caused by marijuana use, but we know better, so we win twice). Decriminalize private enterprise (lighten zoning laws, allow private jitneys, etc.), and at the same time stop letting people buy their way out of fraud, embezzling, etc. convictions. 2) Allow people to decide where 10% (as a start) of their income tax money goes, allowing them to allot it to the Federal budget items they think are most important. This would get people thinking along the lines of controlling their own fates, and we could work to push the percentage higher. 3) Give people a tax credit (not deduction, _credit_) for anything they pay for that government would otherwise have paid for (education, street repair, police protection, feeding and housing the poor, etc.) (to placate the vultures, say that you can only credit what government would have spent on your behalf in any given area, and/or that your total credit can't total more than your tax liability). 4) Implement freedom-of-education initiatives, so that people can educate their children as they see fit rather than as the State sees fit. I know these don't go far enough, but I think they are a step in the right direction, which is what I think Betsy was asking for. PS, related question: Why didn't Dagny Taggart bring Eddie with her? Why wasn't he worth saving? I think Rand's point is that nobody is "worth saving". Galt's Gulch was for the people who could save themselves. What position do you think Eddie would have been in w.r.t. Dagny and the other inhabitants if he had had to be brought along on someone's shirttails? Waitaminit! Why am _I_ arguing this position? Kennita Watson | Do I want to live forever? Maybe not, but give kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think HEx: KNNTA | it over. - KLW, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 12:28:16 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Tale of two PPLs This is a draft document and essay on the effects of multiple PPL's on the Extropians list. The question is what happens if list member A (the party of the first part :), sends a communication out that offends list member b. Let's say that A & B are in different PPL's, and that Harry Hawk is the Primary Judge for the PPL B is a member of. After reading the communication of A, B files charges against A. What happens next? 1) I look up in my trusty list member database (lmd) and see if A & B are in my jurisdiction. It, of course, turns out that B is and A is not. 2) Then I let A & B know about the charges and the gather evidence. Let's assume that A is not very helpful here. A has no reason to be, as A is outside of my legal reach. (Of course the ExI board can still give A the boot - they are the Meta rulers of this VR.) 3) I examine the charges in light of whatever evidence is before me. If I find the charges to be false, I do nothing but let both parties know this PPL dance is over. 4) If however, I find that A (under PPL1's laws) is guilty, I have much work to do. 4a) I have to officially contact the owner/management of A's PPL. 4b) We have to arbitrate a verdict. 4c) A's PPL MUST arbitrate in good faith (In RW [real world] PPL's this might not be the case, but it is here; this means while I don't speak for the ExI board, as their officer in charge of electronic communications I would strongly recommend they disband and or boot any PPL on this list that is not willing to arbitrate in good faith.) 4d) A question here is also, does A have the right to Appeal? Or does A's PPL Appeal for A? 4e) I can't predict what will result from the arbitration but suspect it will call for each PPL enforcing boundaries amongst A & B. For example, requiring A & B to ::exclude each other for a period of 2 weeks. Your comments are welcome. Your input desired. Harry Hawk, Judge! -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 12:36:49 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: How to start a PPL It has not been asked, but herein is now told how to start a PPL. 1) You must be a member of ExI or approved by the ExI Electronic Communications Officer (ECO), me. 2) You must demonstrate an understanding of Extropian Principals, and of PPLs. 3) You must articulate the rules of your PPL, and publish in a timely way, if not in real time, any changes in those rules. 4) You must maintain a active list of those who joined/left your PPL. Your members have to notify me in writing (via e-mail) that they have left PPL1. 5) You must arbitrate in good faith and in a timely manner if any inter-PPL disputes arise. Harry Hawk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 13:07:17 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Media: Mondo2000 and Competition Evolution and competition in the magazine field has seems to have yielded interesting results for Mondo2000. I subscribe to it. Recent issues have in terms of type and art direction be so far out that I haven't been able to read more than 1 or 2 articles. This contrasts with the premier issue of Wired which I was able to read cover to cover.... In fact I think Mondo is feeling the ecological effect of having to compete with Wired. I make the following observations: It appears: 1) Mondo has adopted a more readable art direction 2) Mondo is adapting to a almost anti-technology view point often associated with the French Semiotic/Neo Marxist view point. They are very pro bi/gay/transgender/polygender/ etc. 3) Wired is taking more of what I see as an extropian viewpoint; that being if it happens in an open market than that is what people want and you can't apply a moral to it. Wired hasn't seemed to address the effects of technology like VR will have on issues of gender. 4) Wired seems to be about how technology is changes our lives and how we can deal with that. The current issue of Mondo seems to be about how evil corporations will take over ourlives and our media unless we destroy them first. All of this seems to be inline with the theories put forth by Michael Rothschild in Bionomics. That competing business will evolve to occupy different niches... -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 10:50:22 -0800 From: Romana Machado Subject: ANARCHY: Eugenics and freedom I resent the current laws surrounding adoption, abortion, and eugenics. I disagree with the opinions of just about every medical ethicist that I've ever read. I want free reproductive choice for myself, and for anyone else who wants it too. It just occurred to me that cryptoanarchy also aims for this goal. Secure anonymous transaction systems ("BlackNet") can provide a free marketplace for all reproductive services. Abortions, "full-disclosure" eggs, sperm, embryos, womb rental, babies: anything goes. Romana Machado "- sperm being essentially a free good -" - David Friedman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 13:56:37 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: META: email addresses in headers Kennita Watson asks: >Does anybody else not get my (or anyone else's) "From" address in >their message header? Is it perhaps an attribute of the mailer one >uses? I have had this problem in the past. There have been certain messages that I wanted to follow-up, and I could not tell from any of the headers where they came from. They said something about being from Extropian-List, but their was no human source. Some of the messages has a "Remailed for header" and some didn't. I no longer have this problem. All my messages seem to have a clear "From:" header now. I don't know what changed. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 11:09:46 -0800 (PST) From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Massive Retaliation Policy Harry Shapiro has asked me to reduce the frequency of my postings, and I have reluctantly agreed. I only hope others have been similarly warned. Harry probably won't like my mention of his message to me, but I see no reason not to, and I don't think my reduced frequency of posting should lead people to believe I did this just on my own initiative. Harry is free to reproduce his letter(s) to me and my letter(s) to him in this matter. Last spring I added a new line to my sig: "Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it." I did this because of comments from people about what they _like_ about my posts, what they _didn't_ like, and what they thought should be changed in them. They seemed to treat my posts as some sort of "public good," needing to be changed. So, I reminded them all, if they ever read the sig, that my posts are the results of my time and will not be to everyone's liking. So be it. Let them write the posts they want. And as I explained in my post in response to Nick's call for less discussion of politics, my time is not "fungible." That is, I can't (or won't) reduce my comments on crypto-anarchy and libertarianism and instead allocate this time to, say, launching a study of cell freezing or of how to upload a cat brain. That some of you think I/we should be working on "more important" things is meaningless: I spend my time on what I want to, not on what the herd decides is most important. However, some of you are right when you point out that my essays are largely ignored and are not having any effect. So be it. In any case, the "harsher and more vengeful" Tim is now born, to compete with the "kinder and gentler" (what a laugh) of the simp-wimp airheads on this list who routinely launch ad hominem attacks against "gun-toting Nazis," "concentration camp guards," and "lizard-eyes." I say what I think, no matter how controversial or politically incorrect. I will continue to do so, even if it offends our so-called "minorities," who, by the way, are now the majority here in the People 's Republic of Darkest Kalifornia. To those of you who dislike my honesty, fuck you. I will use my reduced number of postings primarily for vengeance against you fools and "daily affirmations" newage. My long essays on various matters, and my involvement in such things as the AIT VirtSem and similar threads, have mostly resulted in little that justified the time I spend summarizing things, scanning articles, etc. Apparently, most of you out there much prefer the gutter over the lectern. So be it. This is _my_ PPL, Tim's Tribunal. Flakes and simp-wimps will be blasted. If I am "charged" in our current "legal" system, I'll take my typical "one-day posting ban" with a feeling of satisfaction. Then I'll be back with an even sharper sword of vengeance. Massive Retaliation is the policy of Tim's Tribunal. And when the inevitable day come that the airheads get their "feelings" hurt so much that they force my expulsion from the List, I will be feel especially honored to have been only the second person to have been so honored. --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: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 11:19:28 -0800 (PST) From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: ANARCHY: Eugenics and freedom Romana Machado writes: > I resent the current laws surrounding adoption, abortion, and eugenics. > I disagree with the opinions of just about every medical ethicist that > I've ever read. I want free reproductive choice for myself, and for > anyone else who wants it too. It just occurred to me that cryptoanarchy > also aims for this goal. Secure anonymous transaction systems ("BlackNet") > can provide a free marketplace for all reproductive services. Abortions, > "full-disclosure" eggs, sperm, embryos, womb rental, babies: anything goes. Exactly. Offshore data havens (and "offshore" will soon be in cyberspace) will allow the medical data the "authorities" and the "doctor's guilds" don't think end-users need to have. Markets for organ transplants can similary be set up off-shore or via remailers and anonymous transaction services. (If not offshore or in cypherspace, such a market would be shut down in the U.S., just as credit rating data bases and "lawyer competence" data banks would be heavily regulated by the legally-sanction guilds and essentially not allowed to operate). Romana expressed satisfaction that I mentioned in a lecture at Stanford using crypto-anarchy to make RU-486 information available to women. No, this was not a sop to the women because of my recent discussions here on this List---I've used the RU-486 example for several years, since it came to public attention around 1990 or so. > Romana Machado > "- sperm being essentially a free good -" - David Friedman For Romana, I can offer a quantity discount. --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: Sun, 26 Dec 93 14:27:16 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: Meta: Tale of two PPLs The Honorable Harry S. Hawk, Judge!, habs@extropy.org, Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc., on the The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991, etc., explains: >4a) I have to officially contact the owner/management of A's PPL. >4b) We have to arbitrate a verdict. >4c) A's PPL MUST arbitrate in good faith How do we handle different PPL's with opposite opinions? Suppose A mails negative remarks about B to all persons on the list without using the List software. - PPL for A says private mail is out of the List's jurisdiction. - PPL for B says the mail was "virtually" sent to the entire List. - PPL for A says no damage was done because B's HEX values went up. - PPL for B says attempted crime is punishable regardless of result. - PPL for A says that the remarks were truthful, so there is no crime. - PPL for B says that A's word against B's word is not enough proof. - PPL for A says that A is innocent of slander until proven guilty. - PPL for B says that A's claims are false until proven true. How do we proceed if one PPL sees a clear crime and another sees no crime? PPL A refuses even the slightest punishment of A, because they refuse to acknowledge a crime has occurred. PPL B refuses all but the heaviest punishment of A, because they see multiple/obvious crimes. I have tried to keep the above examples clear-cut, using a common "reality" that both sides claim occurred. I see the waters becoming even muddier if both sides can't even agree on what events took place, much less whether they were punishable offenses. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 14:33:33 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: What is a simp-wimp? Tim, I am sorry to hear that you have been asked to reduce your number of postings. I may post something to the list in response to this. What is a "simp-wimp"? Is that a simpering-liberal? I have seen references to this term, but not in a context where I determined the term meant. __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 14:44:56 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Massive Retaliation Policy a conscious being, Timothy C. May wrote: > Harry Shapiro has asked me to reduce the frequency of my postings, and > I have reluctantly agreed. I only hope others have been similarly > warned. Harry probably won't like my mention of his message to me, but I sent the following to Tim, it contains several items unrelated to this matter and I have removed them. I feel Tim read my message and has reacted way beyond my request in a way that I have not requested, while attributing me to be the cause of his action. As you can read below, I have not asked Tim to change the tone or content of his posts. I did ask him to "slow down your rate of posting." Perhaps Tim feels others asked me to make that request of him. That is not the case. Tim's desire to change the content, nature and quality of his posts, and his prediction of a "booting" from the list stem from no request of mine and I assume he makes these changes (and has these desires) because they give him pleasure. Indeed, if Tim does change the content, quality, and nature of his posts his being "booted" from the list might be a self-fulfilling prediction. Never-the-less, I welcome his unedited views on the matters he indicated. If we can not speak our minds here where can we? (This is not an invitation to debate basics.) /hawk >From habs Sat Dec 25 08:42:36 1993 To: tcmay@netcom.com Hi, I want to put forth a few ideas and make a request. 1) As I indicated in phone call, I am strongly supporting what you have been posting, and that has not changed. 2) I suggest that perhaps you slow down your rate of posting and I will explain way. It has nothing to with content or quality of the posts; they are in my view as good if not better than almost any post. The reason I ask you to slow down is the actual volume of posts you make. Remember you are on the VIP list and get messages almost as soon as they are posted. You can see a message and send a response in almost all cases prior to the majority of the list even seeing the first message. Someone who checks messages once a day simply finds 10 or 20 or 30 messages by you. -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 EXTROPY -- A measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity, opportunity, and growth. EXTROPIANISM -- The philosophy that seeks to increase extropy. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 14:52:53 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Tale of two PPLs a conscious being, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > How do we handle different PPL's with opposite opinions? Suppose A mails > negative remarks about B to all persons on the list without using the List > software. I have not desire, care, legal oversite, or any other power or authority over what list members do off the list. Speculation about such events is not needed. > How do we proceed if one PPL sees a clear crime and another sees no crime? In the real world this might require those seeking judgment for a so called 'clear crime' to pay very high fees to extract such a judgment. In our VR PPL, all parties, by ExI fiat, will arbitrate in good faith. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #360 *********************************