From extropians-request@extropy.org Tue Dec 28 23:55:34 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA19089; Tue, 28 Dec 93 23:55:32 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 AA21023; Tue, 28 Dec 93 23:55:27 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA27826 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Wed, 29 Dec 1993 02:42:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 02:42:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199312290742.AA27826@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: December 29, 373 P.N.O. [07:40:50 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 29 Dec 93 Volume 93 : Issue 362 Today's Topics: BOOK: Nutrition Book Reviewer wanted [1 msgs] GUN MYTHOLOGY [1 msgs] GUN MYTHOLOGY [anecdotes] [1 msgs] IQ TESTS & MENSA [1 msgs] In Defense of "It's A Wonderful Life" [1 msgs] Kick the May [1 msgs] Le Khmer Vert [1 msgs] MORALS: Mere Aesthetics (was Why Children) [1 msgs] Meta: VIP agent? [1 msgs] OUTREACH: Two different meanings [2 msgs] PPL: A proposal [1 msgs] RUN FOR THE BORDER [1 msgs] SKILLS: What do YOU have? [1 msgs] SPACE: Check out the Dec. 93 EJASA... [1 msgs] Seen on alt.tv.babylon-5, from the creator. [1 msgs] Slipsticks and Starships [1 msgs] Social Lamarckianism [1 msgs] The Programmer Who Walks [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51986 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Dec 93 19:26:08 EST From: Sandy <72114.1712@compuserve.com> Subject: RUN FOR THE BORDER ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort@attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-Folks, I guess this is just my day to post. (Someone has to make up for the Missing May Missives.) Anyway, Brian D. Williams has jumped in on this thread with: . . . There are many former veterans who are routinely denied permission to travel overseas . . . . While you can travel to both Canada and Mexico (your supposed to clear it first) you can't travel elsewhere because they will not issue you a passport. Another paper tiger. Canada and Mexico are not the only countries to which you can travel without a passport. I don't have a list handy, but it really isn't important. The countries to which the government would not want you to travel, would be the first to wave any passport requirements. (Again, Cuba comes to mind.) S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort@attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 19:28:44 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: BOOK: Nutrition Book Reviewer wanted My book _Nutrients_Catalog_ is finally beginning to appear in stores! (576pp. Appendices, bibliography, index. 0-89950-784-0 $55 hardcover.) (McFarland & Company, Inc., Box 611, Jefferson NC 28640; 919-246-4460) I would like to send a FREE copy to someone on the List to review. I would like this person to be generally well-known on the List, and have some knowledge of nutrition. Any volunteers or suggestions? (Because of my costs of $44 per book, I can only afford to give away one free copy. I will buy copies at my cost for anyone who wants to beat the suggested retail price of $55.) It was my attempt to document *ALL* nutrients required by the human body. It has sections documenting over 100 required nutrients, including 38 vitamins, 41 minerals, 24 amino acids, and 6 macronutrients. When I began my own experimentation, I was frustrated by a lack of a *single* source of basic data. I also didn't want my reference book to be preachy on either side of the political issues. Not finding such a book, I created my own database using governmental databases, biological and chemical abstracting services, and the basic literature. It took over eight years of research and computer programming to come up with this book. I believe this to be the most complete reference (not how-to) book of nutrition data ever. For each nutrient I list its different names, classifications, different chemical forms, deficiency symptoms of getting too little, side-effects, toxicity symptoms of getting too much, which nutrients can counteract an overdose, inhibiting factors, helping co-factors, food sources with amounts and error rates, possible applications for the nutrient, various dosage recommendations, the required dosage ratios between different nutrients, and special warnings associated with each nutrient. The dosage recommendations for each nutrient include eleven different (and conflicting, I might add) governmental recommendations, along with standard nutritional dosages used, standard therapeutic dosages used, and standard experimental dosages used. Also the commonly recognized lower-toxicity limits are given. The food sources are mostly gathered from the USDA databases which catalog thousands of foods and amounts, with an sampling error rate calculateable for each. These sources give different entries for raw foods, different ways of cooking the same foods, and common variations and different types of a food. There are 12 types of "hamburger", for example! __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) Voice: (407)727-5176 Harris Corp., Box 37, MS 15-8874, Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX: (407)727-6611 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 93 19:26:35 EST From: Sandy <72114.1712@compuserve.com> Subject: GUN MYTHOLOGY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort@attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-Folks, In a recent post about guns, Edgar W. Swank opined as follows: . . . The gun-banners' stats that a gun in the home is more likely to be used for domestic violence than in legit self-defence are likely bogus, . . . Anyway, I will have a long talk with my wife before giving her the combo [to his gun safe--ss] (if I do). Two points: First, those stats are bogus. The original study showed that a gun in the house was more likely to *kill* *someone known* to the owner than an intruder. So what's the difference? The emphasis on *killing* skews the statistics considerably. If a gun were used to intimidate, arrests or wound an intruder, it was not included in the statistics. Subsequent studies have shown that guns are used THOUSANDS of times each day in America to prevent crimes. Legitimate use of guns for self-defense overwhelmingly overshadow the criminal use of firearms. Over time, anti-gun nuts have similarly misquoted the "someone known" part of the study into "friend or family member." The vast majority of murders committed against someone known by the perpetrator occur among the criminal underclass. If someone tries to rip off his drug dealer, and is shot dead, it qualifies as "someone known." Internecine murder is rare among otherwise law abiding middle-class people. If you have a gun, there is essential a zero probability that either will shoot the other. Which leads into my second point: Go ahead and have that long talk with your wife. By all means, show her how to handle and use the guns safely if she doesn't already know. But for Pete's sake, give her the combination to the gun safe. Chances are, she will be a cooler head and a better shot than you. If push ever comes to shove, she, more likely than you, will be the one who stops an intruder--one way or the other. S a n d y Who believes that women could be far superior to men in many traditional "male" strongholds, if they would only try. (Some examples: marksmanship, surgery, billiards, poker and casino blackjack.) >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort@attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 19:31:07 EST From: Harvey Newstrom Subject: SKILLS: What do YOU have? I just posted a request for a someone on the List to review my book. Certainly other Extropians have written books, software, article, or produced other products. I want to hear about them on this List! Give a free copy to a List member to review for the rest of us. Certainly, with out Extropian views, we should be producing some advanced and interesting products! __ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@hnewstrom.ess.harris.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 19:21:10 -0600 (CST) From: Craig Presson Subject: GUN MYTHOLOGY [anecdotes] > In a recent post about guns, Edgar W. Swank opined as follows: > > . . . The gun-banners' stats that a gun in the home is > more likely to be used for domestic violence than in > legit self-defence are likely bogus, . . . Anyway, I > Two points: [...] > crimes. Legitimate use of guns for self-defense overwhelmingly > overshadow the criminal use of firearms. Yup. > Which leads into my second point: Go ahead and have that long > talk with your wife. By all means, show her how to handle and > use the guns safely if she doesn't already know. But for Pete's > sake, give her the combination to the gun safe. Chances are, she > will be a cooler head and a better shot than you. If push ever > comes to shove, she, more likely than you, will be the one who > stops an intruder--one way or the other. Last spring, when I took a basic pistol & home defense class, my classmates were 10 females and 2 other males. The instructors (a pair of spice, both NRA-certfied) said we shouldn't be surprised at this, or at their observation that the shooting match on the last class night was usually won by a woman. In this instance, the top three shooters were male-female-male (me) in that order, but no one was disgracefully bad -- all of the silhoutte targets were DOA. One night a wag (not me) looked at the folks milling around before class and wondered aloud, "Is this the husband-shooting class?". I didn't much like the tone of the general laugh from the women ... Also, I finally got around to confessing to my (very hoplophobic) wife that I had owned a pistol and a carry permit since early November. She took it well, in fact she led off the discussion by talking about some recent area crimes, which she agreed would not have gone down against armed victims. I'll continue to work on her gently until I can get her to the shooting range, and then you know what happens. I predict I'll be buying her a Lady Smith for her next birthday. -- fcp@nuance.com (Freeman Craig Presson) 72430.1422@compuserve.com (Freeman P. Craig) LP of AL, LP US, NRA, ExI, ISGS, Clan Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 17:40:04 -0800 From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Subject: Le Khmer Vert >From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu >Subject: POLI/LEGAL: discrimination laws >X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on December 23, 373 P.N.O. [13:48:46 UTC] >X-Message-Number: #93-12-722 > >I don't know how it happened, but Tim May actually said something >that I agree with--environmentalism could be the base of the >next wave of totalitarianism. One of my nightmares is teenagers >with machine guns replaying Cambodia to "save the planet", though >there may be some hope that it won't happen.... This happens in David Brin's "Earth" -- only they're portrayed as the *good guys*. The evil capitalist trading in the body parts of endangered species meets an ignominious end. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 17:40:10 -0800 From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Subject: In Defense of "It's A Wonderful Life" Tim May, lightning rod of Extropianism, said, regarding a film version of "A Christmas Carol": >It appears every year on t.v., usually late at night (and perhaps >being displaced by the even sappier "It's a Wonderful Life," which >features an evil mortgage-holder who threatens to foreclose just >because the money he lent out isn't being repaid). Au contraire, mon frere! IAWL is in fact a highly Extropian film (if you squint your eyes right). Consider: The protagonist, George Bailey, is himself a capitalist -- a money-lender. Much of the good accomplished by George in his life (and undone in the alternate universe where he never existed) was accomplished by his judicious use of capital, lending (as any wise venture capitalist would) to start new businesses (like Martini's bar) and fund positive-sum increases in the physical capital of Bedford Falls (the Bailey Park housing project). The villain, crotchety old Mr. Potter, is not vilified just because he's a banker -- it's made clear that he's a thief (he nabs the $8000 left lying about by dotty old Uncle Billy), a liar (he claims later to know nothing of it), and a busybody who relies on the agents of the state (the trio of nasty Bank Examiners) to do his dirty work. And at the conclusion of the film, is George Bailey saved by the FSLIC and a buyout at taxpayer expense? Hell, no, his chestnuts are pulled out of the fire by the _voluntary_ donations of all the people he'd helped over the years -- a perfect example of reputation systems in action. (In fact, the statist regulators are rightly portrayed as menacing meddlers.) (In fact, even the bit about angels can be considered Extropian if you posit that these "angels" are in fact time-traveling Jupiter brains from the far future...) Shecky Upload "Remember, George: No man is a failure who has _reputation capital_! P.S., thanks for the solar sails." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 17:40:01 -0800 From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Subject: OUTREACH: Two different meanings >Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 19:37:22 -0800 >From: jamie@netcom.com (Jamie Dinkelacker) >Subject: Extropian Outreach >X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on December 23, 373 P.N.O. [03:36:47 UTC] > >? >Regarding " O U T R E A C H " . . . why bother? [...] >Is it worth the effort of anybody's precious time? [...] >I prefer the >idea of letting people find us and in that way self-select to be in our >midst. More to the point, I doubt that those posters I most enjoy would've >come here through someone else's outreach. (dV/dt exposed me to some basic >Extropian articulations, but didn't "expend" outreach efforts. I asked for >the list address.) [...] It sounds to me like jamie is using the word "outreach" in a more restricted sense than most of the rest of us: I think here he means, "recruiting more members for the list". (correct me if this impression is incorrect, jamie) However, when I say "outreach", I mean the more general sense of "spreading Extropian memes in the world at large." I certainly expend a great deal of effort on the latter kind of outreach, and I think it is very worthwhile. Building the tools of our resistance and eventual escape (crypto comm and money today, nanotech down the road) is going to take large numbers of PEOPLE -- warm bodies with working brains, who believe what we believe and are willing to work toward building the future we want. Enlarging the size of our community will bring about our goals sooner. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 19:56:49 -0600 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Seen on alt.tv.babylon-5, from the creator. I thought I'd forward this to the list, given that others here seem interested in B-5, and it's finally glad to find a science- fiction show which isn't almost antithetical to extropian ideals. Maybe. Here's J. Michael Straczynski: On your point that B5 looks and feels and, arguably, *is* something that humanity could build, is nominally within our grasp...this is something that we've been building toward for a while, is part of what we want to do with the show. At a recent screening of some episodes for cast and crew, the one most frequent comment I got afterward was that it *felt* real, that this felt like how it might really be to work and live out on the fringe. Many SF futures are so far beyond our grasp as to enter the realm of unattainable fantasy...I'd like to point to something as more within our grasp, to remind us that we can do this, and that maybe we SHOULD do this. jms -- +-----------------------+---------------------------------------+ |Phil Fraering | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, | |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu | into the Century of the Fruitbat." | +-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 20:40:06 EST From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: The Programmer Who Walks Nancy asks- > Is being able to programas fast as > you can type an ability that all top programmers have? I started in BASIC when I was 14. I can program certain simple ideas at typing speed (one day I realized I was thinking, "All I have to do is a(1),a(2)=1: for x=3 to n: a(x)=a(x-2)+a(x-3): next x..." or some such. It was definitely a "for" loop.) In shell languages (or DOS Batch, or the Perl-like language I use a lot at work) I can also grind many ideas out at typing or editing speed. By analogy, this is like improvising music to a given chord and rhythm pattern, or speaking fluently and idomatically in normal conversation. It's *not* like composing music or writing. In other words, the stuff you can do at typing speed is rolling out patterns you've dealt with before. New ideas take planning and thinking. With programming, I've always found that hard (although interesting). If you want to be a God Who Walks The Earth programmer, you probably don't want to go the route of optimizing your typing speed. The things you do for that-- programming similar things over and over again--would not be the right conditioning for the real hard part of programming. Wise programmer say, "Premature optimization is the route of all evil," and that goes for personal habits as well as programs. For real programming, there are good tasks to try that stretch and strengthen the conceptual framework you think in. Also, healthy and unhealthy programming jobs and environments and languages to be exposed to month after month. I know a guy who has a knack for the planning part of programming. He will break the problem into just the right parts and then write them. I always find that part hard and I have a tendency to start out one way and then change in mid stream, and back, or compromise and then think better of it... One famous computerist (forget who) said whenever he writes a program, he rewrites it, and again, until he's really extracted and purified the central insight and he knows how to write that type of program. In the middle level of detail there are ideas that help make it clear and easier. Like the idea of "invariants"--what's always supposed to be true at various points in a program. Or making each part do exactly one clear thing, giving things names that really say what they are, breaking things into right- sized chunks, making parts as independent as possible, etc. People call this "style" sometimes, and it makes it sound like an aesthetic add-on, but it's really ways of getting your thinking to work better. Once you get your conceptual and stylistic frameworks set up, then you have the rhythm and the chords, and you might start to notice your fingers going faster. -fnerd@smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 21:11:15 CST From: "Kathleen Cadmus" Subject: Kick the May We interrupt our flame-by-flame coverage of the "Kick the May" competition to bring you this special report: Well, actually, I just wanted to announce my "coming out". Even my innate shyness can't keep me from dropping my lurker status, at least for the duration of these fascinating (but sometimes juvenile) threads about the "poor" and about "outreach". So a few uninvited observations (after which you can all invite me to return to lurker status!): 1. It is important to keep in focus the fact that persons are "poor" at a particular point in time (ala Korzybski). There certainly is at least a fair amount of upward and downward mobility for persons on any reasonable socio-economic scale. Any "poor" person therefore has at least some probability of becoming unpoor. Using "poor" as a quasi-permanent label is the mistake made by most pseudo-liberal ideologues. 2. I don't believe it is the case that most "poor" persons are purely 100% innocent victims of the state, or 100% scum-sucking sycophants worthy of nothing but contempt. Certainly the truth is somewhere between these extremes for the majority. Is their past all that important, though, in deciding whether it makes sense to help them out? How many anti-Extropian acts and incredibly stupid choices have each of us made in our lifetimes? And how many of this elite group have ever accepted an offered helping hand from, say, a parent or friend without which we might not be where we are today? (I know, I know, we might be better off if we hadn't accepted, but who's to say?) 3. Should we then help the down-and-outers? I fully support Tim May's assertion that we have no obligation to do so. Any such decision to help in any particular case might boil down to the following considerations: a. Will my action likely alleviate human suffering in the short run and/or in the long run? Tim's cynical "evolution in action" phrase, I believe, simply underscores that short run assistance may well be a long run detriment. b. Will my action advance or inhibit the realization of Extropian ideals? The person we lift up out of the gutter may become the next Hitler, or the next Hitler's assassin, or the person who perfects mind-uploading technology. Chaos theory seems to point to this being impossible to predict. c. What is the opportunity-cost in spending this time and energy to help the poor rather than more directly working on Extropian R & D? For some of us (who may be simpy or wimpy enough to be tempted to place some intrinsic value on alleviation of suffering!) these questions may nonetheless not have clear answers. At least Tim's answers are cogent and consistent. I don't see why so many on this list are so threatened by Tim's position. I welcome his strong language and see him as much less a misanthrope than his attackers. 4. It is not clear to me how useful it is to engage in active outreach to attract new Extropians to the fold. I am very new to the Internet and stumbled across a very brief description of Extropians in some newbie Internet documentation. Honestly, I had never heard of Extropians. But the description rang a responsive chord within me and so I signed on and have been lurking for nearly 10 weeks. (I also have been lurking around on Libernet but I grow tired of all the addle-brained discussion of "rights". I have to agree with Robert Anton Wilson's dismissal of "rights" as figments of our imagination; to pretend they exist leads to endless confusion, as evidenced most clearly in discussions of abortion and gun control.) Sorry for the digression. My point is that I already *was* an Extropian before I knew you guys existed! I had independently read most of your suggested reading list and had integrated much Extropian philosophy into my personal life. I think that an effective outreach program is to find more people like myself who would also be interested in discussing Extropian ideas if only they knew you existed. For the record, I have *not* been the slightest bit inclined to sign off the list from being "put off" by any rudeness or crudeness in the thousands of posts I've read since I began lurking. I don't believe you are in danger of losing any valuable Extropians or potential Extropians by failing to tone down the discussion to a more "polite" level. I would have been more likely to sign off if the discussion had been *too* polite! It has been a positive experience beginning to get to know many of you from your postings. I intend to somehow make more time available to myself for catching up with my reading and sharing my thoughts with you all. ----- Kathy Cadmus (614)-846-3055 kcadmus@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 21:11:48 CST From: "Kathleen Cadmus" Subject: Social Lamarckianism In Message Tue, 28 Dec 1993 13:57:25 -0800, dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) writes: >At 3:12 AM 12/22/93 +0000, nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: >>The way I look at it is closer to a theory that logic is a relatively >>fragile faculty, so that it's my business to try to present ideas in >>a way that's condusive toeople being able to think about them. > >Kennita recently posted a marvelous quote from Jonathan Swift to the effect >that "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never >reasoned into." I think that applies here; if someone has become a >deathist or a leftist or whatever for essentially emotional reasons, all >the logic in the world won't sway them; we need to establish communication >on the touchy-feely circuit and show them how our way improves overall >quality of life for everyone in the long run. > dV/dt One way to approach is to start with similar ideas which he may already agree with. Two examples spring to mind: 1. "Tough love" is a concept which enjoys widespread acceptance and appreciation, especially by anyone who has raised a trouble teen. Isn't it fairly easy to extend this concept to explain our concept of dismantling the welfare state? Aren't we saying to the "poor" that we will treat you fairly and with respect if you get off your whiney butts, stop playing victim, start offering tit for tat, etc. But take advantage of me at your own risk! 2. The Star Trek "Prime Directive" is one I've used in my diatribes against government involvement (interference) in, e.g., Somalia and Bosnia. People comprehend the principle when applied to aliens and it isn't that tough to extend it to dealing with human cultures as well as other species. (Be prepared though to deal with it when an environmentalist invokes the Prime Directive as an argument to save the snail darter!) I'm sure you can think of many more examples of "easy" steppingstones to more challenging ideas that can put your audience in a more receptive state before leading them to the foregone conclusions :-) ----- Kathy Cadmus (614)-846-3055 kcadmus@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 21:24:31 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: VIP agent? a conscious being, Duncan Frissell wrote: > I take it that the VIP list goes out directly from Panix at 8 cents a meg > while the normal list is shipped elsewhere for free broadcast. Basically yes, when GNU is "up" Once we go to pay-for-use, we will offer "VIP" agent access for a fee above and beyond the pay-for-use fee. Probally about $30 per year. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 21:33:58 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: PPL: A proposal a conscious being, Geoff Dale wrote: > Am I right in assuming that any new PPL has to maintain the PPL-1 rules as > a minimum? If this is true, there is a serious flaw in the "if you don't No! or there would be no point. However, they must remain true to the ExI Principals, be supportive of a high S/N ratio on the list, etc. The ExI board will step in should a PPL allow things which the board feels is not appropriate. > If allowed, I would like to create a PPL that eliminates the anti-flaming, > and anti-basics rules. Call it PPL-A (for anarchy). I still would "outlaw" You might have problems with the board about the basics stuff, as that is 180 degrees away from the purpose of the list. You could probally be looser in terms of flames, but all out flame wars would also probally not be welcome. > As a note, I still think that ad hominem attacks, me-too messages, and > utter cluelessness (aka newbie basics discussions) are bad things. I just > don't "think there ought to be a law". People can protect themselves from > this. This fine list software we now have especially empowers people to > ::exclude idiots, and people who offend them. This sounds good. You need to define no anti-flames rules vs. no ad hominem attacks. How can you have flames without ad hominem attacks?? I urge you to put together a brief but slightly more detailed explanation of rules which reflect any changed you make after digesting my comments and/or perhaps contacting board members... /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 18:35:55 -0800 From: jamie@netcom.com (Jamie Dinkelacker) Subject: OUTREACH: Two different meanings dV/dt writes: >It sounds to me like jamie is using the word "outreach" in a more >restricted sense than most of the rest of us: I think here he means, >"recruiting more members for the list". (correct me if this impression is >incorrect, jamie) However, when I say "outreach", I mean the more general >sense of "spreading Extropian memes in the world at large." Yes, you're accurate in general thrust. I was objecting to the fuzziness of "outreach" as too vague for effective action. I wasn't (sufficiently) explicit in my post, I guess. (Nevertheless, the post led to an enjoyable, private exchange with Geoff Dale.) If a message is structured as "spreading Extropian memes in the world at large" then I'm all for it. I'm also for "recruiting more subscribers for Extropy (publication) or Institute" or any other construction wherein I see precise activity. To me, "outreach" has a connotation that I've too often experienced with religious groups or nonprofit types who put forth an implicit dogma (yes, Extropes may also, depending on your parsing values for "dogma"). Dogma often comes with an implicit set of behavioral expectations. "Outreach" has been too often associated with "saving souls" or "raising money for the poor" or "protecting family values." After spending nearly two decades in and around the broadcast media, I've repeatedly been the target of numerous groups' attempted outreach. Typically, they fail. LaRouche and Scientology are legend for "outreach," or at least they were when I was in radio. Make no mistake, I completely support the notion of communicating extropian ideas whenever and wherever, but "outreach" leads me to visualize cardtables outside supermarkets, direct mail campaigns, pleading with reporters, impassioned and glazed-eye sermons, ... blah blah, all coming from a begging position of weakness. >From my typical, pragmatic "see Spot run" perspective, I just banged on the tree trunk to see what flew out of the branches. It's always fun to see how different people react -- publicly or privately -- when their cherished virtual ox is Tippered. Humpty-Dumpty aside ("when I use it word, it means just what I choose it to mean"), "meanings" are in receivers, that what "outreach" means to me. ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA Jamie@netcom.com 415.941.4782 ................................ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 20:47:54 -0600 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: SPACE: Check out the Dec. 93 EJASA... Larry Klaes, an occasional member of this list, has posted the Dec. 93 EJASA on sci.space and a couple other newsgroups. The featured article is by Guillermo A. Lemarchand and is a good survey of the basic problems in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 18:57:01 -0800 (PST) From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Slipsticks and Starships Duncan Frissell wrote: > I think that you misunderstand the sorts of changes we are in for. Seeing > the future is always rough (see SF stories mixing interstellar travel and > slide rules) and it will get rougher. The kinds of changes we face will > carry ideas along with them. I always thought Heinlein was dead on with slide rules and starships. After all, the slipstick started to fade away in the early 70s, just as the space program did. Coincidence or causation? Something about calculating orbital injection burns with the trusty old Dietzgen or K & E, or even one of those yellow aluminum things (the Wicked Picketts, we called 'em), made for the kind of discipline needed to understand warp drives. If Starman Jones could explain hyperspace to a young lady with her scarf, and had the log tables memorized to boot, I'd say that's enough to get us to the stars. --Klaus! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 19:05:50 -0800 (PST) From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: IQ TESTS & MENSA > S a n d y > > P.S. Is the word "intelligent" no longer Politically Correct > because it contains the word "gent"? > Here on the Net, the primary problem is that it contains the word "intel" and that's what make's it so politically incorrect. --Klaus! (who worked of Int*l, but who uses Macs) (the Intel processors are fine, and are dominant today--as they always have been. I use Macs because of the OS, not the processor instruction set.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 19:25:35 -0800 From: plaz@netcom.com (Geoff Dale) Subject: MORALS: Mere Aesthetics (was Why Children) Reilly Jones argues that the "salient features working together to produce success," in the cases of "three obvious historical periods that could be termed extropic growing civilizations: Greek city-states - roughly 650-400 bc, Roman Republic - roughly 300-50 bc, and Western civilization (primarily Britain and America, later and to a lesser extent Germany and Japan) - roughly following the Battle of Waterloo to the present" "were the central fitness peak nuclear family structure under conditions of individual rights, democratic institutions, free trade and strong coherence of extropic moral values in society." Ye gopods! Even when I condense it, it's almost too much to decipher. First of all, extropianism is a new movement. It can hardly be dated back to 650 BC. Even if I accepted that there were ur-extropians who had our philosophies before they were codified, I'd find it hard to believe the Greek and Roman civilizations even aspired toward this. Second, the Greek and Roman civilizations are not even good examples of "nuclear families". I'd put them closer to the extended family side, as was early American ("Good night John-Boy") and English culture. Your other points don't fair very well either, individual rights? I guess you aren't counting slavery and conditional citizenship as violations of individual rights. Not too mention the current draconian forfeiture laws that allow a person's property to be seized without a trial or any process of law, for concentual crimes that hurt no one that hasn't already agreed to be hurt. Democratic institutions are not part of the extropian principles, try Spontaneous Order, which is essentially a form of anarchy. That, combined with free markets, makes us anarchocapitalists. The Extropian Principles, which were sent to you with the welcome message when you joined this list state, "The principle of spontaneous order is embodied in the free market system -- a system that does not yet exist in a pure form." Certainly not in any of the civilizations you've listed. As far as "strong coherence of extropic moral values in society", our president, Max More (who writes the extropian principles) has described himself as an amoralist. From the opening paragraph of Max's article, "MORALITY OR REALITY?" in Extropy #1, "I am going to argue that not only is morality something that we have good reason to reject, but that an amoralist viewpoint is especially fitting for Extropians." >Romana: you're in a den of freethinkers; you're bound to lose.> > >Is this a new Extropian Principle? If freethinkers can't discuss >social values which imbue everything we say and do, then they must be >very quiet people. You can discuss it. You just get nowhere using it instead of evidence. >Romana: > >This is backwards. Without coherent extropic moral values throughout >society, individual liberties don't stand a chance of surviving. As a >matter of fact, they haven't, group rights have usurped them and >entropic leftist morality is the "dominant paradigm." Social values over individual liberties is a "leftist, entropic death-worshipper" meme, to appropriate your mantra. This is the meme that promotes the "one shouldn't live past one's allotted span of years because then the planet will get overpopulated" type of thinking. Again from Max More's article in Extropy #1: >Furthermore, as J.L. Mackie says (in Ethics: Inventing Right and >Wrong, Penguin Books 1977), "It would also seem to entail that >obedience to moral rules is merely prudent but slavish conformity to >the arbitrary demands of a capricious tyrant." >From the welcome message: >Extropians are rational individualists, living by their >own judgment, making reflective, informed choices, profiting from >both success and shortcoming. back to you: >To say that morality is aesthetics is to deny the existence of good >and evil (the true basis of morality). Precisely! I, as an extropian, hereby deny the existence of good and evil. Good and evil are bogeymen, invented by the control freaks of religion, to scare the masses into their statist clutches. >The pronouncement of anything as "irrational" is a moral judgment... I pronounce something as irrational when I've analyzed a concept and found that it fails to have logical or scientific basis. Perhaps when you pronounce something "irrational" you mean something different. The ability to separate the rational and the irrational is one of the things that sets the extropians above most folks, IMEO. >..., both first-person subjectively and second-person consensually. >Extropians recognize this? You claim omniscience over the first-person >private impenetrable thoughts of all those on this list? Or do you >mean the people you agree with who are willing to post their opinion >which they may or may not really hold depending on their motivation >for posting, and haven't changed their minds since then, recognize >this? Rationality, like morality, is socially derived second-person or >the concepts could not be communicated. She and I claim to have studied the Extropian Principles, read many of the items on the reading list, read "Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought", spoken to extropians and joined the Extropy Institute. Because of this, we claim to have a good idea of what extropianism is and what extropian's think. You are, by all means, free to come to your own conclusions, and codify you own personal philosophy, but if it favors social values over individual liberties and includes democracy, don't call it extropianism. You are obviously working from some private framework, and then projecting them into "extropian morals". It fails the dog-food test. ("If the dog eats it, it's dog food.") The extropians here don't seem to be swallowing your brand of extropianism. You are not where you think you are, and we are not who you think we are. I suggest that you have another look at the situation before you continue this discussion. If you do choose to continue, please do not continue bludgeon me with near-impenetrable verbiage. _______________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- Plastic Beethoven plaz@netcom.com ExI-Freegate Virtual Branch Head plaz@io.com 66 Pyramid Plaza Cypherpunk/Extropian Freegate, Metaverse@io.com 7777 "There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena." - Friedrich Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil." ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #362 *********************************