From extropians-request@extropy.org Wed Nov 9 21:12:59 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id VAA18596 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 21:11:51 -0800 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA17762; Wed, 9 Nov 94 21:11:19 PST Received: (from exi@localhost) by news.panix.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA21317; Thu, 10 Nov 1994 00:11:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 00:11:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199411100511.AAA21317@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-11-118 - #94-11-128 X-Extropian-Date: November 10, 374 P.N.O. [00:01:29 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Thu, 10 Nov 94 Volume 94 : Issue 313 Today's Topics: alt.extropians - availability? [2 msgs] Current methods used for human genetic selection [1 msgs] FWD: It can happen here! [2 msgs] META: Moderator? [1 msgs] METTA List Rules [3 msgs] Moderator? [2 msgs] Administrivia: Note: I have increased the frequency of the digests to four times a day. The digests used to be processed at 5am and 5pm, but this was too infrequent for the current bandwidth. Now digests are sent every six hours: Midnight, 6am, 12pm, and 6pm. If you experience delays in getting digests, try setting your digest size smaller such as 20k. You can do this by addressing a message to extropians@extropy.org with the body of the message as ::digest size 20 -Ray Approximate Size: 26414 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phil Goetz Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 11:28:48 -0500 Subject: [#94-11-118] Moderator? Is there a moderator for this mailing list? This list needs a LOT more moderation. There is such high volume, and such a low signal/noise ratio, that I will unsubscribe if it doesn't change soon. _Charging money_ for an unmoderated list, besides being absurd, is against the principles of the Net. What would the net be like if every newsgroup and mailing list charged? Phil goetz@cs.buffalo.edu ------------------------------ From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 01:04:48 -0600 Subject: [#94-11-119] alt.extropians - availability? I need a straw poll on alt.extropians, & I think this is the place to get it. I know there are customers of several major providers on the list. Please reply via email with as much of the following as you know (sample entry is mine): Your site Fed by alt.extropians present? nuance.com sura.net no \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 01:54:48 -0600 Subject: [#94-11-120] Moderator? At 11:28 AM 11/7/94 -0500, Phil Goetz wrote: >Is there a moderator for this mailing list? > >This list needs a LOT more moderation. There is such high volume, >and such a low signal/noise ratio, that I will unsubscribe if it doesn't >change soon. _Charging money_ for an unmoderated list, besides being absurd, >is against the principles of the Net. What would the net be like if >every newsgroup and mailing list charged? > >Phil goetz@cs.buffalo.edu Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your first post, right? What happened to, "Hi, I'm Phil, and I am interested in ." Now, where are these "Principles of the Net" written so we can figure out why we shouldn't charge a modest fee to administer the list? I don't think there are AUPs that forbid this anymore, certainly not on the part of the net where we live. As far as "what would the net be like ...", well, the answer to this is not relevant to your main concern, since no one has suggested that the whole Net should go to pay-per-view, but a simple direct answer to your question as stated is, "it would be like a market, and if you didn't like the content from vendor A, you could go to vendor B or start your own". And to take your first question last, get the help index for MailWeir; (send "::help index" to the list address) and you will find all the tools for roll-your-own moderation. We have never seriously considered moderation, although a history of the other things we did consider would be pretty elaborate and interesting. Speaking for myself as an ExI member but not the boss fnord, \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 03:00:04 -0600 Subject: [#94-11-121] FWD: It can happen here! * After voting earlier this year to disband their police force, residents of Osage, W. Va., voted in June to disband the whole town government. A major reason was dissatisfaction with the large number of traffic tickets being issued. [Cumberland Times-News-AP, 6-16-94] (Clipped by News of the Weird) \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ From: sullivan@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Gregory Sullivan) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 94 15:30:01 EST Subject: [#94-11-122] Current methods used for human genetic selection Recent threads on this list have considered some genetic techniques that are likely to be available in the future, e.g., mosaic births. I think it is also useful to examine current techniques. This message concentrates on current genetic selection techniques used for humans. A separate message discusses genetic alteration after birth. (I am interested in information on other interesting current or near-term techniques.) There are movements now aimed at restricting and/or subsidizing these techniques. Some commentators are particularly afraid of the interactions between genetic techniques and a free market. I include some quotes illustrating this backlash from mainstream policy magazines. This is a post of approximately 150 lines. Skip it if you are uninterested. Begin excerpt from: The New Republic : October 24, 1994 : Robert Wright Using in vitro fertilization, you can create several test-tube embryos, each consisting of only a few cells. Then you can screen the embryos for the gene and reimplant those that pass the test. ... The precedent was set in 1992 by a British woman carrying a gene for cystic fibrosis. Eight embryos were screened for the gene, two were reimplanted, and one survived to birth--a baby girl with healthy lungs. End excerpt from Robert Wright This form of in vitro genetic screening has also now been done multiple times in the US and has even been featured on US television newsmagazines. This technique can be applied to any gene for which a detection test is available. Current cost is approximately $10,000. Cystic fibrosis is one of the most common genetic diseases and strikes one in 2,500 Caucasians. Note, Wright's description simplifies the situation for cystic fibrosis (CF) somewhat since the underlying genetic mechanisms for CF are currently not fully understood. Several distinct genetic mutations have been identified which are believed capable of causing CF. However, some of these mutations do not always cause CF. A screening test has been developed which checks for a set of the most common genetic mutations associated with CF. I participated in an experimental trial here at Johns Hopkins for one of these tests and happily was told that I was not a carrier for any of the CF mutations assayed. In the case of the British women mentioned above, I suspect the precise CF causing mutation she and/or her mate had was known and was tested for. Wright suggests that women who are carriers of the recently discovered brca1 gene will wish to have their potential offspring screened for the gene. The brca1 gene brings an 85 percent chance of getting breast cancer for women by age 65. Other candidates for screening: msh2 - associated with colon cancer and brca2 - also associated with breast cancer and many others. The relationship between genes and their high-level manifestations in health and behavior are likely to be quite intricate as indicated even in the case of CF. Yet, with the human genome project continuing to compile sequence data and many scientific teams pursuing connections between genes and health/behavior there are likely to be a multiplicity of genes deemed worthy of screening for by many future parents. A technique which can be used to complement the above technique is called embryo twinning. This technique allows multiple duplicate copies of a fertilized embryo to be derived from one embryo. This allows multiple embryos to be placed in a womb thus increasing the chance of a live birth. Alternatively, multiple embryos can be singly transferred to different wombs. Currently only a small number of embryo duplicates can be created because totipotency is lost after a few divisions. These techniques have been used in cattle for a decade. In 1993 Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman of George Washington University, successfully performed embryo twinning on human embryos. There are older and cruder techniques for selection. One method involves the performance of amniocentesis which is the withdrawal of a small amount of amniotic fluid from the uterus during pregnancy. This fluid contains waste material and skin cells sloughed off by the fetus and genetic tests can be performed using it. A fetus can be selectively aborted if the parents deem the genetic profile of the fetus inauspicious. Many traditional medical ethicists oppose abortion for the purpose of selection except for severe birth defects. Of course, some people oppose abortion completely and also some oppose destroying in vitro fertilized embryos. Still older and cruder techniques are infanticide and parental neglect. The disproportionately large number of males compared to females in the younger generation of mainland Chinese has been attributed partially to these ancient techniques by some demographers. Selection can also be applied before a couple connects. The quote below describes a modern genetic twist to the matchmaker role. Excerpt from: New Perspectives Quarterly (NPQ): Winter 1994, Vol. 11, No. 1 Title: PROFIT AND THE PATENT ON LIFE by JACQUES ATTALI In what some worry is the onset of "genetic cleansing," Orthodox Jews in New York and Israel screen couples that date or are preparing for marriage for hereditary diseases like Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis as well as lesser diseases like Gaucher that causes enlargement of the spleen. In a program called Dor Yeshorim, or "the generation of the righteous," those tested are given an ID number that will help determine compatibility with potential mates and are counseled on whether they should marry or even date. End of excerpt by JACQUES ATTALI The final technique I mention involves sperm storage and distribution. Several years ago I read about a sperm bank called approximately ``The Repository for Germinal Choice''. This bank collected the sperm of men who had traits deemed desirable. It was started with the sperm of Nobel laureates and expanded to include the sperm of other individuals who excelled in their occupations, e.g., well regarded musicians. I do not know if this particular bank is still in operation but I suspect a comparable institution would be economically viable. In principle, such sperm banks would allow women, especially financially independent women, a very wide array of choices for the traits of male gamete donors. What has been the posture of policy pundits on the panoply of projected possibilities planned for procreation and why are there so many alliterative p's in this sentence? Some medical ethicists have suggested sharp restrictions on these techniques, especially on the modification of traits which can be inherited. One viewpoint that I believe will ultimately become influential was presented recently by Robert Wright in a mainstream policy magazine. Begin excerpt from: The New Republic : October 24, 1994 : Robert Wright ... More and more genes will tempt more and more people to clean up their little corner of the gene pool. Barring government intervention, the pool will get clearer around the affluent but not around the poor. Of course, there's nothing new about health care options being open mainly to the upper socioeconomic classes. You seldom run into a homeless person at a brain-scan clinic. But surely there's something uniquely, intolerably grotesque about creating a genetic underclass, letting a broad range of hereditary diseases settle at the bottom of the social hierarchy. If you agree, you're left with two choices: either ban eugenic intervention, ensuring that, say, cancer remains an equal-opportunity attacker; or provide money for people who want eugenics but can't afford it. I vote for the latter. And if you vote for the former, you can have the job of telling women with the breast cancer gene that they're not allowed to spend their hard-earned money to spare their daughters the same fate. End excerpt from Robert Wright Wright's ideological predispositions constrain him such that he considers only two options both of which attempt to achieve egalitarianism. Both the ``restriction'' approach and the ``subsidization'' approach would presumably be unacceptable anathemas to most libertarians. Wright's preferred option typically would lead to a massive program of government funded eugenics paid for by taxation (unless or until the taxation mechanism fails). The ``restriction'' approach would probably lead to ``genetic manipulation havens'' which would allow genetic techniques to be applied with fewer restrictions. My viewpoint on these issues is still forming. If you quote from this post please try to get the attribution correct. This post contains quoted material from one or more persons I disagree with. Thanks. Constructive responses to Gregory Sullivan. sullivan@cs.jhu.edu ------------------------------ From: sasha1@netcom.com (Alexander Chislenko) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 12:38:04 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-123] META: Moderator? In X-Message-Number: #94-11-118, Phil Goetz wrote: > >This list needs a LOT more moderation. There is such high volume, >and such a low signal/noise ratio, that I will unsubscribe if it doesn't >change soon. _Charging money_ for an unmoderated list, besides being absurd, >is against the principles of the Net. What would the net be like if >every newsgroup and mailing list charged? > Phil, The extropian list software is unique in that it allows you to moderate the message flow yourself, by selecting types of messages you would like to receive, based on sender, subject and content. The fee covers the expenses of running the list on a commercial site. Running a list *always* takes money; the question is who pays: people using the service or somebody else. Both of these issues are resolved in full accordance with extropian principles. If you would rather see something authoritarian and supported by taxes, this list probably isn't for you. Sasha. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Alexander Chislenko | sasha1@netcom.com | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please visit my Home: URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/sasha1/home.html ------------------------------ From: boone@prep.net (Jon 'Iain' Boone) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 19:06:16 -0500 Subject: [#94-11-124] FWD: It can happen here! On Sun, November 6, 1994 Craig Presson wrote: > * After voting earlier this year to disband their police force, > residents of Osage, W. Va., voted in June to disband the whole town > government. A major reason was dissatisfaction with the large number > of traffic tickets being issued. [Cumberland Times-News-AP, 6-16-94] > > (Clipped by News of the Weird) > > \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ > -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ > -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> > -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ > // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 19:35:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-11-125] alt.extropians - availability? > Your site Fed by alt.extropians present? cs.umb.edu hsdndev.harvard.edu yes I also read news at shore.net (northshore.ecosoft.com) noc.near.net yes ------------------------------ From: Godshatter Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 05:10:12 +0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-11-126] METTA List Rules On Mon, 7 Nov 1994, Harry S. Hawk wrote: > a conscious being, Godshatter wrote: > > > I'm posting this from a usenet newsgroup, mail.extropians, which > > anyone can get access to; so how you gonna keep the list private or > > charge for it. Even though the list is moderated, are you going to weed > > out all those who are not officially subscribed? > > Just a bit confused. > > If there is any confusion it is clearly on your part. > > You subscribed to this list yesterday: > > Account Opened :Sun Nov 6 12:11:22 1994 > > Mail is being sent to: mentat@telerama.lm.com > > and then on to: Godshatter > > If it is going to a usenet newsgroup is something you have done > explictly. THat appears to be a violation of our list rules. > It is not something I did explicitly; it was done, as far as I can gather, by my internet provider: telerama.lm.com I had been previously subscribed to the group as: esrst1+@pitt.edu some time ago and was aware of the list rules at that time. I assumed that the list and mail.extropians were different entities, just as this list and bit.listserv.extropy are - I believe - different entities. It was not until I subscribed to the mailing list and noticed the same messages appearing in both places that I realized that they were the same thing. I thought that it might be possible that mail.extropians may have been the result of an oversight, or that perhaps EXI had set it up so people could read the list but not post to it. (Partly, this was wishful thinking as I did not know about the roll-your-own moderation at that time and even though I want to be on the list, I dreaded at least a little, the high traffic I know would be filling my mailbox, so it was great to be able to read the list with a threaded newsreader. In short, I screwed up and acted without getting all the information that would have allowed me to make the right conclusion. Sorry for any inconvenince to anyone. I talked to the sysop at 9 a.m. Monday morning about this, but mail.extropians is still on here. Mentat@telerama.lm.com Evan Reese Fancy sig coming soon to a screen near you. ------------------------------ From: cactus@bb.hks.net (L. Todd Masco) Date: 8 Nov 1994 05:40:16 -0500 Subject: [#94-11-127] METTA List Rules Multiplexing the list is what's forbidden, no? I have extropians going to a newsgroup locally here at hks.net, but I'm the only person who reads it and the newsgroup is not exported. If I got every mailing list I read as e-mail, I'd never get anything done. It shouldn't matter to anybody but me whether I'm using 'trn' or 'emacs -f vm" to read extropians, all things being equal. -- Todd Masco | "Life is change...how it differs from the rocks... Soon cactus@bb.com | they will atain the stability they strive for, in the only cactus@hks.net | form it is granted -- a place among the fossils" - Wyndham ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 08:05:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-11-128] METTA List Rules a conscious being, L. Todd Masco wrote: > It shouldn't matter to anybody but me whether I'm using 'trn' or > 'emacs -f vm" to read extropians, all things being equal. Private newsgroups have always been allowed. Gatewaying the list to UseNet is not (which is what mentat implied). Things in between are taken on a case by case basis. /hawk ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #313 *********************************