From extropians-request@extropy.org Thu Nov 24 15:02:34 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 PAA01531 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 1994 15:02:32 -0800 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA13004; Thu, 24 Nov 94 15:02:28 PST Received: (from exi@localhost) by news.panix.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id SAA25340; Thu, 24 Nov 1994 18:02:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 18:02:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199411242302.SAA25340@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-11-358 - #94-11-368 X-Extropian-Date: November 24, 374 P.N.O. [18:01:27 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: O Extropians Digest Thu, 24 Nov 94 Volume 94 : Issue 327 Today's Topics: BASICS: Population & Environment [1 msgs] Cryonics ?= extropianism & nature != perfect [2 msgs] ECON/GAME: dumb barter [2 msgs] Industrial Revolution Economics [2 msgs] META: Re SCIENCE: New water/diesel fuel mix [1 msgs] NANOTECH: Drexler predicts when it will happen [1 msgs] Population, Simon Sez, and Environment [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: 26875 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dsharp@phantom.com (david sharp) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 94 11:18:05 EST Subject: [#94-11-358] Population, Simon Sez, and Environment > >4. The Earth will soon have too many humans. > >No way. P. J. O'Rourke, in his newest book _All The Trouble In The World_ >points out that the entire population of the Earth could live in Texas and >Oklahoma at the population density of present-day San Francisco (calculate >how much land that leaves left over for agriculture -- about 100%, I'd >say). actually, you can fit the entire world population on 2 sq. miles if you stack them deep enough. plus, with the possible exception of those at the top, they'll all be killed in the process, leaving even *more* land for agriculture. ------------------------------ From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 09:09:21 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-359] ECON/GAME: dumb barter I was asked: "Whit is this game?" I put GAME in the title because the question touches on game theory. In ancient times, a trading ship landed on an unknown shore, and traders set out some goods on the beach, then returned to the ship to watch. Locals came down to the beach, set out some goods, and retreated some distance to watch. If the traders were happy with the deal, they took the natives' goods and departed; otherwise they added or subtracted some goods of their own, and returned to the ship to watch the natives do likewise . . . That's dumb barter, and it happened on coasts everywhere. Why didn't either party just gather up _everything_ and go? Fear of violence? -- disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence. Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com no surprises: Burton (D*) 66797, Wing (R) 22827, Sherwood (L) 4707 ------------------------------ From: nzr20@amdahlcsdc.com (Nicholas Russon) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 10:27:00 -0500 Subject: [#94-11-360] Industrial Revolution Economics Robin Hanson wrote: > from Lance Davis, "The Investment Market 1870-1914: The Evolution of a > National Market", Journal of Economic History, V25N3, Sept. 1965, p.355. > > I wonder how history would have changed if one of those rich people had > seen the future, and single-handedly financed the industrial revolution? You can bet it would have happened quite differently...from the point-of-view of the lucky/wise/crafty rich person! I suggest that one of the reasons it didn't happen was that these super-rich folks were generally unable to realize the cash value of their holdings in anything like the relative liquidity of today's marketplace...and just think of what kind of loss Mr. Wm. Gates might have to accept to cash out all of his current holdings in order to finance Nanotech firms in this way. "...crisis on Wall Street...President appeals for calm...London stocks crash on news of huge sell-off of Microsoft stock by Bill Gates...Hong Kong market closed after 2 minutes of pandemonic trading...Vancouver exchange unchanged..." ;-) If Gates or his ilk can't easily liquidate today, just imagine how much more difficult it would be for a proto-Vanderbilt or Ur-Morgan to get at the cash value! Regards, Nicholas -- Nicholas nzr20@amdahlcsdc.com | Our universities are so determined to Russon nzr20@amail.amdahl.com | impose tolerance that they'll expel you n.russon@ieee.org | for saying what you think and never notice nrusson@io.org | the irony. (John Perry Barlow) ------------------------------ From: Anders Sandberg Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 18:12:21 +0100 (MET) Subject: [#94-11-361] META: Re SCIENCE: New water/diesel fuel mix "L. Todd Masco" posted in #94-11-209 [I propose to start sending synopses of new technology and discoveries to Extropians. If more than two people express interest, I'll start mailing summaries from VNS, Science, Science News, and other similar sources. I'll use the 'SCIENCE:' tag I've used above. I think that it's important to keep an accurate picture of where our current technology is and what's coming down the pipe in the near future.] Yes, its important to keep track of where technology is going. The only problem is that when something is published, its old... I agree, this could be useful. And with a special tag, it can be excluded by those who doesn't want it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! nv91-asa@hemul.nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y ------------------------------ From: EdRegis@aol.com Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:25:58 -0500 Subject: [#94-11-362] NANOTECH: Drexler predicts when it will happen Robin Hanson (Wed, Nov 23, 1994 8:57 PM EST) writes: >We must make decisions, so we can and must form >expectations about the future, ... Okay. Still, the nature and number of predictions one needs to make in order to live happily and well are pretty few: e.g., the road will continue on the other side of the hill, etc. But as for projecting what's going to be happening in 2010, 2040, or whatever, it ought to be recognized that all such forecasts are mere guesswork. And no matter how they turn out, they have little or no effect on our lives today, so what's the point, really? Ed edregis@aol.com ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 11:45:46 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-363] ECON/GAME: dumb barter > Why didn't either party just gather up _everything_ and go? > Fear of violence? Hope for return business, one would think. Isn't this an example of the mutually cooperative state of a "tit-for-tat" strategy of interaction? -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 12:04:28 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-364] Cryonics ?= extropianism & nature != perfect Responding to Romana. >So? Are you saying you would not buy a cheap but risky chance to live "as >god" in a post-scarcity economy? That you would rather not *be* if you >can't live during the time of greatest change? I'm saying that the post-scarcity economy is not as interesting to me (as I currently view the future) as the upcoming time of greatest change. And I am perfectly willing to stake my life on that choice. >Why, if the "survival of >life" is important, is the survival of the one life you have the greatest >control over, your own, not important? Because the survival of life in general need not be equated--or even approximated--with the survival of my life in particular. >Oh dear! Your value system is completely upside down. Your life is valuable >because it is _yours_; don't even bother about the "absolute external >criteria" of your value to the universe. The universe neither cares about >you nor recognizes any obligation to you. Of course not. I certainly hope I didn't give the impression I thought it does. "Obligation" doesn't enter into it. Let me add some more depth. If memes are indeed the current locus of evolution, then my primary contribution to extropy in the universe is as a memetic vector. Is that enough of a reason, from the noosphere's point of view, for me to stay alive indefinitely? Beyond a certain point, which I project to be the "post-scarcity godhood" as you put it, I don't think so... there will be plenty of vectors throughout the cosmos at that point. ("So why is the noosphere's point of view relevant?" That's just it: why is YOUR point of view relevant? If extropy is the goal, that is.) Another take on this: Mark Miller's definition of immortality as "recognizing and being grateful to your predecessors." The Greek civilization isn't dead; we're it. In this sense, I _literally_ am immortalizing _myself_ by spreading this message to you all. By this definition, my self is not at all identical with my mortal body or the information pattern therein. And moreover, over time, _all_ transhuman evolution becomes hard to distinguish from individual death. When _you_ no longer exist except as distant memories, and when what you've become no longer resembles you in the slightest (albeit grateful to you), have you died, or not? How different is that, on an information-theoretic level, from dying today? The biological human (culture-carrying) individual is currently the most important unit of evolution in the universe. Once the Singularity occurs, that will no longer even be approximately true. I therefore intend to do my best to keep my human body alive until we reach that transition. Afterwards, all the rules change. >The universe that birthed us is amoral... It does not care whether we live or >die--does not care if it itself grinds to a halt. It is fixed and blind, a >robot programmed to kill. Interesting. I think that if this were really, fundamentally true, we would not exist in the first place. I think that the universe is so constituted as to implicitly contain the possibility of life and of evolution. I believe that extropy is as much a part of the "fabric" of the universe as is entropy... and were this not so, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. >I say that it does not matter whether I am a human or a hedgehog - my >success depends on my continued existence. Your assessment of my "value" >has nothing to do with anything. This is not a matter of faith. Fair enough. I assert that your definition of success is not the definition of success employed by the noosphere as a whole; biological individual survival of any particular individual is not critical to the progress of extropy in the universe. Probably plenty of folks are yawning, saying "Of course it's arational." Good for them, skipping old territory. I am not saying cryonicists are wrong--I am saying there are other perspectives, which can be considered just as "extropian". >>I am not saying individual death >>is _necessary_--I am just saying it is not _relevant_. > >On the contrary, it is a revealing and significant matter of life and >death. Your life, and your death. That is all you are really responsible >for, not the entire universe. (And *you* think *we're* arrogant! Great >Bacon!) Where did you get the idea I thought I was responsible for the whole universe? That's exactly what I'm saying I'm NOT responsible for. I am just pointing out that "survival of my information pattern == an intrinsically good thing for extropy" is not necessarily as true as many folks here seem to think. And what is this? An Extropian (Romana herself, no less) disclaiming arrogance? :-) I thought it was considered a positive _virtue_... though to be more precise, I recognize that Extropians do not consider _themselves_ arrogant, but rather realistic. They do seem to take pride in the "arrogant" label the rest of the world applies to them, though. Nu? The remaining hole in my reasoning is that, if waste irks me now, and if I'd like to preserve more of the information-bearing species that we're exterminating through sloppy technology, why doesn't that apply to me? After all, we won't likely have the technology to revive any frozen-storage species until the cryonics-revival timeframe anyway. Why not consider myself a rare species, worthy of preservation? That's an interesting point, indeed, though it doesn't have the force of the discounted-in-my-worldview "my survival is the only important thing" cryonicist meme. To finish up the Environment thread, many folks point out that, well, the sun's gonna bake us all anyway, so why make Nature out to be this kind and balanced and worthy thing? Well, I don't. I think that humans will wind up being the salvation of the ecosphere; no doubt about that, life is doomed without conscious evolution. I think that civilization is the latest evolutionary leap of nature. But as I said, aesthetically, we can do a hell of a lot better at not poisoning our surroundings than we are doing. Indeed, the survival of a diverse and healthy biosphere depends on it. We aren't _obligated_ to do anything at all, including survive; but it seems to me it'd be best for us to figure out how to survive, and thrive, without laying waste to our home (and for that matter, our future homes--pollution will bedevil us through the cosmos, until we learn how to recycle _properly_). And in fact, the _best_ way--the most efficient way--to organize our lives and our systems is as materially-closed loops. (This is implicit in all nanotech discussions of how everything is raw material and waste is in principle obsolete.) So let's see. I am anti-pollution, pro-environment, pro-technology, anti-overpopulation (insofar as it results from poorly-informed resource allocation), pro-extropianism, and cryonics-neutral. Nick Szabo, do I seem to hate humans and/or civilization, or not? Oh yes, and to the A-albionic guy: damn it, learn the list rules, and don't quote hundreds of lines of uncommented-on text! Rob Jellinghaus robj@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 11:02:38 -1000 Subject: [#94-11-365] BASICS: Population & Environment At 5:31 AM 11/24/94, Tim Starr wrote: >>3. The error of believing that human societies can distribute resources >>optimally. There will always be large inefficiencies in a complex social >>or economic system. > >As a matter of fact, I not only take the position that human societies can >optimally distribute resources, but that they do so naturally in the >absence of coercive interference. How is this erroneous? This is a purely semantic issue. Optimal by what standard? If "optimal" means no one is ever filling up a hole while someone else is trying to dig it, the economy is not optimal. If "optimal" means that it wastes more effort to try to stop people from filling up the holes someone else is trying to dig than ignoring the whole thing, then the economy is optimal. Both probably qualify as tautologies. Note: If the second definition of "optimal" doesn't appeal to you and you wish therefore to condemn markets, let me remind you that nature has the same problems. Entomologists report watching one set of ants busily tearing down what another set (within the same colony) is building. The process converges and the thing either gets built or torn down, but not without plenty of waste. So, are we really in a position to design complex processes that out-perform nature rather than building on it? Optimality in the narrow sense is not an option, and hence not a valid standard. Dave tburns@mason1.gmu.edu ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 11:46:26 GMT Subject: [#94-11-366] Population, Simon Sez, and Environment Phil Goetz: > Nick Szabo, Max More, Craig Presson, and Dave Krieger all told me > to read Julian Simon. I would expect to have been referred to a > different source by each person. Why? Since all the above named have discussed this repeatedly with loads of others in the list I'd be surprised if they didn't all reference Simon. > Instead, it appears that the underpopulation dogma rests solely on > the work of one man, Julian Simon. This is suspicious. > > We have two choices: > > 1. Almost everyone examining population growth is wrong, and this > ONE MAN, Julian Simon, has the wisdom to see the Truth. That's more or less it. One man, most extropians and the Catholic Church. > 2. There are a lot of people who want to believe that we are not in > danger of overpopulation, and so they'll prejudice their critical > faculties in favor of any arguments in that direction. I respect > Nick, Max, and Craig too much to think they could be taken in by > foolishness, but I suspect there is a flaw somewhere they have not > seen. > > I haven't read Simon, but would like to know if he commits any of > these errors: [list of stupid errors deleted] No, he doesn't commit those errors. Don't take our word for it - and you seem not inclined to, and why should you? - read his books, especially _The Ultimate Resource_ which is the best, IMO. Much more readable than the Resourceful Earth or whatever. Michael Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:24:21 GMT Subject: [#94-11-367] Industrial Revolution Economics Robin Hanson writes: > Is there now a drastic underinvestment in nanotechnology, the > foundation of the next industrial revolution? > This seems implausible, > but I just ran across a quote that might support this position. > > "The more complex the economy, however, the more difficult it is to > transfer the command over resources gained by nonconsumption from the > savers to those who wish to use these resources - that is, the > investors. In the case of the United Kingdom, as Postan has shown, > each of several personal fortunes could have financed the entire > industrial revolution. Despite these accumulations, the new > industries were unable to acquire funds even at interest rates in > excess of 20 percent. At the same time, the land-connected industries > (agriculture, brewing, milling, and mining) were able to command large > quantities of capital, although rates of return were near zero (and > sometimes, perhaps, negative)." > from Lance Davis, "The Investment Market 1870-1914: The Evolution of > a National Market", Journal of Economic History, V25N3, Sept. 1965, > p.355. 1870-1914? That sounds rather a narrow base to extrapolate from. Was there a depression then? I recall that industrial production (pig iron and such like) rose very steeply in the early days (1700s) of the IR, whilst it was a smaller component of the mostly mercantile/agrarian economy, so presumably its start wasn't investment throttled. Putting that aside, hopefully the financial markets are more efficient today - they're certainly more complex, with more derivatives which must be a sign of something since all instruments have to pay their way. And certainly the rate of (real per capita) economic growth is higher, much higher, now than it was then and earlier. Certainly the "nanotech" areas today (chip fabrication, biotech, molecular biology) seem well funded by private capital. Michael Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 13:27:46 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-368] Cryonics ?= extropianism & nature != perfect Rob Jellinghaus comments: > I believe that extropy is as much a part of the "fabric" > of the universe as is entropy... and were this not so, we wouldn't be > here to discuss it. Thank you for an interesting new thought. > I am anti-pollution, pro-environment, pro-technology, > anti-overpopulation (insofar as it results from poorly-informed > resource allocation), pro-extropianism, and cryonics-neutral. Nick > Szabo, do I seem to hate humans and/or civilization, or not? So is the First Extropian Squirrel, and though he will not single out Nick or any other Extropian, the Squirrel finds puzzling and possibly irrational the observed trend on this list to declare possessors of the cited memes to be, e.g., ~"death-worshiping Luddites"~. Possibly some such are, but surely not all. With certain words quoted so as to tread lightly on some readers' sensibilities, the Squirrel opines that quite clever technology, and lots of it, is a substantial component of almost any likely "solution" to the "environmental problems" perceived by most greens, and that even more technology would be required to produce and sustain the kind of heavy-on-the-interaction-with-nature world that many greens seek. The Squirrel has observed in personal encounters that many Extropians are moderately fond of things natural, and suspects that even those who are not would prefer not to disable any portion of the biosphere which they may still temporarily require as a life-support mechanism. The Squirrel thus suggests that there are prospects of interesting and productive dialog between even the most obdurate of greens and of extropians. -- Jay Freeman, First Extropian Squirrel ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #327 *********************************