From extropians-request@extropy.org Sun Dec 4 21:02:52 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 VAA19153 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 1994 21:02:51 -0800 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA05498; Sun, 4 Dec 94 21:02:47 PST Received: (from exi@localhost) by news.panix.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA03718; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:02:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:02:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199412050502.AAA03718@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-12-124 - #94-12-133 X-Extropian-Date: December 5, 374 P.N.O. [00:01:14 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Mon, 5 Dec 94 Volume 94 : Issue 338 Today's Topics: BASICS Re: Social Security [1 msgs] BASICS: saving the wilderness [3 msgs] CHARITY Re: Child Abuse [1 msgs] MEDIA: Radio show impressions [2 msgs] Singularity [1 msgs] Singularity: Feh! [1 msgs] The Machinery of Friedman [1 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: 27029 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vincek@intergalact.com (Vince Kerchner) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 11:06:50 -0800 Subject: [#94-12-124] Singularity: Feh! johnkc@well.sf.ca.us (John K Clark) sez: >If I had good information about a >neuron in your brain [etc...] Yes, I agree with all that, even though I think you're assuming some pretty hefty "if"s. However, I still don't see how that implies a "singularity", any more than historical increases in speed of communication and transportation during the past 200 years have implied such a thing. > >There are natural limits to energy dissipation > >Not for computation. True enough. However, that doesn't change how much energy it takes to put a rock in orbit, for example. No amount of "free" computation will alter Newton's laws, etc. > >please don't bring into the discussion that holy panacea > >of Nanotech > >Sorry, no can do, without Nanotech my argument is dead in the >water. Then why not just invoke magic and be done with it? I'm sorry to harp on this, but it seems that the answer to everything is Nanotech, which just sounds like the Philosopher's Stone of the 20th century to me. > >There are civilizations on this planet which have not changed > >much in the past 1,000+ years [...] > >True, but that's because it took 1,000+ years, if the entire advance had >happened between breakfast and lunch things might be different. Again, I don't see why. If our entire population just disappeared one afternoon, then that might be considered a "singular" event. But when the fundamental mode of existence stays the same, what's the difference what the specific magnitudes of your constants are? I guess I must be missing something, because I just don't see why technological advances lead to this Apocalyptic event. Can you cite other examples of such a non-linear phase change? Even quantum mechanics and general realitivity didn't change the world very much, although they both represented very fundamental changes in the way we view physics. I agree completely that increases in computational power and self-augmentation are very desirable things, both personally and for society as a whole, and that they will continue to change the world in big ways. But this "singularity" thing strikes me as just so much hand-waving mumbo-jumbo, and it *really* reeks of mysticism. --Vince * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copyright Vince Kerchner, 1994. "We want information." Intergalactic Reality "You won't get it." vincek@intergalact.com "By hook, or by crook, we will." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ From: vincek@intergalact.com (Vince Kerchner) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 11:25:59 -0800 Subject: [#94-12-125] Singularity Peter McCluskey sez: > If everyone experienced the same speedup at the same time, that would >be approximately correct. I expect that people who speed up soonest will >have some important advantages. I also expect some improvements in things >other than speed, such as memory or the ability to analyze oneself. Agreed. To me, that seems the only issue: the relative difference in ability between augmented and non-augmented humans. > Why do you doubt the likelyhood of uploading? I don't doubt the likelyhood, just the timeframe. I think there are some very fundamental problems to overcome, and that it's going to be several hundred+ years before they are solved. Nevertheless, my criticism of the singularity idea doesn't stem from a disbelief in uploading, but from the doubt that this will cause any fundamental changes in existence. Yes, we'll be able to do more, faster, better, all at the same time, but what's so "singular" about that? > The book itself appears consistent with these possibilities, but things >Vinge has said elsewhere hint at something that is much harder to describe >to people of our technological level. Do you have any idea what that might be? The other problem I have with the singularity is that it seems so ill-defined. Kind of like 2010: "Something *wonderful* is going to happen..." OK, what? --Vince * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copyright Vince Kerchner, 1994. "We want information." Intergalactic Reality "You won't get it." vincek@intergalact.com "By hook, or by crook, we will." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ From: "John M. Bozeman" Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 15:17:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-12-126] BASICS: saving the wilderness >> >> So we ought to design the entire political system around avoiding >> the shocking possibility of oil wells sitting beside sulfurous >> geysers in the Yellowstone? >> >> Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com >> No. I think that this whole debate is indicative of a deeper issue: how to get some or all of the the benefits that we enjoy (and, in spite of a lot of problems, there are many), without the drawbacks (there are a lot of those, too). It is easy to say, in a naive manner, that we simply ought to privitize everything... I know; I had a teacher in my (private) high school who routinely taught this. The problem, though, is that some programs really seem to need a big, capital intensive approach (like, say, the Manhattan Project), or regulation (would you _really_ trust an unregulated, unlicensed reactor, storing its used fuel on-site, in your city/county/state?), without becoming bogged down in a grid-lock of conflicting regulations and overwhelming taxes. Simply put, are Extropians willing to tolerate, say, slavery for the sake of non-interventionism and free enterprise? My teacher in high school of days past thought that we should, based on her assuption that it would eventually end due to economic non-viability... John ------------------------------ From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 13:42:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-12-127] BASICS: saving the wilderness Jay Freeman: > Free antidote shots with every annual renewal! Send > your digicheck now, using BlackNet(tm) public key [...]! Or, in lieu of a payment, I'll withdraw my offer to torch Yellowstone and other statist eco-shrines. Nick Szabo szabo@entcom.co ------------------------------ From: vincek@intergalact.com (Vince Kerchner) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 14:03:43 -0800 Subject: [#94-12-128] MEDIA: Radio show impressions Thanks vey much to Dave Krieger, Romana Machado, and Geoff Dale for their Extropian radio show interview this morning! Overall, it went very well: they were very clear, articulate, and entertaining. Hopefully, this event will herald additional media exposure to both the Extropian movement and their individual careers. A few comments, however. I am a little concerned about what kind of first impression Extropianism makes on the average person. This morning's interview is a good example. In order, the topics raised seemed to be: 1. Leather. 2. Caller-ID. 3. Head-freezing. I'm concerning about this because (a) these topics don't serve to sufficiently differentiate us from other groups with similar agendas (except, perhaps, for the cryogenics) and less-than-wonderful reputations, and (b) these aren't the issues that occur to me when I think of Extropianism or try to explain it to initiates. I've seen a trend lately for Extropianism to be espoused more and more in a purely political arena. While this may be somewhat valid, I do not think of Extropianism as primarily a political vector. In order, I see extropianism as being about: 1. Philosophy. 2. Technology. 3. Economics. In particular, I am concerned about the augmentation of radical political and "sensational" issues at the expense of thoughtful philosophy. I am an advocate of the codification of idealistic viewpoints, and, specifically, of the Extropian Principles, which I happen to like, agree with, and feel are an often underrated achievement. However, I have noticed that, during the past 2 years, I seem to be in an ever decreasing minority concerning this issue. While issues of personal liberty and individual responsibility abound in the Principles, overt issues of lifestyle or political affiliation do not. And yet, more and more it seems that the Principles, and Extropianism in general, are being used to promote specific individual and political viewpoints while losing sight of the fundamental issues, which seem to me to be vastly more important (and much more interesting). There have been several suggestions that Extropianism needs to become more commercialized, in order to reach a greater number and variety of people. While proselytization and marketing may be important to doctrines which depend upon a continuous influx of converts, I would not like to see this strategy applied to Extropianism at the expense of its basic tenets. I would far rather state our beliefs slowly and logically, and allow those with the capacity and temperment to understand them to come to us, than to employ mass-market hook-strategies to artificially snare those who would otherwise have little interest in Extropianism. Comments? --Vince * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copyright Vince Kerchner, 1994. "We want information." Intergalactic Reality "You won't get it." vincek@intergalact.com "By hook, or by crook, we will." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:28:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-12-129] The Machinery of Friedman > OK. Suppose I did for some reason move into one of these > 'proprietary communities' you are talking about. Wouldn't the > agency responsible for law in that community have a territorial > monopoly on legitimate violence? And wouldn't that make it a > State in the sense you are defining here? If I had the choice, right now, I'd probably choose to live in a community that was organized around voting town meetings, with a town government that took care of roads and utilities and security. What are the differences between a stockholder in a Town Corporation and a citizen? It seems like one important difference is being able to buy in or opt out. An American citizen can stay here, accepting every part of the system, fight the system (which retailiates) or leave, but there aren't any freer places to leave TO (until Oceania gets built, but that'll still be just one choice.) There's no mechanism now to sell off parts of the Government when they get unprofitable. One problem with Anarchy is that an organization could seize control of a territory and keep people from exercising their rights, and from leaving. It's not hard to picture a gang forming an army, seizing control of electrical power, and taking over an area. Right now, having a Big Government prevents local groups from creating local armed enclaves... but the trade off is that we surrender a lot of control to the federal government. (Haven't gotten to the part of Friedman yet where he addresses this, if he does. How do you deal with the fact that some folks are productive and others are goons?) I find it easier to picture on a state level. Suppose we reduced the role of the Federal government and let the 50 States completely run their own internal affairs, with the one provision that citizens were always free to renounce citizenship in one state and apply to another. This is possibly not far from what the framers of our constitution had in mind. How would a Libertarian-anarchist group of associated individuals react when they received a radio message that an armed gang was holding a city hostage and restricting individual freedoms, I wonder? Disclaimer: These are *not* opinions, they are *questions.* I'm asking this because I'm in the process of forming opinions... ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:11:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-12-130] BASICS: saving the wilderness Oh, I'm skeptical too (about protecting natural resources without a State) I'm just trying to understand the theory. And, I must admit, I'm skeptical of our current government's ability to do *anything* that it sets out to do. I suspect that with money and a good PR campaign and a lot of behind-the-scenes bribes, a lot can still be accomplished by a determined organization. I don't think a huge government can manage anything *intelligently*. Sweeping protections, possibly, across-the-board exemptions, probably. ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:41:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-12-131] CHARITY Re: Child Abuse I give to a local shelter, and to Project Bread (11 Beacon St, Boston, MA, I can get the zip) which is an umbrella group distributing money mostly to shelters and halfway houses around here (and a bit to Oxfam). I figure that these are the folks who are directly providing shelter; many shelters are specifically for abused parents and children. Many of them are involved in job-training and outreach and other direct forms of help also. If you want to give to an agency, my suggestion is to call a shelter and ask them what places have actually given them help. ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 18:02:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [#94-12-132] BASICS Re: Social Security If given the choice, I would opt out of Social Security entirely. We're owed money because that money was taken out of our paychecks, with the promise that it would be invested for us and returned as pension. I'd rather do my own, thanks very much, but I am owed the money+interest that was removed from my check! Entertainingly, the People's Republic of Massachusetts *does* offer me that choice; we pay into a pension system instead of Social security, and I *can* get that money back and roll it into a 401k when I return to the private sector (or choose to leave it in and take a state pension). I get ripped off on interest but I get the capital and a little interest. A better deal than SS, and I do intend to take back control of the money! BTW I've gotten this far in the Machinery of Freedom, and Friedman is wrong when he says SS benefits the wealthy more than the poor. People who are poor or "working poor" often don't have either the extra money, or the discipline, or the financial know-how or the education to set up retirement savings plans for themselves. I know I've been struggling for weeks to figure out how to do it, and I have an MS in computer science and a decent math background (lousy economics background though...) So, Social Security has kept a lot of retirees from starving and in theory invested their own money to do it. I'm not arguing for or against the program, just pointing out that if the program was dissolved tomorrow, returning to all the pre-retirees their accumulated payments plus interest, I beleive there'd be a lot more hungry people. I would argue that people should be allowed, at a minimum, to opt out of the program. At a minimum, the gov't could allow people to choose between paying into the SS system or into a 401k. ------------------------------ From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 15:14:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-12-133] MEDIA: Radio show impressions I, too, enjoyed our trio's radio show here in the Bay Area. Vince Kercher: [topics covered] > 1. Leather. > 2. Caller-ID. > 3. Head-freezing. Naturally, leather & head-freezing happen to be the flashiest, hippest, and most outrageous things that the media will want to cover. (Caller ID seemd to be an issue which was rudely carried over from the previous show, but Geoff did use the opportunity to talk about scope of privacy and Lotus Marketplace). > In order, I see extropianism as being about: > > 1. Philosophy. > 2. Technology. > 3. Economics. Alas, these can't be covered in 5-30 second sound bites, which were what was available on the show. Dave did manage to do a good job (considering the constraints) covering nanotechnology and its relationship to cryonics reanimation. > In particular, I am concerned about the augmentation of radical political > and "sensational" issues at the expense of thoughtful philosophy. As far as I can tell, anarcho-capitalist politics has always been part of the agenda. It would perhaps be useful to put it in the theoretical category, along with cryonics reanimation and uploading, and have less emphasis on technology for entertainment's sake and futile methods of political agitation such as Oceania and the Libertarian Party. The sensational issues are probably necessary for media exposure. I plead guilty to over-emphasis of medium-term, gee-whiz technologies such as space colonization, advanced manufacturing, et. al. which are in most cases more entertaining than important. On the other hand, the theoretical applied science, and its consequences on quality and span of life, are crucial to the Extropian worldview. The entertaining ideas do help us to envision a high quality future, but we must keep in mind that they are for now just entertainment. Trying to translate these entertainments into contemporary action is a mistake I see repeated often (including by yours truly, "like a dog returning to his vomit"), wasting gobs of scarce pre-augmentation resources. While theoretical technology is crucial, and ideas important, to the Extropian worldview perhaps our biggest gap is the need for a practical Extropianism that stresses personal success in the today's environment (today's technology, politics, etc. -- no futurism or idealism). While we've had a start with Romana's "Five Ways to Reduce Entropy Now" and Harry Browne, there is a long ways to go on the practical end. One core idea I am starting to use is to distinguish between our "influence space" and "worry space", where a "space" is a search space of ideas and the environment those ideas refer to. In influence space are those ideas that concern parts of the environment that we can actually change, proximate to our thinking about them. They are, to abuse Wittgenstein, "zuhanden", they come to hand when needed, rather than having to be plotted and planned years ahead of time. When we are balanced, we mostly worry about what we can influence, and accept (for the meantime) the rest. The most sucessful life, I posit, will be lived where one's worry space roughly corresponds to one's influence space. We can spend most of our thinking and efforts in our influence space, limiting the "Rapture of the Future" and "Rapture of Politics" that mislead us away from making progress here in the present. At the same time, the valuable new insight which Extropianism has given us, keeping an eye on the far future and its consequences for our strategy in the present, remains a core guidepost. Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #338 *********************************