🚀 go-pugleaf

Extropians List Digest       Fri, 12 Jun 1992       Volume 92 : Issue   0002

    Selected messages from the Extropians list.  To join, send to:
    <extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu>.  Messages from the Extropians
    list may not be cross-posted without permission from the poster.
    Such permission has been obtained for all messages in this Digest.

    Hal Finney
    Extropians Digest Moderator

Today's Topics:
		   Protection agencies (3 messages)
	    Competition for the U.S. public school system
			 Ethics (6 messages)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 11:09:08 EST
From: Ian Woolf <uunet!ips.oz.au!ian>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Protection agencies

How do you stop private Protection Agencies from turning into Mafia style
"Protection" rackets?
--

Ian Woolf                 ian@ips.oz.au
IPS Solar Observatory    Phone: +61 67 959 211 or +61 67 924 537
PO Box 372                 FAX: +61 67 959 266
Narrabri NSW 2390
Australia

As soon as you can say what you think and not what some other person has
  thought for you, you are on the way to being a remarkable man.
      -- James M. Barrie

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 09:24:45 EST
From: "Thomas E. Kunselman" <uunet!UKCC.uky.edu!VAATEK>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Protection agencies

On Fri, 12 Jun 92 11:09:08 EST Ian Woolf said:
>How do you stop private Protection Agencies from turning into Mafia style
>"Protection" rackets?

Have competition in the marketplace.

>--
>
>Ian Woolf                 ian@ips.oz.au

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Kunselman                   |    INTERNET: VAATEK@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Information Specialist                |      BITNET: VAATEK@UKCC
Office of the Assistant Chancellor    |    NeXTMAIL: tek@mik.uky.edu
#8 Administration Building            |
University of Kentucky                |    Real Democracy through
Lexington, KY 40506-0032              |    technology!
Phone:(606) 257-1805                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 0:15:02 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Protection agencies

>
> How do you stop private Protection Agencies from turning into Mafia style
> "Protection" rackets?

   How do you stop consumer companies from charging you outrageous
prices for low quality goods?

  Answer: You don't. The free market does.

    Let's imagine that your being oppressed by mafia protection
agencies and there is no current alternative. I submit, that most
people take up arms to defend themselves to the point of making
it unprofitable for these agencies to extract money forcably.
I also submit that other agencies will pop up that are fair
and legal. These agencies (who have the best laws, and the best
protection records of its customers) will profit the most.
Another possibility is that the people who take up arms
to protect themselves from the mafia will sell their services and
soon expand into a real protection agency.

  Consider the LA riot. Korean shop owners were hiring ordinary people
off the street, arming them, and paying them to protect their
business.  Korean shop owners are now talking to gang members
about providing a security force. These gangs will find it far
more profitable and stable to legally provide service for
store keepers rather than rob them.



> --
>
> Ian Woolf                 ian@ips.oz.au
> IPS Solar Observatory    Phone: +61 67 959 211 or +61 67 924 537
> PO Box 372                 FAX: +61 67 959 266
> Narrabri NSW 2390
> Australia
>
> As soon as you can say what you think and not what some other person has
>   thought for you, you are on the way to being a remarkable man.
>       -- James M. Barrie
>

-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 09:35:25 EST
From: "Thomas E. Kunselman" <uunet!UKCC.uky.edu!VAATEK>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: competition for the U.S. public school system

>[Request for information on the Whittle Communications' project for
> a nationwide private schooling system, which recently hired the
> president of Yale.]

Here is some of the text about the Edison Project from an advertisement I've
seen.

The Edison Project was created in 1991 by Whittle Communications in
partnership with Time Warner Inc., Phillips Electronics N.V., and
Associated Newspapers Holdings Limited.  Its goal is nothing less than the
reinvention of American Education.  And in preparatin for this we've already
brought together a group of eminent educators, entrepeneurs, journalists and
technology specialists to form the project's core team.
..
We plan to begin opening hundres of schools across the nation in 1996.  To
open them in inner cities as well as suburbs.  To offerr scholarships based
on need.  To operate on a per pupil budget no greater than the cost per
pupil in public schools.  And to accept a random selection of students
applying for admission.

Beyond that, we plan to make our new technologies, principles and approaches
available to every educator and school system in the country.

>From the June 3 Chronicle of Higher Education, Page A12, an adjoining
article mentions:

As president of the Edison Project, Mr. Schmidt will be working with a team
of educatinal theorists, journalists, and business people to develop an
innovative  educational model running from day care to high school.
Opening the schools may cost as much as $2.5 billion, and Mr. Schmidt
is expected to turn his considerable fund-raising skills to drumming up
investors.  The first 200 schools are slated to open in 1996.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make any mention of contact addresses, or anything
like that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Kunselman                   |    INTERNET: VAATEK@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Information Specialist                |      BITNET: VAATEK@UKCC
Office of the Assistant Chancellor    |    NeXTMAIL: tek@mik.uky.edu
#8 Administration Building            |
University of Kentucky                |    Real Democracy through
Lexington, KY 40506-0032              |    technology!
Phone:(606) 257-1805                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:58:48 +0000
From: uunet!information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk!jrk (Richard Kennaway)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ethics

> [Personal morality is chosen based on self-interest.]

Can you tell us more about this morality based on self-interest?

Do you ever voluntarily give to charity, for example, and if so, how do
you see it serving your self-interest?

Or consider this hypothetical situation: you see a hit-and-run accident.
Assume that none of the participants are known to you, you are just
passing through the neighbourhood and will be unlikely to go there again,
and there is no legal requirement on you to render assistance to the
injured.  Do you, or do you pass by?

If you do, this seems to be a concept of self-interest so broad as to be
tautologous - a self-interested action is anything you happen to want to
do, for whatever reason, those unstated reasons being the foundation of
your morality, not self-interest.  If you would pass by, then I wouldn't
want to have to rely on you in a tight place.

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 14:50:10 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ethics

>
> > [Personal morality is chosen based on self-interest.]
>
> Can you tell us more about this morality based on self-interest?
>
> Do you ever voluntarily give to charity, for example, and if so, how do
> you see it serving your self-interest?

    Because if you give charity to people who need it, you prevent them
from becoming criminals in the future and violating your property. You
also give to charity to prevent increasing wealth distribution policies from
the state. Finally, you give to charity based on selfish reasons. It
makes you feel better. This is just an arational choice.
   There is no such thing as unselfishness.

> Or consider this hypothetical situation: you see a hit-and-run accident.
> Assume that none of the participants are known to you, you are just
> passing through the neighbourhood and will be unlikely to go there again,
> and there is no legal requirement on you to render assistance to the
> injured.  Do you, or do you pass by?

   You probably render assistance. Why? 1) you want to get the driver
off the streets because he may be a danger to you, you can testify
against him, and you probably want the victim to show up in court too.
2) You have the gratitude of the victim and his family. May be
worth $$$. 3) arational compassion for human life.
    There is still no such thing as concious absolute morality.
Most of the things you do for moral reasons, are in fact, arational
decisions. They are primitives built into your software like
Asimov's Robot laws. They are not things which need to be learned or enforced.

  You can probably raise a human being without ever teaching him
a shred of "absolute morality" and he will still not kill, still
learn to love, still have compassion.

> If you do, this seems to be a concept of self-interest so broad as to be
> tautologous - a self-interested action is anything you happen to want to
> do, for whatever reason, those unstated reasons being the foundation of
> your morality, not self-interest.  If you would pass by, then I wouldn't
> want to have to rely on you in a tight place.

    All of these unstated reasons eventually boil down to arational
primitives.  Things like survival, happiness, compassion, guilt, etc.
There's nothing rational about survival, you just want it.  Morality
is purely relative from the standpoint of each person. Depending on the
arational primitives each person possesses, wildly differing moral
systems are possible.  Notions of "absolute morality" are just an
attempt by one group of people to conciously codify what your
arational choices should be.
    Some morals can be taught (respect for property), but they
are not absolute.  A Marxist would certainly agree. But you can
see, that the morals that are "taught" are ones done in self-interest.
(do not kill, do not steal, do not trespass, etc. Essentially
protection of property rights. These are in evry libertarian's self interst)

  Other morals such as "help those in need" are not really in the category
of morals at all as I see it. They are most likely arational
social instincts.

     In essence, I view morals as an attempt to conciously
construct a system of social interaction based off your arational
instincts. They are always done in self interest because the only
interest you have is satisfying your arational primitives.

-Ray

> --
> Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
>
>

-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 15:07:49 CDT
From: uunet!midway.uchicago.edu!twb3 (Tom Morrow)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ethics

>Notions of "absolute morality" are just an
>attempt by one group of people to conciously codify what your
>arational choices should be.
>-Ray

While I am very sympathetic with skeptical tone of Ray's comments, I think
it bears pointing out that the reasons for "absolute morality" involve more
than just conscious manipulation.  Often such moralities arise
spontaneously, and are adopted by custom.  Though it encourages human
sacrifice, for example, patriotism is not always consciously instilled by
evil statists intent of personal gain.  Some politicians actually *believe*
in the values they espouse (they aren't an especially clever lot, you
know).

To put it in terms often used on this list, an absolute morality may arise
and survive as a meme set, invented by no one for no particular purpose.
Such moral systems disserve even those who appear to benefit from them,
just as slavery harms both masters and servants alike.

T.O. Morrow                        --  twb3@midway.uchicago.edu
Law & Politics Editor:   EXTROPY   --  Journal of Transhumanist Thought
Associate Executive Director: ExI  --  The Extropy Institute

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 19:22:27 PDT
From: uunet!xanadu.com!tribble (E. Dean Tribble)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Ethics

I would expect that most moral systems are simply evolutionarily
stable strategies for interpersonal interaction.  That's why for
instance 'rights' do not exist.  They are however a good abstraction
for the best interpersonal strategy I know of (the simplest, least
overhead, etc.)

The space of strastegies is sufficiently convergent that we should not
be surprised that separate societies evolve the same strategies
(excuse me, morals).

:-)
dean

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 19:34:45 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ethics

> [Negative comments about giving to charity - giving to recipients
>  so that they won't become criminals is like paying blackmail, and
>  charity tends not to be effective, anyway.]

   I guess you'll have to first start by defining what you mean by
charity (giving cash, giving a job, giving an education, giving a loan,
etc to someone) Secondly, I'd like to hear your alternative.

   Yes, Darwinian competition will solve the problem. The needy people will
simple die off, problem solved.   But it still costs. Increased
money for protection, prisons, etc. it will also cost you some
freedom, as these people will put tremendous pressure on governments
to take your wealth. I don't agree with force, but a hungry person
isn't acting on rational premises. If you were starving, you could easily
justify trespassing on someone's property and eating their garbage.

  All I am simply saying is, social problems do not simply go
away. An easy solution would be to nuke poverty
areas. But, that's not being realistic.

  Let me add, that I do think some charities are counter
productive. For instance, donating food to overpopulated third
world countries increases their crude borth rate and decreases
their crude death rate. This increases their population even
more and taxes their resources. The only thing I can rationalize
giving to a third world nation is food technology to develop
their own land, and advice to their government on trying to slow
down population growth. The poverty can be taken care of by
capitalism (those places are a cheap labor paradise)


-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 19:31:50 PDT
From: uunet!autodesk.com!robertj (Young Rob Jellinghaus)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ethics

I agree with most of what you said and look forward to seeing where
the discussion goes, but one comment:

	From rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thu Jun 11 18:01:16 1992

	The only thing I can rationalize
	giving to a third world nation is food technology to develop
	their own land, and advice to their government on trying to slow
	down population growth. The poverty can be taken care of by
	capitalism (those places are a cheap labor paradise)

Unfortunately, cheap labor is becoming increasingly less important in
information-age economies (see Toffler's _Powershift_).  Much better
to come up with radically better technologies for education which will
become radically cheaper... then "third world" nations will quite
possibly be able to leapfrog past the Industrial Age altogether, with
nothing but good consequences for themselves and the health of the
planet.

Rob

------------------------------

End of Extropians List Digest Volume 92 Issue #0002
***************************************************