🚀 go-pugleaf

Hal's Extropians Digest      Wed, 17 Jun 1992       Volume 92 : Issue   0008

    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:
		 Virtual reality for stocks in Forbes
	Bionomics memes adopt green memetic shell (2 messages)
	     Questions from a new Extropian (2 messages)
	       The good for all - a debate (2 messages)

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 22:42:13 PDT
From: uunet!usc.edu!more@nunki.usc.edu (Max More)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Virtual reality for stocks in Forbes

The current issue of Forbes has several pieces on personal computing and
investment. The most interesting is about a graphical represntation of various
kinds of stock information. The description and illustration make it appear
much like Gibson's portrayal of cyberspace. One possible view of the stocks
is a plane of colored object, at varying heights above and below the plane,
depending on the performance of the stock.

Max More		more@usc.edu		AMIX:MMORE
Editor
EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 18:16:48 EDT
From: uunet!acsu.buffalo.edu!sulko-m (Mark A. Sulkowski)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Bionomics memes adopt green memetic shell

	I just received my first copy of "Bionomic Perspectives", the
newsletter of the newly formed Bionomic Institute.  According to one
of the newsletter's articles, the book _Bionomics: The Inevitability
of Capitalism_ is undergoing a title change to _Bionomics: Economy as
Ecosystem_.

	Although the author of the book does not use the word 'meme'
to describe his reason for the title change, he does report stories he got
from his readers who tried to lend the book (under the first title)
to friends and relatives, only to find them turned off by the title
("Inevitability" of "Capitalism") and refuse to read the book.  This
new title and book cover, however, gets around this censor meme problem
by wrapping pro-capitalist ideas in an eco-friendly wrapper, thereby
smuggling these ideas in to the minds of unsuspecting leftists.
Because of this book, we may find greens becoming concerned about the
"rainforest" of the economy, from a free market angle.

	Anyway, I find this use of memetic packaging very interesting.
Extropians may do well to learn from this example.  After all, we
aren't ANTI-environment, and we are pro-technology.  An eco-friendly
image would do us well, as I think was mentioned before in talks about
Free Oceania.

Mark Venture 		Forward! Upward! Outward! Into the Future!

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 16:33:14 PDT
From: uunet!xanadu.com!tribble (E. Dean Tribble)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Bionomics memes adopt green memetic shell

If you look at "Unbounding the Future" by Drexler, Peterson, and
Pergamit, you will see an enormous amount of attention to the issues
of presentation (particularly to the environmentalist folk).

An important realization that made that possible: To a first
approximation, everyone wants both a cleaner environment and a better
standard of living.  Our current manufacturing technology is
sufficiently bad that we have gotten used to trading those off against
each other.  That often puts 'progressives' at odds with
'environmentalists' when the actual difference of opinion is which is
more important, not whether one side is wrong.

With this realization, I'm certainly much more sympathetic of the
environmentalists.  I'm also quite pleased that we may have a way to
satisfy both our desires, so we can cooperate instead of argue.

dean

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 23:12:30 -0700
From: uunet!ucsd.edu!jmcpherson
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Questions from a new Extropian

Hello fellow Extropians ...
   Although I'm fairly new to the list, I've been heading
towards Extropia for several years now, thanks to my old
mentor Dr. Win Wenger.  When I got the welcome message for
the list, I was surprised to find that I already owned 6
out of the 10 recommended books (though I haven't read them
all yet).
   I'd like to "catch up" on the field, so I've included
a few questions below.  If the answer is as simple as "see
book X, pages N1 to N2", then please just email it to me,
unless there's a good chance that it would be new to the
others.

I. Books not on the basic list:
   A.  "Order Out of Chaos" by Ilya Prigogine.  It seems to
       me that this book could be an important addition to
       the reading list, since it goes into the mechanics
       of negative entropy.  Has anyone here reviewed it?
   B.  "The Market for Liberty" by the Tannehills.  This book
       delves into the mechanics of a government-less society.
       I haven't yet read "The Machinery of Freedom".  How do
       these two blueprints compare with each other?
   C.  "Mind Food and Smart Pills" by Ross Pelton, probably
       covers much of the same material in "Smart Drugs and
       Nutrients", but I haven't read the latter.  Is MF&SP
       a worthwhile addition to the list?
   D.  "Brainchild" by David Brown, is what I would consider an
       extropian neuroscience fantasy since it deals with the
       themes of cryonics, nanotechnology, reimplantation of
       stored personality memes, etc.  It's pretty wild, but
       this group might enjoy it :-).

II. Increasing human intelligence:
   A.  Anybody else out there familiar with the work of Dr. Win
       Wenger (eg, his book "How to Increase Your Intelligence")?
       How about other approaches to boosting one's intelligence,
       such as working through Marilyn vos Savant's book?
   B.  What do you folks think of the mind/consciousness expanding
       machines, such as those covered in "Mega Brain" by Michael
       Hutchison?  Has a "consumer-reports" style comparison been
       done by anyone regarding their effectiveness?
   C.  Is there an extropian (ie, spontaneous emergence) theory
       regarding the emergence of intelligence in humans, and ways
       to facilitate its development within individuals?
   D.  Is there an extropian theory of human genius, and especially
       ways to foster it?
   E.  Has there been interest in and ideas about potential speed-
       learning and super-learning techniques, such as those
       expounded by Lozanov and by the Society for Accelerated
       Learning and Teaching?
   F.  What is the status of portable/wearable high-tech devices
       for sensory amplification and electronic communications?  I'm
       aware of the wearable virtual-CRT, "Private Eye", which allows
       you to "see" a projected image of a CRT-screen floating in
       front of you.  I guess my ideal device would be like a pair of
       electronic sunglasses which would display a virtual-reality (VR)
       overlay onto your view of physical-reality (PR), which could
       either be used to enhance one's perception of PR (such as adding
       infra-red viewing, or linked informational windows to targeted
       items), or to explore fully detached VRs.  Into this high-tech
       fantasy I would add something like minaturized (wearable) stereo
       walkie-talkies.
   G.  What do you folks think of the promise of such fields as
       General Systems Theory (GST) by Bertallanfy, and General
       Semantics (GS) by Korzybski?  I first learned of these fields
       as being potential tools to enhance one's intelligence by
       formulating general conceptual structures to utilize in quickly
       building mental models ... but I haven't done much with them yet.
       Anyone have experience and successes with them?
   H.  Has anyone a general overview of what has-been/is-being done
       in the field of "intelligent technology"?  I would include in
       this field the practices of "Cognitive Psychology" and "Human
       Factors" engineering, since they are concerned with intelligent
       design of technological products.  I imagine, however, that what
       is mainly meant by the phrase applies to embedded expert systems,
       right?

III. Life extension:
   A.  Is anyone maintaining the diet laid out in "The 120-Year Diet"
       by Roy Walford?  I tried it for the initial 60 days, but then
       slipped back into old habits mainly because: it took alot of
       time to keep up with it, I couldn't resist "goodies", and I
       have a strong sensitivity to milk products and grains.
   B.  There are strong differences of opinion between Walford and
       Pearson & Shaw ... are these differences truly irreconcilable?
   C.  Is the Pritikin longevity diet at all worthwhile?
   D.  Regarding the field of cryonics:  the last I heard, they were
       still freezing tissue, which consequently ruptured cells as
       water-ice lattices expanded ... would it be feasible to chill
       the tissue to 4 Celcius or less (non-freezing) to prevent
       cell rupture?  Is it feasible to suppress ice crystalization
       by (judiciously) raising the pressure thus allowing lower
       temperatures without disruptive crystallization?
   E.  What examples are there of extropy in various potential life
       extending methods?  One example I know of is that the drug
       "Lucidril" stops and reverses the accumulation of lipofuscin,
       age-related pigment, at least in the brain.

IV. Advanced human habitats & space colonization:
   A.  Is anyone following the progress of Biosphere II?  Is there
       a contact address?  The press I've seen has never given any.
   B.  What is the status of the effort to create a fully libertarian
       society on an island?  I've heard the name "Free Oceania" ...
       is that its official name?  Also, how are they going to protect
       themselves from conquest when they become wealthy enough to be
       worth taking over? ... or have they already resolved this
       problem?  :-)
   C.  Has anyone designed a practical starship?  How about feasible
       designs for lunar or orbiting colonies (eg, the "Dyson sphere").
       More importantly, are there strategies by which a coalition of
       private firms could pursue these goals?
   D.  Whatever became of the pioneering work of Bucky Fuller?  I've
       read about his plans to mass-produce cheap housing structures
       complete with tremendously water-efficient bathroom facilities,
       his radically innovative "Dymaxion transport" (fuel-efficient
       car with the best parallel-parking you've ever seen!), and other
       inventions, some of which have been around since the '30's!

V. Miscellaneous:
   A.  What is "memetics"?
   B.  Is there a book along the lines of "Information Theory Made
       Simple"?  How about "Game Theory Made Simple"?  I've got the
       impression that there are some great ideas in these theories,
       but I don't really have the background or motivation to get
       into the complex works on these topics that I've come across.
   C.  Are there any "specifically extropian" careers?  By this, I
       mean careers that seek ways to reverse entropy, either in
       physical, engineering or living processes, such as in the
       study and design of self-organization.
   D.  In considering the abortion issue, I find the woman's right
       to choose to be of paramount importance, since the very idea
       of other's being able to determine what to do with your own
       body is unspeakably alien ... yet, I find myself wishing to
       at least placate the "pro-lifers", lest they succeed in
       abolishing this fundamental right.  To that end, I would think
       that a fully libertarian solution would be to develop a way
       to remove and support the living fetuses (either in vivo or
       in vitro) to be supported and raised by those pro-lifers and
       others who would otherwise force the woman to do so.  What
       has been discussed along these lines?

mcpherso@macvax.ucsd.edu       CalSpace Institute, UCSD      (619)534-4717

"Things are only impossible until they're not."   Captain Jean-Luc Piccard

         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury,
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 11:24:50 PDT
From: uunet!usc.edu!more@nunki.usc.edu (Max More)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Questions from a new Extropian

Here are some answers from an old Extropian! I won't try to reply to all your
questions...

I recommend that you take a look at some back issues of EXTROPY to find more
detail treatments of some of these issues. If you didn't get the recent info
mailing let me know.

>
> I. Books not on the basic list:
>    A.  "Order Out of Chaos" by Ilya Prigogine.  It seems to
>        me that this book could be an important addition to
>        the reading list, since it goes into the mechanics
>        of negative entropy.  Has anyone here reviewed it?

Yes, Simon! D. Levy reviewed it EXTROPY #6.

>    B.  "The Market for Liberty" by the Tannehills.  This book
>        delves into the mechanics of a government-less society.
>        I haven't yet read "The Machinery of Freedom".  How do
>        these two blueprints compare with each other?

Friedman's book is much better. The Tannehill's was good for its time, but
Machinery is more economics-based and provides a more detailed and convincing
account of the workings of polycentric law.

>    C.  "Mind Food and Smart Pills" by Ross Pelton, probably
>        covers much of the same material in "Smart Drugs and
>        Nutrients", but I haven't read the latter.  Is MF&SP
>        a worthwhile addition to the list?

Yes, this should probably be added. It's older than SDN, but has more
information in certain areas.

>    D.  "Brainchild" by David Brown,

Not familiar with this one. How about reviewing it for the new newsletter,
Exponent?
>
> II. Increasing human intelligence:
>    A.  Anybody else out there familiar with the work of Dr. Win
>        Wenger (eg, his book "How to Increase Your Intelligence")?
>        How about other approaches to boosting one's intelligence,
>        such as working through Marilyn vos Savant's book?

Not with these particular books. Please let us have more information.

>    E.  Has there been interest in and ideas about potential speed-
>        learning and super-learning techniques, such as those
>        expounded by Lozanov and by the Society for Accelerated
>        Learning and Teaching?

Definitely. References and more information would be welcomed. I am familiar
with Ostrander's "Superlearning" which is partly based on Lozanov's techniques.
I've also found some excellent techniques in Lorayne and Lucas's "The Memory
Book."
>
> III. Life extension:
>    A.  Is anyone maintaining the diet laid out in "The 120-Year Diet"
>        by Roy Walford?

I also tried this for awhile then slipped back into my usual eating patterns.
I'm going to make another attempt at it as soon as I've got Extropy #9 into the
mail. WHile I did stick to it I not only felt better, but learned an
enormous amount about the nutritional composition of foods.

>    D.  Regarding the field of cryonics:  the last I heard, they were
>        still freezing tissue, which consequently ruptured cells as
>        water-ice lattices expanded ... would it be feasible to chill
>        the tissue to 4 Celcius or less (non-freezing) to prevent
>        cell rupture?  Is it feasible to suppress ice crystalization
>        by (judiciously) raising the pressure thus allowing lower
>        temperatures without disruptive crystallization?

No. I suggest you contact the Alcor Foundation for some introductory material.
Their number is: 1-800-367-2228, or e-mail them at alcor@cup.portal.com
There is a cryonics e-mail list, which I can recommend highly, run by Kevin
Brown: Contact Kevin at: kqb@whscad1.att.com

>
> IV. Advanced human habitats & space colonization:
>    A.  Is anyone following the progress of Biosphere II?  Is there
>        a contact address?  The press I've seen has never given any.

Good question. I've heard nothing for a long time. Anyone out there have
a source of information? Updates might go in EXPONENT.

>
> V. Miscellaneous:
>    A.  What is "memetics"?

Has anyone volunteered to write this section fo the FAQ?
Memetics is the study of memes. Memes are replicating patterns of
information, and memetics studies them from an evolutionary perspective.
See the relevant chapter of Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", or read Keith Henson's
"Darwin's Difficulty" in EXTROPY #2.

>    B.  Is there a book along the lines of "Information Theory Made
>        Simple"?  How about "Game Theory Made Simple"?

I don't have titles of intro books at hand, but I do recommend "Morals By
Agreement" by David Gauthier.

>
> mcpherso@macvax.ucsd.edu       CalSpace Institute, UCSD      (619)534-4717

Max More		more@usc.edu		AMIX:MMORE
Executive Director
Extropy Institute (ExI)

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 21:24:03 MDT
From: [...]
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: the good for all?

> The constitution is a piece of parchment, and therefore incapable of
> action. It is composed of paper and ink. It depends on men to execute
> it properly.

Sounds suspiciously like a society to me.

> So far as I can tell, it has not been executed properly
> since almost the date it was put to paper.

But, people are TRYING to execute it properly, and trying to live up to
what it aspires to.  If they were not even trying, we would go back to
slavery.  ***

> Here you are, telling anarchists that they are wrong, and
> without offering even the slightest bit of argument, let alone proof,
> to demonstrate your commentary.

I have a few thousand years of history to back me up.  Do you?

> "Reality" is that the vast bulk of people on our planet live under
> completely corrupt governmental systems that are run of the
> leaders, by the bureaucrats, for the apparatchiks.
..
> "Reality" is that even in the US the old
> dream of freedom through democracy is dying.

True.  But we can slowly fix and correct, learning from our mistakes.
Just because the past is full of problems and self serving baloney does
not mean we can not fix the leaks.  More will arise certainly.  But a
neverending attempt is paramount to success.

>    The land
>    and air is not freely anyones, and is not simply for man to take for his
>    own good.

> Yes it is.

Here, we have a fundamental disagreement.  I do not see the purpose of all
things is to serve man or myself.

> [I will back up that statement with the personal use of force if
>  necessary.]

Now this is odd, for presumably you live within our society.  Or do you?
Why have you not gone to start your own society yet?

> For centuries, all "government" and "social legislation" and all that
> rot have succeeded in doing is creating pain and misery for millions.

And providing genuine relief, hope, and futures.  Many mistakes have
been made.  But just because something has had failures means nothing
about trying again and again.

> This is not to say that I do not cooperate, freely and joyfully, with
> my fellow organisms, when they come to the table to bargain freely and
> honestly.

As I said before, most organisms will not ever come to the bargaining
table.  Engineering a virus can be done in total secrecy and privacy.  No
one can point a finger or stop it.  A clever or brilliant person could
conjure up a million and one ways to deprive others of their property or
rights without having anyone figure out what is going on.  If all were
omniscient, I will grant that your society could work out to some degree.

> I do not know of many farmers who willingly dump salt into their
> farmland.  I have no need to worry about the world's land becoming
> unfit. There is plenty of food, and there will always be plenty of
> food so long as individuals own the means of production of that food.

I know of many in Ethiopia who farm their land hard and do not rotate
crops to replenish nutrients.  Without the alternate crops of clover or
other nitrogen fixers, they lose the long term value of the land.  However,
they are only interested in getting their children fed and once they have
expired they care little what value the land has.

>    The company can proceed to lower the quality, raise the
>    price, and provide a very shitty living to all of its buyers.  This
>    is against maximal good.  Competitors will not be able to provide
>    any products in competition, for the company can lower the price
>    temporarily and drive them out of business.
>
> Give me an example of this ever happening in the real world.

IBM did this very succesfully.  They were broken up by government
intervention.  There are no cases of absolute monopoly forever because
the government always intervenes on the publics behalf.  Read "Big Blue".

> Can you tell me why, in spite of the struggles of the De Beers for the
> last 25 years, the price of diamonds is not being kept stable as they
> would like, but falls regularly?

Diamond have got to be the worst investment that exists.  They are continually
manufactured in the lab and dug out of the ground.  If you can't control that,
you can't control anything about them.

> You don't need to have any commons. End of straw man #1.

Most "commons" will not even be recognized as "common" until a problem is
percieved.  (IE toxic waste dumping, rainforests, Ozone layer).  Who
will sell these then?  Who will buy the ozone layer?  End of end of straw man
#1.

> And someone would shoot you, and that would be the end of your story.
> People don't have to agree to have force imposed on them, you know.
> When you go to kill people, they can shoot back. End of straw man #2.

I will not kill anyone in such a way that they can figure out I was the
cause.  End of end of straw man #2.

> The studies show that its more valuable to keep the rainforests
> intact. However, no one "owns" the rainforests until they have been
> cleared and claimed, so you see lots of land clearing. If the forest
> was not commons, the problem would go away.

Now lets see those studies.  What value is provided to small farmer number
1 to protect the rain forests?  If the forest was not common, they would
instantly vanish beneath knife and fire.

> How, pray tell, will we measure "maximal good" without any
> instruments? Will we send forth armies of sociologists, proctologists,
> soothsayers, gypsy women with tarot decks, and readers of chicken
> entrails?

Now these seem to be getting on the right track....

> Since you cannot measure your "maximal good", I argue it does not
> exist, or at least need not trouble us. It sounds suspiciously like
> "the will of god", or "the will of the proletariat".

Elsewhere I defined one clearly. But for the sake of this argument, I
will simply say that there is a notion of maximal good that can be
agreed to by nearly all parties.  For those that do not agree to this, then
they will start a society elsewhere.  Clearly, a significant number of
parties disagree about the nature of some of the maximal good, but some
remains nearly uncontested (the right of a person to live).  If you
infringe on what others agree to be maximal good, then you will incur
their punishment.  For instance, if many parties agree that depleting the
Ozone is a bad thing, and you continue to do so, they will inflict economic
or military retribution.

Your argument has a number of holes readily apparent.  Of course, I have
not caught the most of them, but once my little head realizes more you
will be the first to know.  Let me enumerate some of the problems:

1) You have not addressed at all the problem of long term usage.  If an
individual looks out only for themselves, they will ignore anything past
their termination.  Thus, everyone will quickly deplete or destroy resources
and the next generation will have nothing.  This problem occurs for many
types of resources.

2) You have not addressed the individual liberties.  There is nothing to
stop slavery, child molestation, rape, murder, or theft.  That is, except
the people suffering under the damage somehow overcoming the inflictor.
It is not clear how this is resolved in your system.

3) Your solution to the "commons" is vague and still inadequate as far as
I can tell.  Many other good postings have addressed the rain forests.  Still
how will you deal with carbon dioxide emissions, general pollution, ozone
destruction, etc, etc.  No one will benefit by owning these, and so would
not buy them.  Many other common resources all have the same problem.

  However, you make very good points (although sometimes they have leaks
in the bottom).  This discussion is very interesting, for when it really
comes down to it many people do think of their own self interest.  Is that
really a viable alternative?  If you could convince me, I would readily join
your banner.  However, too much seems unresolved or inadequate.  The whole
thing seems like a plea for a certain philisophical system which has been
carried to the extreme.  One must wonder about anything carried to any
extreme, for no idea holds so much truth.  There are no corrective mechanisms
in your system, there is only a place for rational humans, there is no
mercy or escape route for slight mistakes, and there is no protection of
many resources which may have no apparent surface value.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 10:51:23 EDT
From: uunet!shearson.com!pmetzger (Perry E. Metzger)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: the good for all?

   from [...]

   > The constitution is a piece of parchment, and therefore incapable of
   > action. It is composed of paper and ink. It depends on men to execute
   > it properly.

   Sounds suspiciously like a society to me.

   > So far as I can tell, it has not been executed properly
   > since almost the date it was put to paper.

   But, people are TRYING to execute it properly, and trying to live up to
   what it aspires to.  If they were not even trying, we would go back to
   slavery.

They aren't trying. Virtually the whole of the constitution is
violated every day in this country, with the possible exception of the
third amendment. Everything from seizures of pornography to government
owned railways to legal tender laws to gun control laws rape, pillage
and burn

   > Here you are, telling anarchists that they are wrong, and
   > without offering even the slightest bit of argument, let alone proof,
   > to demonstrate your commentary.

   I have a few thousand years of history to back me up.  Do you?

You have no history to back you up whatsoever. To have history to back
you up, you would have to show repeated instances of failed anarchist
societies. I know only of repeated instances of successful ones, in
medieval Iceland and Ireland. Score, 1 - 0, my point.

   > "Reality" is that the vast bulk of people on our planet live under
   > completely corrupt governmental systems that are run of the
   > leaders, by the bureaucrats, for the apparatchiks.
   ...
   > "Reality" is that even in the US the old
   > dream of freedom through democracy is dying.

   True.  But we can slowly fix and correct, learning from our mistakes.
   Just because the past is full of problems and self serving baloney does
   not mean we can not fix the leaks.  More will arise certainly.  But a
   neverending attempt is paramount to success.

Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated long ago that the incentives in
governmental systems are contrary to permitting people to set up
bureaucracies that could ever work. Score, 2 - 0, my point.

   >    The land and air is not freely anyones, and is not simply for
   >    man to take for his own good.

   > Yes it is.

   Here, we have a fundamental disagreement.  I do not see the purpose of all
   things is to serve man or myself.

You cannot, however, give me any good reason to cooperate with a
system that does not serve me, other than brute force. Score, 3 - 0,
my point.

   > For centuries, all "government" and "social legislation" and all that
   > rot have succeeded in doing is creating pain and misery for millions.

   And providing genuine relief, hope, and futures.  Many mistakes have
   been made.  But just because something has had failures means nothing
   about trying again and again.

Government has never provided any genuine relief, hope, or future for
anyone. I defy you to provide me with an example where government did
not merely exacerbate or shift a problem. Score, 4 - 0, my point.

   > This is not to say that I do not cooperate, freely and joyfully, with
   > my fellow organisms, when they come to the table to bargain freely and
   > honestly.

   As I said before, most organisms will not ever come to the bargaining
   table.

So, then I do not deal with them.

   Engineering a virus can be done in total secrecy and privacy.  No
   one can point a finger or stop it.  A clever or brilliant person could
   conjure up a million and one ways to deprive others of their property or
   rights without having anyone figure out what is going on.

So? Whats your point? Neither government nor voluntarist mechanisms
can stop this, so what are you trying to demonstrate? Do you have any
point at all?

   > I do not know of many farmers who willingly dump salt into their
   > farmland.  I have no need to worry about the world's land becoming
   > unfit. There is plenty of food, and there will always be plenty of
   > food so long as individuals own the means of production of that food.

   I know of many in Ethiopia who farm their land hard and do not rotate
   crops to replenish nutrients.

I was under the impression that the problem in Ethiopia was a
continuing drought and a communist government. Sustained agriculture,
including crop rotation, has, to my knowledge, been in place in
Ethiopia for at least several thousand years.

Score, 5 - 0, my point.

   >    The company can proceed to lower the quality, raise the
   >    price, and provide a very shitty living to all of its buyers.  This
   >    is against maximal good.  Competitors will not be able to provide
   >    any products in competition, for the company can lower the price
   >    temporarily and drive them out of business.
   >
   > Give me an example of this ever happening in the real world.

   IBM did this very succesfully.  They were broken up by government
   intervention.  There are no cases of absolute monopoly forever because
   the government always intervenes on the publics behalf.  Read "Big Blue".

False. Completely utterly and totally false. IBM was never broken up
by the government; they aren't operating under a consent decree, and,
to my knowledge, they have never had 100% control of any market
whatsoever.

Score, 6 - 0, my point.

   > Can you tell me why, in spite of the struggles of the De Beers for the
   > last 25 years, the price of diamonds is not being kept stable as they
   > would like, but falls regularly?

   Diamond have got to be the worst investment that exists.  They are
   continually manufactured in the lab and dug out of the ground.  If
   you can't control that, you can't control anything about them.

The de Beers are an example of one of your evil cartels, however. At
one time, they controlled almost all of the world's diamond
production, and fixed the price of diamonds. Somehow, without any
government intervention whatsoever, they fell apart.

Score, 7 - 0, my point.

Furthermore, you conveniently deleted my OPEC example, presumably
because, presumably, you can't answer the argument that it presents,
namely, that cartels naturally disintegrate.

Score, 8 - 0, my point.

   > You don't need to have any commons. End of straw man #1.

   Most "commons" will not even be recognized as "common" until a
   problem is percieved.  (IE toxic waste dumping, rainforests, Ozone
   layer).  Who will sell these then?  Who will buy the ozone layer?
   End of end of straw man #1.

Rainforests can be owned; there is nothing preventing that. Score, 9 -
0, my point. "Toxic waste dumping" necessarily occurs on someone's
land, that person, presumably, having the ability to do something
about the tresspass going on just as he could stop thieves or people
throwing rocks at his house. Score, 10 - 0, my point. The ozone layer,
well, although I've heard ways to handle that I must admit they escape
me for the moment. Not that I'm admitting defeat (especially in light
of the fact that the predicted ozone hole over the arctic that NASA
trumpeted earler this year never showed up), but I'll magnanimously
grant you one thin point. Score, 10 - 1.

   > And someone would shoot you, and that would be the end of your story.
   > People don't have to agree to have force imposed on them, you know.
   > When you go to kill people, they can shoot back. End of straw man #2.

   I will not kill anyone in such a way that they can figure out I was the
   cause.  End of end of straw man #2.

And government could stop this? Score, 11 - 1, my point. Furthermore,
how are you going to get people to cooperate with you via terror if
they don't know you are threatening to kill them? Score, 12 - 1, my
point. Further, your premise is contradicted by your own comments: you
were presenting the greedy evil capitalist as butcher and slaver,
which, so far as I can tell, is difficult to conceal, and thus leads
to the question of them trying to shoot you. Score, 13 - 1, my point.

   > The studies show that its more valuable to keep the rainforests
   > intact. However, no one "owns" the rainforests until they have been
   > cleared and claimed, so you see lots of land clearing. If the forest
   > was not commons, the problem would go away.

   [...]What value is provided to small farmer number 1 to protect the rain
   forests?  If the forest was not common, they would instantly vanish
   beneath knife and fire.

What value? If people will pay him more for the rubber, drugs, etc,
that his land will yield than they will pay him for a head or two of
cattle, then he will preserve it. Furthermore, if the land were owned
by a lumber company that expected to use the land for repeated logging
rather than for a hit and run job on unowned land, they would have a
powerful incentive to preserve it just as owned (as opposed to rented
by the Forestry Service) forests are preserved well in the US. Score,
14 - 1 , my point. Furthermore, you contend that "if the forest was
not common, they would instantly vanish beneath knive and fire", but
the forest is common, and it is vanishing as fast as men and machines
can destroy it, thus demonstrating that left common, it is "vanishing
instantly". Score, 15 - 1, my point.

   > How, pray tell, will we measure "maximal good" without any
   > instruments? Will we send forth armies of sociologists, proctologists,
   > soothsayers, gypsy women with tarot decks, and readers of chicken
   > entrails?

   Now these seem to be getting on the right track....

But you can't answer my point. Score, 16 - 1.

   > Since you cannot measure your "maximal good", I argue it does not
   > exist, or at least need not trouble us. It sounds suspiciously like
   > "the will of god", or "the will of the proletariat".

   Elsewhere I defined one clearly. But for the sake of this argument, I
   will simply say that there is a notion of maximal good that can be
   agreed to by nearly all parties.

No there isn't. As I've pointed out, there is no way to measure such a
thing, so its an unimplementable concept. Score, 17 - 1, my point.

   Your argument has a number of holes readily apparent.  Of course, I have
   not caught the most of them, but once my little head realizes more you
   will be the first to know.

You haven't shown ANY holes in my argument so far, but lets go on.

   Let me enumerate some of the problems:

   1) You have not addressed at all the problem of long term usage.  If an
   individual looks out only for themselves, they will ignore anything past
   their termination.  Thus, everyone will quickly deplete or destroy resources
   and the next generation will have nothing.  This problem occurs for many
   types of resources.

Name a single resource controlled purely privately for which this has
occured. I think you will have substantial difficulty finding one. For
some reason, people don't spend every dollar they have before they
die, and they don't burn down their house when they die, and they seem
to leave pretty much everything intact.

Long term resource management by the market seems to work quite well.
Privately owned forest land in the US seems to be very responsibly
harvested and replanted. Companies seem to generally try to maximize
their total profit fairly well; they don't overpump oil when it would
risk eliminating long term well productivity, the successful ones in
the long run put lots of their money in R&D and the unsuccessful ones
go out of business and are no longer consuming resources; successful
companies spend lots of money on capital and equipment that lasts for
decades and sometimes much longer. Insurance companies are among the
oldest surviving organizations on the planet; some have husbanded
their capital for centuries.

Score, 18 - 1, my point.

   2) You have not addressed the individual liberties.  There is nothing to
   stop slavery, child molestation, rape, murder, or theft.  That is, except
   the people suffering under the damage somehow overcoming the inflictor.
   It is not clear how this is resolved in your system.

There is nothing in your system to stop any of these things either
other than the people somehow overcoming the inflictor.

In all systems, one depends on hired guns, security guards, police,
what have you, to stop crimes from occuring, or one uses the strength
of one's own arms. In my system, with freely competing private
security agencies, competition will steadily improve and optimise the
effectiveness and decrease the cost of using such services. There is
no such incentive in a government monopoly system. Polycentric systems
will provide better protection against rape, murder, theft, and other
such crimes, than the monopoly legal system.

Score, 19 - 1, my point.

   3) Your solution to the "commons" is vague and still inadequate as far as
   I can tell.

I believe that selling the commons seems to be clear and easy to
understand, and I believe I have effectively addressed the question of
its efficacy. Score, 20 - 1, my point.

   Many other good postings have addressed the rain forests.  Still
   how will you deal with carbon dioxide emissions, general pollution, ozone
   destruction, etc, etc.  No one will benefit by owning these, and so would
   not buy them.

No one will buy a rock thrown at your house, either. This is a silly
argument, isn't it? The point is that if I am operating a speedway
next to your house and the fumes from it are making you sick, you can
sue to stop me or get me to modify my behavior. In efficient future
court systems, I suspect that were they still a problem, acid rain and
the like could probably be managed through class action lawsuits and
inter-protection agency agreements.

However, I'm not even sure any of this matters. In less than a
century, it is likely the human race won't depend on this little
planet for our survival any more, and very likely would be able to
completely change the composition of the whole atmosphere at will. I
doubt any of these things will be issues in the future.

  Many other common resources all have the same problem.

Be specific.

   The whole thing seems like a plea
   for a certain philisophical system which has been carried to the
   extreme.  One must wonder about anything carried to any extreme,
   for no idea holds so much truth.

My system is not one system that has been carried to an extreme; your
system is. Your system assumes, against all evidence available, that
bureaucrats can somehow figure out what is good for us better than we
can and that governments act mostly to improve our lives, two
propositions that are demonstrably wrong.

Score, 21 - 1.

   There are no corrective mechanisms in your system,

Plenty of corrective mechanisms; among other things, there is the
market pricing system, and, for torts, there will be arbitration
system... Score, 22 - 1.

   there is only a place for rational humans,

No, there is a place for REAL humans. Bureaucratic solutions assume
that bureaucrats are not only omniscient, omnipotent, and will act
diametrically against their self interest. My system assumes that
people will have imperfect information and behave in unreliable ways
and have their foibles. I only assume that the bulk of humans behave
to enrich themselves, which is a readily demonstrated phenomenon.

Score, 23 - 1.

   there is no mercy or escape route for slight mistakes,

Says who? Why is my system less merciful? I see no evidence, just
vigorous assertion.

Score, 24 - 1.

   and there is no protection of many resources which may have no
   apparent surface value.

If a resource has real value that most people overlook, someone can
make a killing buying it up and later selling it back to the fools
that overlooked it. If it has no apparent value to anyone, who in YOUR
system is going protect it?

Score 25 - 1, my point.

Game and match.

Perry

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

End of Hal's Extropians Digest Volume 92 Issue #0008
****************************************************