19 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Are Immortalists Selfish?
Immortality Institute Online Chat :: Sun. May 11th, 2003
Location: Cyberspace - http://www.imminst.org/chat

On May 11th, 2003 at 8:00 PM EST the Immortality Institute will hold a moderated chat to discuss the question of selfishness and immortalist aspiration. Are we selfish to want more life? Aren't we all selfish be default of our existence? Members will explore the complex nuances of human emotion and the difference between perception and reality.

[Lazarus Long]

Selfish = Social Darwinism?

Selfish types = Genetic, Intellectual, Identity, Cultural, Models and their mutual interaction? Soci-economic memetics?

Just to name a few. One, or two (depending on {y}our perspective) more are bi-gender relationships that are procreative based but nor longer defined by the necessary concordant behavior.

Family and tribal associated socio-evolutionary models built into large scale teams; Civilizations began as hearth/packs that grew into today's mass religions and sociolinguistic ethnic associations of creed & greed.

So when we talk of "selfish" what does it all boils down to?

Competition for control of human resources, ultimately the individual versus the collective? Individualism versus Socialism?

Is this an ideology of Social Capitalism, about the value of life as made a commodity by a consumerist religion?

Is the worth of an individual to be based upon supply and demand?

What should be recognized is that society’s demanding service is how the practice of Human Sacrifice and Ritual Combat became the standard for behavior for some many millennia of interregnum that are defined by the very concept of Dark Ages, or just commonly known as the "primitive past".

Being accused of being selfish is predicated upon demand, and the exchange is also based on need. Usual those that accuse others of being selfish need "something" from the accused.

[Anita Morris]

Somewhere along the road of transformation ( beyond nano-tech and stem cell transplants) selfless replaces selfish. This transformation of attributes is a sure sign of progress. Therefore selfish is just a glitch in the program that is not recognised until a bit of maturity is acquired. Meanwhile, keep looking for infinate intellegence in whatever discipline. Look for it until it finds you.

[Lazarus Long]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"

Just out of curiousity; why is selfless on a higher plane then self aware?

I just see this as a demand for self sacrifice wrapped in a sugar coated pill. "Do you want the red one or the blue one?"

The concept of "selfless" is also seen as biased and collectively selfish by denying the right of self determination to the individual. I see preserving the individual as a sure sign of progress, unique because history is rife with examples of all too many cultures favoring some form of subservience of the individual to a collective design that defines those that resist by trying to self determine their own standards of being as selfish and in need of being "selfless".

Maturity is not necessarily defined by being "selfless" but by being able to redefine the self beyond the external limitations of others.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 06 May 2003 - 02:22 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Beside the group demand from the individual versus the individual dependency and demands upon the group that reflects the majority of arguments with respect to why some say we should be "selfless" let us look at some others; first the transcendental argument.

This is more subtle and complex and runs a gamut of aspiring vison quests from religious adepts to nihilist philosophers, but the argument is basically predicated on the overcoming of the limitations of "self" as we currently define it inorder to adapt to a set of standards that we "will" to be superior to the "self;" at least the one I am aware of at this moment.

In this instance the stage of "selflessness" is about the void that occurs as the current "self" is dissolved to be reformulated into another form. This can include shamanistic traditions and the classic theological perceptions of "spirit or soul", it can also include the achievement of nirvana, but for a rational individual it is the reaffirmation of growth and life that recognizes the importance of renewal and carpe diem.

I should add that it is not an inherent contradiction to see both your "self and selfless" simultaneously. This is the state of awareness one achieves as they appreciate a "joining" whether in love with another human; or as a recognition of the vast and intricate connection that weaves all life together into a wondrous tapestry that we almost never get to see as whole but only the knots and images that are in close proximity, that form the tangible perception of loving life.

The ironic twist to that awareness is that it is a reflective state when best and must preserve the individual self even as it becomes an almost out of body perception of the "nonself" (what you are perhaps calling selfless) that surrounds us all. I do not call it selfless for I remember and appreciate the state and selfless to me is simply that which is not me. But again, there is the subtler demands of "self" the urge for definitionand purpose, for meaning and joy to accompany existence, for sharing of self to be a transcendent state that does not dissolve the state of self but develops it to its fullest.

There is another sinister side of selflessness and this is counteintuitive because it is how many define selfish, and that is material love. When we define ourselve not by our standards and their consistency with our behavioral choices but through association with external possessions and material symbols.

In this case we have lost control of the definition of self as individuals and transferred that naming process of "self" to surrogate objects in what is pragmatically and psychologically just as "selfless" a manner as someone that does so for nobler purpose. That is why it is so sinister a process for it usurps the same pathway as that which leads at first to a more enlightened awareness of self.

BTW, it is a pleasure to have your comments Anita and to have you join our discussions. PLease meet on Sunday to debate further this comparison you raise about being "selfless".

Edited by Lazarus Long, 06 May 2003 - 02:53 AM.

[immortalitysystems.com]

I realy hope there will be somebody soon who is selfish enough, or should i say, has the moral courage, to do what ever it takes, to gain physical immortality. The trickel down efect will make the technology availabel to the rest of us.

[brokenportal]

BJ- Exactly! We need to figure out a way to convey that message to the many people who cant see that.

Heres something I like to tell people, if wanting to stay alive is selfish then you shouldnt run if your about to get hit by a bus because that would be selfish. Another thing is that you could look at it that not caring if your dead is selfish because there are many people who would appreciate the continuation of all the varieties of unique minds out there.

[Bruce Klein]

Geoffrey Miller has a good take on altruistic behavior in the Mating Mind.

http://www.imminst.o...f=106&t=233&st=

[Lazarus Long]

Again I ask: " Why is the belief in Self any different than a belief in God?"

To go beyond this question add: Is the transcendence of "belief" a question of going beyond the question of self definition?

Not mere selflessness but something far more profound, something that is transformative in the manner of the very principle of why we discuss Transhumanism. An aspect of a destructive/creative process that is analogous to how most spiritualist thinkers define the concept of "resurrection".

This is generally understood as a process of "rebirth", imaged by the phoenix in mythology and represented by numerous individual examples that function as theological paradigms for the memetic transmission of this learned behavior. In fact this process directly parallels learning behavior generally as well since it reflects the process of "unlearning a falsehood" in order to better understand a truth, and defines the acquisition of wisdom.

Is this a question of preservation only of what is? Or one of transformation that defines a process of the death of the "self" and then its "rebirth" in a manner consistent with a leap not of mere faith but of a "Quantum Acquisition" of ability and character that is redefining of what is meant by self.

On a separate but related question of "Self Sacrifice:” who decides?

Is the agument we are "selfish" predicated on becoming the "sole" determiner for what each of us is responsible for with our lives?

More important to the debate is the question of whether a form of death (I qualify it here so be careful in your responses) is requisite to the achievement of immortality?

Is this a paradox or a logical necessity?

Edited by Lazarus Long, 10 May 2003 - 12:04 PM.

[Discarnate]

Immortality Systems -

Your approach is, IMO, extremely dangerous. Just because ONE group has such technology does *NOT* mean that the tech will become available to others.

The ends do *NOT* justify the means. Ever.

That having been said, and being somewhat of a situational ethicist, (yes, that does translate as treading on moral quicksand) the end result may require horrific means, *if* the perceived 'good' from the result surpasses the 'evil' of the attempt. Please note the perceived and the attempt - nothing is given, and if someone starts talking about this route WILL take you to a given destination, they're probably full of it. If, however, they are referring to the probability that a given route will lead to a given result...

Lazarus Long -

Intresting point of view, and I hope to be able to listen to you expound on it more this Sunday. I would submit that you might wish to change your term 'form of death' to something else, perhaps 'way of life' or 'psychological reference frame'. The 'form of death' is, to me at least, exceedingly confusing - perhaps intentionally on your part?

Sincerely,
Discarnate

[Lazarus Long]

The 'form of death' is, to me at least, exceedingly confusing - perhaps intentionally on your part?

To be fair, yes; it is intentionally so because I see the concept for example of insect metamorphosis as an example of a "Form of Death".

The evolution of Transhumanism is a morphogenesis process of unknown result. Hence it is not only a "risk” to life in this sense of facing an unknown, but there is an implied discontinuity of form in that the body is then somewhat transient as the standard if the identity is a function of mind.

There may have been a previous prehistoric example of this with the event of Cro-Magnon's evolution of complex vocal and social organization skill. Neanderthal does not under our current understanding fit into a direct line of evolution for modern homo sapiens and I theorize that they were the oral cultural and memetic equivalent of the Able; the murdered innocent brother in most Genesis myths; the murdered older passive and innocent brother of Man. We have sufficient evidence to believe these two children of Earh warred and ate one another for thousands of years before one goes extinct and the other comes to rule the Earth.

We are (by theocratic definition) all the Son's of Cain. Cro-Magnon is the killing kind species that tolerates no competition. The vast reservoir of legends and myth that make up the body of theological text and apocrypha tell us more about ourselves than about the Universe.

Also it is ironic too that all the fuel we are consuming in but a brief social episode wasn't just created over eons; it was created as a consequence of cataclysmic devastation at key periods of life on Earth.

Additionally there are some life forms that survived the cataclysm and have genetic adaptive characteristics to tie themselves on to the "victor" the way lampreys suck onto a shark and roaches, rats, and ants follow humanity. But we wouldn't be dominant today if the cataclysm 65 million years ago hadn't paved the way.

What I find amazing are the blasé ways we take for granted our own power and deny the actual vulnerability we possess to ourselves. More as a consequence of a denial process that is a survival instinct to pain than a rational response mechanism. But we are learning.

For the issue of "selfishness” is a very different paradigm. Humans must decide between the paradigm of parasitism and symbiosis to define their character. As a social species we demonstrate symbiotic ability but we are born as parasites. And the Peter Pan complex for immortality tends to foster that foolishness; it is an aberration of irrational individuality that some people confuse with libertarianism as well.

It is extreme (militant) individualism that treats the acquisition of power as if we all were born from the womb fully formed. Well I have news for all my PC folks all human children are born as parasites and if we didn’t love them we would eat them as nothing less than the competition.

It is through “socialization” that we disabuse ourselves of such laws of the jungle. What the Social Contract defines aren’t just mutual responsibilities of individuals in relation to the “collective” but a learning process through which the species empowers a Rule of Law to refine the behavior of the Mass Mind of Man.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 10 May 2003 - 09:47 PM.

[Discarnate]

Quote- I see the concept for example of insect metamorphosis as an example

Interesting. But, then, are you expecting humanity to need so radical a change in all processes as such a crysalis? That we'll leave behind some large fraction if not all of our current 'good' for others - perhaps even the need for food, as several types of moth? Or am I overextending your example?

Personally, I suspect/feel/(pick your term) that, if immortality DOES become available, it will require lifestyle changes more on the order of a medical diet, exercize routine, or the like.

In general, how often do people go through even THAT radical a change today? Not too often, I'd guess - but if there are better, hard figures out there, please do bring them up!

To me this means that those who change, who adapt, perhaps even those who strive, are the ones who may well continue to exist. Is the choice of the right medicines, the right therapies, the right diet selfish? Perhaps, depending on the provenence of such - but it may also be considered a social benefit, as it reduces the drain on the system by removing elderly infirmity.

As for being "the son of Cain," ... let's just say I disagree on 'religious' grounds, and let it lie. You stretch the analogy to cover several critical aspects of historical life, and I agree - we DO overlook our massive, nightmarish vulnerabilities, and we DO rely without question or comment on our "power" within the current balancing act of life.

As for human children being parasites - that can be one perception of their role. However, perhaps a better view would be one of symbiosis, as the young mature at a time to help their parents.

Finally, you use the concept socialization where I would use the concept of memetic transfer. I disagree that the social contract empowers a rule of law - there have been plenty of incidents when a rule of law has been imposed by others, outside the local social contract.

Semi- nitpicky, but still IMO valid differences.

-Discarnate

[Lazarus Long]

Just a few differences worth discussing and aspects to be clarified.

You and I Discarnate, are not so far apart on some issues and on others we are both still looking at an "objective" that possess unknown qualities (or we would already understand it).

The "parasite" example is intentionally provocative. I happen to argue all the time for symbiosis but counter that there is a inherent behavioral psychological mode that is derivative of our immaturity, which runs the risk of preserving the Parasitic (Child’s) Psychology into adulthood and altering our larger social paradigms destructively by this manner.

I should add that the consumerist culture panders to the most self indulgent aspects of this socio-psychological aspect of our being and does so the way a pusher and prostitute hawk their wares by playing to the lowest common denominator, naive temptation. We have the principle of "caveat emptor" to protect against excess "regulation” but this should not be viewed as a "carte blanche” to allow any level of "fraud" or act of miscreant advantage taken of an innocent. The problem is that despite the common "rituals" of declaring adulthood and full responsibility concurrent with coming of age some people never grow up, nor want to.

I do not promote the acquisition of immortality as a means of staying infantile and irresponsible. For me it is a desire to appreciate the remarkable opportunity I grasp of life, to be evermore creative, caring, supportive of those I love, and participatory in the shared responsibilities of being alive and of this world that I for one hold of paramount importance and cherish.

Changing the subject slightly [B)]

Calling children parasites wasn't meant to disparage them, they are most obviously born "totally dependant and all consuming so," upon their host. It is a statement of fact about human character, and an aspect of the "child's psychology" but it is not their "role," it is OUR common lot as humans, what Christians I believe confuse for a "Cardinal Sin".

The sin isn't sexual or collective blame for ancient crimes, or anything we are born with per se that cannot be overcome. It is a logical character flaw that is a normal consequence of our type of birth.

Because of the evolutionary requirements of cerebral development in our species we have created ever more demanding and dependant offspring and somewhere along the way we confused the associated behaviors that come with the process as excusable for the PC crowd but most ancient folks that lived closer to one another and their clans knew better. Our Cardinal Sin is in trying to rationalize and stay parasites, even when the "social Instinct” is to become symbiotic.

It is the common "role” of parent, peer, and mentor to alter that perception of reality constructively in order to develop the symbiotic nature of our species that is natural dominant of our early social behavioral psychology. That is what we define as maturity. The "role" of a child is to survive, learn, and adapt, the role of the larger group of family/tribe is to provide/prepare and liberate (wean) the child.

When I am being nice I call the aberration of this process the "Peter Pan Complex" ( lets all stay young and beautiful and play all the time and live in green pastures eating fruit off the trees and drinking wine and honey, no cares, no responsibilities, no effort, no struggle, living as "Lost Boys" in Never, Never Land) when I look at its more sinister and seriously dangerous manifestations I call it fascism.

Giving the Devil His due is only saying let's give up all the hazards of freedom for the security of a collective provider that can guarantee all our needs are met and we are safe; from the unknown, from larger threats, from each other, and even from ourselves. This is the doppelganger risk of expecting to be "saved" whether by a Social Welfare System, God, or Parens Patria or even everybody's new techno darling The Singularity .

Lastly, when I discuss the metamorphic principle it is as a descriptor of profound inevitable change, that may even be unpredictable, that doesn't mean strictly a "physical change." There is a qualitative quantum leap if for example in the next ten years one of us is able to upload their consciousness into the web and simultaneously draw upon the data of all humanity and communicate simultaneously with thousands of people, or even just merge their mind with a single other.

Under this scenario the body is potentially unchanged but the spirit is transformed. As an example what if I wanted to explore the depths of the oceans and could adapt myself physically to be "at home" in that realm? Why should I rely on dangerous external devices when I could physically metamorphose in order to meet the environmental demands for survival?

These are just a few examples of the "logic" of this progression and I offer them not as definite predictions as much as options. Metamorphosis is an ancient principle to describe the process of profound alteration of BOTH psychological and physiological character.

Ovid and Dante were both reworking the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, which is about how love provides a transcendent power to face the viscidities of Hell and rebel against the dark side within us all in order to be reborn (resurrected), transformed (wiser & and more potent) and to achieve a form of immortality(if nothing else as a myth). The New Testament works the myth differently but to a similar result. I am simply more comfortable with Orphic traditions in this regard.

On the issue of Cain, I am only offering it as metaphor and I have some theological grounds to support the etiological argument, for one thing it is logical (which doesn't mean its true) and for another I didn't invent the issue but I am mixing metaphors a little as well as altering some interpretations of scripture.

There are a plethora of examples surrounding genesis mythology that have spun the legendary tales of this interesting necessity (having a genesis myth) socio-psychologically, almost beyond a recognizable facsimile of what was probably the ancient teaching.

On the subject of "memetic transfer", I suspect we are pretty close to agreement.

I am only describing the principle of the "social contract" as an example of a larger process of memetic transfer, not the ONLY one by ANY means. I used it to show how philosophy has incorporated the pragmatic reality of memetic relationships already into the social structure of culture.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 13 May 2003 - 03:02 PM.

[Bruce Klein]

CHAT ARCHIVE


<BJKlein> Topic: Are Immortalists Selfish?
<jubungalord> can humans not be selfish, Is dying selfish?
<Utnapishtim> I find the term selfish orblematic
<Utnapishtim> problematic
<Lazarus_Long> The light bringer says Yes to get started, do we have a dissenting opinion?
<celindra> Ahem .... please define selfish before Anissimov and I argue over altruism for 2 hours
<Utnapishtim> for the same reason I find terms like terrorist problematic
<Utnapishtim> they are morally judgmental as well as descriptive
<Lazarus_Long> How ratinally selfless of you celidra
<Mermaid> there is nothing wrong with selfishness
<Utnapishtim> The term selfish tacitly assumes zero sum conditions
<BJKlein> Certainly the topic of selfishness leaves much gray area for neadless discussion..
<Lazarus_Long> self aware is not selfish, but it is not solipcistic either
<BJKlein> but, what the hell, we have plenty of time
<Lazarus_Long> Who gets to define the "self" the individual or the collective?
<Utnapishtim> Our economic system is founded on the assumption that the creative pursuit of selfinterest inevitably creates rather than limits opportunities for other whether such a result is intended or not
<BJKlein> So, let's try to define what we mean when the average person says you're selfish.. then go on to a more rational perspective
<celindra> Oh boy ...
<Lazarus_Long> selfinsh all for me and none for you
<BJKlein> ok..
<Lazarus_Long> selfish=
<Flux> selfserving, often negative to others
<Utnapishtim> Note the assumption that the total pie size is fixed
<Lazarus_Long> self serving can be selfless if the self is defined as refferring to the self interest of special interest
<celindra> ?
<Lazarus_Long> special can be a family or a business
<Flux> I got it...
<Lazarus_Long> sspecuial interest*
<Lazarus_Long> special I give up you folks talk a while
<Flux> such as genetic interest?
<BJKlein> so selfishness has a mainly materialistic aspect
<Lazarus_Long> genetic as in tribal clan yes
<Flux> genetic support (survival of the fitest)
<Sumadartsun> Some argue immortalism is selfish in that it can lead to intellectual stagnation if the same people stay all the time instead of fresh new blood
<Lazarus_Long> survival of the fittest is subjective to environment as much as individual interst
<BJKlein> Sumadartsun, a good argument against that is Bill Gates..
<Utnapishtim> I would argue that the rights of existing people take priority over the rights of hypothetical ones
<BJKlein> he started Microsoft as a new company.
<BJKlein> with a new idea
<Lazarus_Long> Sum that is the consolidationo of wealth argument and if immortalism leads to the end of growth it is correct "in the end"
<Flux> Gates started with a meme?
<Lazarus_Long> BJ the exception doesn't proove the rule in Gates case, except by contrast
<Lazarus_Long> Gates is applying the meme of "nobless onlige"
<Flux> lol
<Utnapishtim> I do think Bruce is correct though that in a society based on free markets complacency can get stomped on pretty quick
<Lazarus_Long> online right :( nO OBLIGE
<Ocsrazor> Laz, consolidation of wealth will not happen in a free market ofver extended periods
<BJKlein> are not most businesses small businesses
<Sumadartsun> Of course, non-0-sumness mitigates this effect; but I do think it exists, even though it will probably be made irrelevant by other technological developments
<Ocsrazor> too many competitors
<Lazarus_Long> yes it does and anyway we don't have free markets
<Ocsrazor> not perfect, but good enough to knock down monopolies
<Lazarus_Long> not without growth of new competitionor the system falls into a status quo operation
<Flux> patents, biases, not free
<Utnapishtim> I would also say that living is a socially conservative society is preferable to being dead
<Lazarus_Long> not on any level of a global scale do we have free markets enough to assume that they will ever exist
<Lazarus_Long> itis a task to create them
<Ocsrazor> what monopoly has ever survived in the long run in our system?
<Flux> Banks?
<jubungalord> the government
<ravi> i don't think wanting more life is selfish...however, to a person who is living on the street trying to survive to the next day, it seems slefish to them that we want to be immortal, so it depends on the person
<Sumadartsun> Utnapishtim: true, but their argument is that other people would otherwise be alive
<Lazarus_Long> Federal Reserve is an example that is becoming the World bank
<Mermaid> hey ranger
<Utnapishtim> sumadartsun. As I said earlier the rights of hypothetical people are less important to me than the rights of existing ones. If that is selfish I plead guilty as charged
<localroger> Hi
<Ocsrazor> Sum - how does people being immortal stop new people from being born?
* Sumadartsun is annoyed by his own slow typing; just switched to different keyboard layout
<BJKlein> dvorak?
<Lazarus_Long> Oil as an industry is totally interdependent on transportatio industrt to the exclusion of developing new tech now
<Sumadartsun> BJKlein: yes
<Utnapishtim> and nonexistent if people have a right to be born, how do you justify contraception?
<Ocsrazor> I would agree there LAz, but that will soon end
<Lazarus_Long> Not without major economic disruptionif the workers fear displacement
<jubungalord> I don't think selfishness can be defined with any intentionality in it's definition
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor: it doesn't, assuming we're not near a resource limit
<Lazarus_Long> hereit is a selfish issue, who gets to ddecide on change, producers or concumers?
<FluxPreDreaming> but what about the states of selfishness?
<Lazarus_Long> consumers*
<Ocsrazor> It can't continue forever because other nations will develop alternative transport/energy resoruces and outcompete the current industry
<Lazarus_Long> not before going first into excess demand based on current applied tech
<Ocsrazor> Sum - then the argument is irrelevant
<Lazarus_Long> China as an emerging market is building cars more than mass transit right now
<Lazarus_Long> they are following the 50/60's economic growth model from the US, and they will stop ten years too late
<Ocsrazor> once there is enough popular demand for alternative technology there will a rapid movement away from the stauts quo
<Ocsrazor> ten years too late for what?
<Lazarus_Long> Their cities are copying the same growth curve and they are only one example
<localroger> India and China are already showing trends toward infant sex selection which will be very unpleasant for the next generation to deal with
<Lazarus_Long> ten yeasrs too late for level consumption with remaining resources while new options come online
<Sumadartsun> Utnapishtim, I like the idea of equal 'rights' for the hypothetical and would justify contraceptives by reasons such as other goals and optimum population levels
<Mermaid> china already is feeling its effects
<BJKlein> (blank statement) The battle between socialism and free markets has been decided... now with globalization, no one country has power. This will lead to a more interdependent and efficent world.
<Lazarus_Long> it is a factor pushing the memtics of global war
<staph> hmmm.... there's good reason to believe that the resource issue is moot....
<Lazarus_Long> Efficiency is also a consequence of failure, and surviving it
<localroger> BJKlein, there is nothing "free" about current "free" markets. They are orchestrated for the enrichment of a certain small Western elite.
<Ocsrazor> Agreed staph...
<Ocsrazor> in the long run there is no resource issue
<localroger> As many card counters have been heard to ask, how long do we have to wait for the "long run"?
<staph> local, thats not true.... about the elite.
<Lazarus_Long> I disagree about the resource issue because the promise hasn't yet materialized
<staph> but it has
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, if the assumption holds, the argument is indeed irrelevant; it's not obvious we are not near a (temporary) resource limit and will not be in the future
<staph> the green revolution of the 70's
<Sumadartsun> , though.
<Ocsrazor> every scary prediction about scarce resources has never come true
<staph> in the seventies it almost came true...
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, agreed
<localroger> Ocsrazor, many such predictions have come true at local scale. Just never globally.
<Ocsrazor> agreed local
<Ocsrazor> brb
<staph> thats because the local scale effects are not resource dependent
<Lazarus_Long> not true biodiversity habitat is devasted worlwide and poverty hasn't leveled off at all but is climbing
<BJKlein> really what resources limit represents is just a lack of ideas.. and we have more and more great ideas now than ever before
<staph> they are socially dependent
<staph> like wars and stuff
<Ocsrazor> back
<staph> BJ: exactly. and that trend will only continue to speed up
<localroger> Problem is that increasing power/modalities cause the scale to shrink, so that the world is no longer a comparatively infinite sink for all the crap we want it to absorb
<Lazarus_Long> again the memetics of war are driven by increasing demand on resources that aren't equitably distributed now
<Lucifer> Won't prime realestate continue to be a scarce resource?
<staph> yes
<staph> but thats a cultural luxury
<staph> long....what war...
<staph> everyone's chilling out
<Ocsrazor> agreed Laz that there is a resource distribution prob.... but that is not the same as scarce resources
<Lazarus_Long> and these are not resources that are growing concurrent with population demand
<staph> no way... look at recently developed tech
<Ocsrazor> but they are... they are just not being shared
<staph> honda FCX hydro fuel cell car.... highly advanced, no emissions
<staph> as just one example
<Sumadartsun> there is almost certainly no resource problem in the long run, but it will probably still be true at any point in time that there can exist only a limited number of people
<localroger> There are certain resources (e.g. petroleum) that are just plain limited; we don't know how limited but we know more isn't being made. Technology /may/ give us replacements but to assert that it /always/ will is an article of religious faith.
<Lazarus_Long> Staph Columbia, Africa, Global Terrorism, Phillipenes, and our foothold in Central Asia is no walk in the park
<BJKlein> people maybe, but not mind children
<staph> sum: agreed, but those limits are largely due to ineffeceincy
<staph> yeah, laz, I know...
<Lucifer> Is there any advantage to staying the same size in the future, or will we get small?
<Ocsrazor> there is prob an upper limit, but humans have never hit it
<Lazarus_Long> the resource issue can be solved but is there a will to solve it?
<staph> continued growth is necessary
<staph> even if it must be offworld
<Ocsrazor> there is a major disadvantage to staying the same size...
<staph> think about it
<BJKlein> we'll get networked... smaller and larger at the same time
<Lazarus_Long> Also this is not the prime cause of teh selfish argument for cultures can be selfish
<localroger> To plan on requiring continued growth is insane.
<staph> what happens with larger populations
<Lazarus_Long> that is what teh history of Imperialism is about
<staph> in evolutionary terms
<Sumadartsun> (if not, then for weird futurological reasons that are not easily explained to the sort of people making these arguments)
<Ocsrazor> why is that insane roger?
<Lazarus_Long> cultural imperatives make my population's needs more important than yours
<staph> how many diseases emerged from 1918 to 1978?
<staph> and how many from 78 till now
<Lazarus_Long> I am not advocating I am establishing the meme BTW
<localroger> Because we have no guarantee that there will ever be space migration, or that it will be economical to move large populations offworld if it is. You do not plan on mystery technologies saving your butt. You plan with what you have so that you are pleasantly surprised later.
<Ocsrazor> that is why is extremely important for merging of cultures to occur Laz
* Sumadartsun wishes he could type faster :/
<Ocsrazor> but there will always be competition of sum form
<Ocsrazor> some
<staph> local..that strategy is highly suboptimal
<localroger> Define "optimal." Would you accept a gift of $1,000,000 in exchange for taking a 1 in 38 chance of losing your life?
<staph> look: if you have a large, mobile population, evolution speeds up as pop increases
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh
<BJKlein> nope
<staph> maybe
<Lazarus_Long> forced assimilationof culture accelerates teh conflict Occam
<Ocsrazor> they are not mystery tech local.. the writing is already on the wall
<Sumadartsun> localroger, that's not an attitude I agree with; all the knowledge you have should be taken into account
<localroger> We do not know what technologies will come around. We do know that our civilization and our culture will be gone in a few centuries if it depends on constant growth, because the Earth simply won't support that.
<Lazarus_Long> it is pushing teh war meme into overdrive
<Sumadartsun> localroger, surely you recognize there are some things that can be (tentatively) predicted about techs that will be available?
<Ocsrazor> there is great danger roger, but also great opportunity, and there is no way back
<Ocsrazor> only forward
<staph> agreed
<staph> listen:
<localroger> None of the really important technologies that have arisen in the last 200 years could have been predicted even 10 years in advance. They were entirely new and surprising when they were discovered.
<Ocsrazor> back is a more sure way to extinction than forward
<Lazarus_Long> yes but forward is between Scylla and Carybdis
<Lazarus_Long> the rock and teh hard place
<staph> we either act like rats on a sinking ship, or we join the bucket brigade. there is no middle path
<localroger> It is like saying "we know the Correlation Effect or its equivalent will eventually be discovered." No we don't know that, becasue the Universe might not permit that.
<Lazarus_Long> Universe permit?
<Lazarus_Long> can I just pay for a permit and get one?
<BJKlein> heh
<Ocsrazor> chances are not that bad Laz, we have already passed many of the key roadblocks
<Sumadartsun> (must resist the lure of switching back to qwerty)
<localroger> LL, yes, universe permit. The Universe might not allow for certain modalities. FTL travel comes to mind. It simply might not be possible at all.
<staph> we are in RSI now..... now turning back
<Mermaid> oops..ftl?
<BJKlein> Sumadartsun: if you don't you're a better man than I
<Lazarus_Long> the better we become the worse teh fewer faults we have because each unsolved factor becomes ever more catastrophic in its potential
<Ocsrazor> faster than light
<Ocsrazor> merm
<Mermaid> gotcha
<Mermaid> rsi?
<Ocsrazor> that is not necessarily true LAz...
<Lazarus_Long> Natual law wa one of the issues I was alluding to when I asked if unnatural exists?
<staph> Recursive Self Improvement
* Mermaid will have to look that up
<Mermaid> thanks
<Ocsrazor> there are boom/bust cycles in development of complex systems
<localroger> Bifurcation graph.
<staph> Ocs..do you know why?
<Ocsrazor> we have past several points of stabilization
<Lazarus_Long> Is Intelligence a Natural Force, say like gravity?
<Sumadartsun> localroger, there is a difference between things we think contradict the laws of nature (ftl) and things we think are possible but have not discovered yet (such as nanotech)
<Ocsrazor> complexity is... and intelligence is an expression of complexity
<XxDoubleHelixX> be more specific with the word nanotech
<staph> why the boom and bust cycle?
<Lazarus_Long> complexity is a force? or an experience?
<XxDoubleHelixX> nanobots parsay
<Ocsrazor> btw ftl does not contradict the laws of nature
<Ocsrazor> according to recent cosmology
<Sumadartsun> eh?
<localroger> Nanotech in terms of "gray goo" and a lot of what is promised does contradict the laws of nature. FTL doesn't contradict known principles if it's instantaneous, but we have no guarantee that there is a modality for achieving it at macroscopic scale.
<Lazarus_Long> I wasn't arguing they do BTW, I don't assume we are cognizant of all Natural Law
<staph> anyone?
<Ocsrazor> we just may be a looooong way from harnessing it
<Ocsrazor> sorry staph...
<localroger> My point was that there may be no more powerful modalities waiting to be found, at all. We have no guarantee that there are.
<staph> no need to apologize
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, what new cosmology is that?
<staph> I'll explain it
<Ocsrazor> boom/bust in terms of rapid development versus stable slow growth
<Lazarus_Long> Boom bust is because no system apears able to undo itself when confronted with a need for rapid change
<staph> boom bust is simple
<Lazarus_Long> it seems to require an external stimulus, like new generations
<Lazarus_Long> or war
<staph> it is the same thing as the cultural "pendulum" effect
<XxDoubleHelixX> harnessing our ability to make new advances?
<Lazarus_Long> or natural catastrophe
<localroger> Boom bust is doom. If the possible population ever goes to zero, it will, and once it goes there it will never recover.
<staph> it is the result of delayed oppositional reactive systems
<localroger> Any self-respecting immortal would be focused on finding stable ways to live. To do otherwise is suicide.
<Ocsrazor> chance the local pop will go to zero is next to nil now
<localroger> Tell it to the dinosaurs
<Lazarus_Long> we aren't a global society of immortals yet
<Ocsrazor> some survived, they are birds
<XxDoubleHelixX> crocs
<Ocsrazor> the system didn't disappear
<localroger> All over 25 lb individual weight died. Last time I looked I weighed quite a bit more than that.
<XxDoubleHelixX> and then some...
<Lazarus_Long> mammals and insects too
<staph> do any of you know why a social backlash occurs?
<localroger> The system radically changed, all the dominant forms were lost, and it took tens of millions of years to recover even a fraction of its former complexity.
<BJKlein> any self-respecting immortal would be finding ways to speed up in order to find fast release from biodeath
<XxDoubleHelixX> people wanting to stagnate the enviroment?
<XxDoubleHelixX> <shrug>
<localroger> Frankly I'd consider any result that did not include humans to be a failure from our perspective.
<Lazarus_Long> but I would rather not endure a cataclysmic cycle
<Ocsrazor> our survival systems are far more developed than anything that came before
<Lazarus_Long> I consider any result with a Trantor environment a failure too
<localroger> Our survival systems are very fragile on a long-term basis.
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, so are our techs of mass destruction
* staph notes that this discussion isn't even addressing the truly relevant issues
<Ocsrazor> absolutely not LR, the system as a whole is extremely stable
<localroger> Let's face it, long-term planning is not a thing humans are noted for doing well
<Lazarus_Long> Staph is right that we are off topic
<Ocsrazor> we as indiviuals are not doing the planning anymore
<staph> we are past the point of no return
<localroger> Ocs, stable how? All over the place there are criticality-one choke points. Just because we have never seen a catastrophe that kills "technos" doesn't mean such isn't possible.
<Lazarus_Long> The toic is are Imoortals niherently selfish?
* staph is of the opinion that a slow takeoff is already underway
<Lazarus_Long> Should we vote to start off with for a show of hands?
<Lazarus_Long> and are we talking anybody or just ourselvs?
<Lazarus_Long> the topic isare immortals selfish?
<localroger> Of course it is "selfish" to want for yourself more resources, and extended life requires that. But if you are taking from people that will never exist because of the space you're taking up, I have no problem with that.
* BJKlein lets Lazarus_Long stear us back on topic
<Eliezer> and Tegmark, of course, tells us that "never exist" is an absurdity
<localroger> OTOH if we keep breeding like bunny rabbits and planning like 5 years is long term we are going to find out why the bifurcation fractal always goes flat at a certain point.
<staph> um... the issue will be decided way before resources run out
<celindra> Don't think we ever defined "selfish"
<Lazarus_Long> life requires resources why does extended life require anymoer resoucres than normal life?
<Lazarus_Long> agreed celindra
<XxDoubleHelixX> yea I think we wouldnt grow in resouce consuption on a personal basis
<localroger> Because it's bigger. If you live 200 years you will eat twice as much food and take up twice as much acre/years as someone who lives 100 years.
<Lazarus_Long> yes but yo have also been producing all that time too thus contributing
<staph> local... if we are dead because of a rogue AI in 25 years, it doesn't matter
<Eliezer> selfish: egocentric bias in valuation of sentient life, as opposed to symmetrical valuation of all sentients
<localroger> If the world has a carrying capacity of X people, and those people suddenly live twice as long, the carrying capacity goes to X/2.
<Ocsrazor> older healty indiviuals productivity continues to increase indefinitely
<Eliezer> if the carrying capacity is 10^16, who cares
<localroger> Of course I'd also like to live to 80 instead of dying next year, that's kinda selfish too for the same reason.
<Lazarus_Long> Eliezer, how about ethnocentric and genocentric bias?
<staph> eli, thats probably the best definition of selfish I've ever heard......
<Eliezer> Lazarus: that's tribalism rather than selfishness
<celindra> Eliezer, that definition is quite vague
<Lazarus_Long> HOw about simple socioeconomic centrism?
<localroger> Eliezer we can't plan on that until we have some indication. I'm a Singularity type of person myself but I wouldn't put myself in a position where the alternative is certain suicide.
<Eliezer> altruism
<Lazarus_Long> I argued early on that trial/clan ar examples of selfish memes possesed and maintained by individual behavior
<Lazarus_Long> tribal/clan
<Eliezer> Is altruism sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of others, or gaining your happiness through the happiness of others?
<Eliezer> I would say that altruism is making decisions so as to maximize the happiness of all sentients, symmetrically.
<localroger> Good point Eliezer
<staph> the second
<BJKlein> second one
<Lazarus_Long> Yes the collective is cpable of demanding human sacrifice
<staph> no question
<staph> it is rewarding to help others
<Lazarus_Long> groups can be selfish
<staph> they will then help you
<staph> but even if they don't
<staph> you
<celindra> But by fulfilling your own hapiness in being altruistic, you are committing a selfish act
<Lazarus_Long> groups compete with other group's individuals
<staph> have still acted in a utilitarian, altruistic manner
<Eliezer> actually, I shouldn't say "happiness", I should say volitional fulfillment; people may not want to be happy
<celindra> Thus, no selfless acts, only mutually beneficial personal transactions
<Eliezer> indeed, celindra, there is such a thing as selfish altruism
<Ocsrazor> Laz, competition is necessary for further development.. but it can be internalized
<ChrisRovner> Selfish altruism?
<staph> don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....
<Ocsrazor> and be a nondestructive process
<Eliezer> for example, someone who donates to a cause that promises to help starving big-eyed children in Africa, if they know that is a very inefficient philanthropic use of the money, is being selfish
<Eliezer> they are maximizing their gratification from the act of altruism, rather than maximizing the true benefit to others
<Lazarus_Long> I am not sure selfless is truly psychologically possible except as a process of going beyond ones "self" definition to recreate a new one
<Eliezer> however, not all altruism is like that
<staph> life is not a zero sum game....
<Sumadartsun> Eliezer: that would not be altruism according to your definition
<Lazarus_Long> these are differring paradigms, individual verus collective, and individual versus all othe individuals
<staph> or rather it doesn't have to be zero sum
<celindra> Some of us are coming from viewpoint that altruism, as defined by Eliezer, is impossible
<staph> it doesn't matter, as long as end result is same
<celindra> Thus, every act is selfish
<BJKlein> open question: how does an immortalist overcome the social problem of perceived selfisness...
<localroger> Well Cory Doctorow suggested that those who couldn't psychologically handle immortality would just sorta die, leaving only those who could to carry on
<Lazarus_Long> selfish is a personal act between individuals as the kind of behavior we frown upon but it is elevated to a colective need suddenly it is spun to something altruistic
<Ocsrazor> every act is inherently selfish, because you are maximizing your particular goal structure, but...
<staph> look. internal motives don't matter, as long as the external events are the same
<Sumadartsun> it could be impossible; "maximizing happiness" is no longer well defined when infinities are involved
<Lazarus_Long> Good question BJ, gates model is one way andfreely distribulted benefits without obigationis another
<Eliezer> Ocsrazor, that's why I specified an *egocentric bias* in the goal system
<Ocsrazor> that goal structure can include acts good for groups
<Ocsrazor> agreed Eli
<XxDoubleHelixX> Even in a religious such as Xain an act such as "saving a child from a car" since you do this to please "your god" and make your way into a "heaven." May not be prevelent on the outside but I think it is a subcon thing.
<XxDoubleHelixX> yea, thats random
<XxDoubleHelixX> but meh
<Eliezer> "Altruistic behavior: An act done without any intent for personal gain in any form. Altruism requires that there is no want for material, physical, spiritual, or egoistic gain."
<Eliezer> -- Glossary of Zen
<staph> on the AGI list, this issue has been discussed under the name of "wisdom"
<celindra> By that definition, altruism does not exist
<XxDoubleHelixX> I say thats impossible El
<Ocsrazor> that form of altruism may be self destructive
<Lazarus_Long> but many people do not see a benefit through the acquisition of immortality
<Sumadartsun> I have a truly marvellous proof of this, but it would take ages to type at 1/4 typing speed :/
<Lazarus_Long> And Elizer no reason either your definitionof altruism is the same as random chance
<nrv8`> the gain is a byproduct
<staph> poll: how many here are familiar with terms 'inclusive fitness' and 'zero sum game'
<Eliezer> staph: of course
<localroger> one of two
<celindra> zero sum - yes
<ChrisRovner> The key word in that definition is
<Ocsrazor> yes staph
<ChrisRovner> *personal* gain
<BJKlein> staph, I think I saw the movie 'beautiful mind'
<staph> well we are not in a zero-sum situation
<Lazarus_Long> back to the relativity of individuality
<staph> I didn't
<localroger> staph: we are until new modalities arrive which prove otherwise.
<Eliezer> from CFAI:
<Eliezer> 1. I am trying to achieve the content of concept G0025. (concept G0025 == 'Friendliness').
<Eliezer> 2. I am trying to achieve [descriptive content: 1, 2, 3...]. (The content of G0025; 'Fulfill requests, don't violate volitions...')
<Eliezer> 3. I am trying to achieve [external referent] to which [descriptive content: 1, 2, 3...] is an approximation.
<staph> the new modalities are coming at an accelerating pace
<Eliezer> that's in http://www.singinst....e/external.html
<Eliezer> and the point is the difference between helping others because it will help others, and helping others because it feels good to help others
<Davidov> Individuality is nil when integrated with materialism
<localroger> But so far the new modalities only shrink the world, making the zero sum game more stark. The new modality which will make cheap space travel for billions of people an option is not on the horizon.
<Eliezer> there is a genuine difference between a goal system that tries to maximize "the number of helped others" and a goal system that tries to maximize "the satisfaction of the goal system"
<staph> local.....they do not
<Eliezer> the second shorts out under self-modification, the first does not
<Lazarus_Long> why not help others because it is selfish and helps ourselves? Why is that a probelm?
<Mind> The first is better
<ChrisRovner> It sure is in the horizon, Roger
<staph> only a few need to get into space
<staph> a seed
<localroger> Case in point, the last great modality discovered, atomic weapons. No useful purpose, shrink the world, do not improve things one damn bit.
<Eliezer> Lazarus: because I think it's more beautiful to help others for the sake of helping others, and because I can't find a good reason to value sentients asymmetrically
<Lazarus_Long> I want a better world with hapier people to live with I don't mind if you think that is selfish
<localroger> Staph if only a few get into space it remains a zero sum game for those who stay behind.
<Lazarus_Long> beauty is in the eye of the beholder
<staph> but the few in space will become billions
<XxDoubleHelixX> Laz: We should help ourselves, a lot of people out there are lost causes.
<XxDoubleHelixX> in my opinion
<Lazarus_Long> It is also in the eye of teh creator
<localroger> I for one am not happy with the idea that living in a miserable hell is fine if we manage to get off some starseeds to spawn miserable hells all over the universe that will do the same thing.
<Lazarus_Long> I like helping becuase I want to create beauty
<Ocsrazor> localroger the last two great modality are the PC and the web
<staph> once a presence is established, space is a pretty ideal environment....
<Lazarus_Long> But I am selfish becasue I want to assert my right to reate
<Mind> I agree Eleizer...helping others for the sake of helping others is a much better.
<localroger> The PC and web aren't modalities. One could argue that the transistor was as important as nuclear fission.
<staph> is the protease inhibitor a modality?
<XxDoubleHelixX> Local: Thats why I think limiting birth is a must
<localroger> Staph, listen up: No matter who gets into space, if only a few get into space /what happens to those who stay behind/?
<Ocsrazor> and why aren't they modalities?
<localroger> XX: absolutely.
<staph> nothing
<Lazarus_Long> that is teh selfish of teh collective argument " the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
<staph> one 10 km asteriod in orbit.....
<Lazarus_Long> social selfishness
<XxDoubleHelixX> may be seen as dictator but when it comes down to it, its about parasite control
<staph> centuries of resources
<localroger> A modality is a "handle," a fundamental physical way of controlling the world like fire, electricity, or nuclear energy.
<Ocsrazor> and how do the PC and the web, etc not fit that definition
<localroger> If you go from campfires to airtight stoves it's not a new modality, just an improvement. If you make your airtight stove a boiler and attach it to a steam engine that's a new modality.
<staph> chemical, electromagnetic, and nuclear energy.... if we control gravity, do we have all modalities?
<Lazarus_Long> it is not altruistic though, it is just the collective is greater than individual rights model
<Mind> I feel that I am selfish as an immortalist, although I cannot pinpoint why I feel that way....I think it has something to do with my religious upbringing
<localroger> The PC and web did not involve fundamental physical discoveries and they have clear easily discernible (if large and far from achieved) limits.
<Mind> What is not altruistic Laz?
<Lazarus_Long> I ask again who has teh right to define the self?
<localroger> We do not control gravity and it doesn't look likely that we will in the near future.
<staph> you know, If I had this sort of pessimistic attitude I would be dead
<Eliezer> *I* want you all to live forever, and I'm an altruist, so if you trust my judgment, there's a quite nonselfish reason for you to do it
<Eliezer> sentients are valuable; you're sentient
<Lazarus_Long> Helping other just for the sake of helping others as preferable to helping them because I like to
<localroger> I am alive and highly successful because I have this pessimistic attitude. My competitors have been sued out of business for failing to ask the hard questions.
<Eliezer> I disagree that there is anything whatsoever selfish about immortality
<staph> right, and I would have died a year ago of cancer
<localroger> Eli, I tend to agree inasmuch as there is also nothing "selfish" about wishing to live to 80 instead of 40.
<Mind> Humans as a group define the "self" Laz
<XxDoubleHelixX> brain?
<Lazarus_Long> I am not presuming immortality is selfish but BJ asked about how it is perceived as selfish and this too merits an answer
<BJKlein> Laz, there are no rights granted.. or meaning.. we as intelligence creatures take the initiative
<Davidov> Once everyone starts to try to benefit the "collective", they're being, at least unintentionally, altruistic or exhibiting behavior akin to it. It's not hard to imagine post-humans realizing individuality is inefficient.
<Ocsrazor> LR, control of information is now far more important than control of "just" the physical stuff it represents
<staph> mind over matter is not magic...it is a result of close couplings between CNS and immune, endocrine systems
<Lazarus_Long> I define myself Mind
<Eliezer> Well, BJK actually wrote a defense of immortality as selfish
<Eliezer> which I am not at all in sympathy with
<Lazarus_Long> that is part of maturation Mind
<Eliezer> I don't think it's selfish, period
<localroger> OCR control of information means nothing if there is no control of "stuff" at the end.
<Discarnate> Eliezer - do you think your eating of food - another form of life - is selfish?
<Ocsrazor> thats is why I said "just" ;^)
<Eliezer> I think it would be much preferable to be off the food chain
<Lazarus_Long> but many of teh criticisms we are gettnig are from outsiders saying they see the quest for immortality as inherently selfish
<Discarnate> No argument, but that's sidestepping the question. *grin*

<Eliezer> if you're getting criticisms from outsiders about the selfishness of immortality, then explain how immortalism can stem from an altruistic love of all life
<Lazarus_Long> that is why I said when this topic was posted tht I wanted a new word, "selfist" as one that is self aware
<staph> or atheiests
<Mind> Laz brings up a good point about "outsiders" percieving selfishness in imortalists...how can we change their minds
<Discarnate> staph - I'd prefer the statement slightly differently - immortality is only a selfish goal if its attainment is at an unacceptable cost to others.
<BJK> Eli, if our goal is to live forever, we need as many people thinking along the same lines as possible. Therefore explaining the 'selfish' problem/percpetion is inherently important.
<staph> yeah, I;ll agree to that Dis
<Ocsrazor> all new technologies are supported because the wealthy want them, but you cannot stop there spread
<Eliezer> Discarnate: hm, less pithy, but I think more true
<Eliezer> BJK: yeah, but it's got to be explained correctly - and without conceding things that we shouldn't concede, for example, that "immortality is selfish", which it's not
<Lazarus_Long> Ocs but if this is controlled and locally distributed to create a new clan of pharoes then it will be seen as even MORE threatening
<staph> If all sentients have the *right* to be immortal if they choose, and such right does not take away rights of other sentients, then immortality is moral
<BJK> from the perception of most people definition of selfish, it is
<Ocsrazor> it won't happen Laz, our society is already far too democratized
<Mind> I figure every being on this planet is born with a will to live...so how can wanting to live longer be selfish?
<Sumadartsun> Immortality might be selfish if (1) there is a maximum number of people that can exist and (2) there are good reasons why it would somehow be better if other hypothetical people existed instead of you
<Ocsrazor> but it good happen with neural interfacing
<XxDoubleHelixX> unless the little buggers watnt us dead
<Lazarus_Long> promises promises we are talking about perceptions
<XxDoubleHelixX> <cough>
<XxDoubleHelixX> *want
<staph> Sum...exactly....then it is infringing on the rights of others
<localroger> Oops, gotta go
<Mind> Sumad...I do not think #1 holds....there should be no limit
<Lazarus_Long> immortality is seen as selfish if my continued existence is perceived to be devaluating your offsprings opportunities
<Ocsrazor> our system as a whole needs lots of sentients to continue to exist, there is just not much way around that
<XxDoubleHelixX> good point laz
<Sumadartsun> I don't like to say 'rights' here, staph
<XxDoubleHelixX> they will use that
<Ocsrazor> what if you choose not have offspring LAz?
<staph> what happens in all cultures yet observed that become wealthy with a large middle class?
<Lazarus_Long> is that forced or just a consequence of free choiceCos?
<BJK> but, shifting the argument from selfish to love of life would be a preferred strategy in any argument, i'd agree.
<Ocsrazor> free will
<Sumadartsun> Mind, I think (1) might be true but (2) very probably not
<Lazarus_Long> Oc*cam
<staph> Sum: ok
<Mind> I don't think it is that bad to devaluate someone else's offspring as long as they are allowed to live freely.
<staph> the Japanese, Germans, Swedish, etc etc.....
<XxDoubleHelixX> Then they will shift it to " They are taking away OUR childrens rights to seek jobs" have the big eyed kids sobing asking mom and dad "Why?"
<XxDoubleHelixX> <chuckle>
<Mind> People do things every day to devaluate my existence...as long as they do not kill me I am alright with that
<Lazarus_Long> But that is why it is seen as "selfish for the likes of Kass
<staph> are all shrinking in population
<Ocsrazor> as staph has said this is not a zero sum game
<Sumadartsun> in (1), I mean maximum number of people *at one time*
<staph> the USA only grows because of immigration (thank god)
<Ocsrazor> the more sentients you have, the more resources you have
<Lazarus_Long> Do imortals have to work for the common good forever or do they get to retire and go on endless cruises?
<Ocsrazor> intelligence is THE most valuable resource
<staph> ocs: yup, and the more resources, the more strongly the "law of acccelerating returns" *may* apply
<Discarnate> Back
<Ocsrazor> Laz would cruises really be satisfying across eternity?
<Lazarus_Long> If they are to know green pastures then does another working grop support them?
<Mind> Sumad...once there is a process for remaining alive...I do not see why it cannot be spread to all sentinents in a short period of time
<staph> both
<staph> cruises that do worthwile things
<Mind> so I think #1 does not hold
<Ocsrazor> Humans need goal driven activities to remian sane and happy
<Sumadartsun> staph: never mind, it just gets weird to speak of the rights of the not yet existent
<Discarnate> Mind - One simple reason why not - greed.
<staph> having a job doing what you love
<Lazarus_Long> Joking Occam my wink emoticon doesn't work
<Sumadartsun> Mind, agreed;
<Ocsrazor> Figured that Laz ;^)
<staph> Sum: yeah, thats true...
<Lazarus_Long> I am talking about choice folks you are pushing up stream againt the cultural meme of retirement
<Sumadartsun> but the part of the universe that can be reached might have a finite carrying capacity
<XxDoubleHelixX> So, "we are not selfish" and now we are talking about if more people is a good thing or bad thing...right?
<Lazarus_Long> the idea that you paid your dues and now get to coast
<celindra> Look, those who don't share the immortal meme, by definition, will die
<staph> but the meme of retirement is dying
<BJK> XxDoubleHelixX, don't let them fool ya.. we are selfish!
<Lazarus_Long> we are selfish if we say they have to live forever and contribute or die
<Mind> I agree Xxdouble...we are not selfish
<Ocsrazor> yep Laz that whole part of our society's psyche will have to be modified
<celindra> I'm pretty selfish
<staph> my father is 73... he retired at 65, after working all his life doing what he was good at
<MichaelA> hi all
<staph> he took like a week off and found another job
<staph> some people *have* to work
<Lazarus_Long> HI Michael
<Ocsrazor> staph what if he had the opportunity to do something else he loves for another 50 years?
<BJK> but, if you want to move public opinion, say you're not selfish
<Davidov> What is "selfish" is relative to how someone percieves what individuality is to one another, I guess.
<staph> he'd jump at the chance
<Sumadartsun> more people is a good thing, but we might just not have the computing power
<Ocsrazor> why not sum?
<Lazarus_Long> my father worked until he couldn't I plan the same but that is not the point it is about perceptions
<BJK> or divert the obvious to a more noble topic.. like the wonderful good we'll do by helping people overcome death and suffering
<celindra> I think you're looking at it the wrong way, BJ -- you sell the sizzle, not the steak -- show the public what they get!
<Discarnate> BJK - Perhaps point out we're LESS selfish than those who'd ONLY spend one lifetime at work!
<staph> a common perception.... people want happieness and pleasure....false
<ChrisRovner> Bruce, I hope you're being sarcastic
<Lazarus_Long> good approach celindra
<Mind> why is it false staph?
<Ocsrazor> why would he be sarcastic Chris
<ChrisRovner> Because we are not selfish
<staph> because people want a fulfilling life, and the appreciation of others
<Lazarus_Long> cheaper cosmetic surgery, full lifestuyles and more opportunity for individual growth but this is pragmatic not altruistic
<ChrisRovner> And we are not liars
<Ocsrazor> Ok misunderstood
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, usual story about heat death, finite regions of space and so on
<BJK> no.. here's to kicker.. immortals are forced to be more helpful and alturitic by defaul of being immortal...longer term perspecitve, keeping friendly relations if you know you'll bump into someone again
<BJK> default.. and yes I was being sarcastic chris
<BJK> but, that was not my public front
<BJKlein> sorry, what was the last thing to come through>?
<Lazarus_Long> the villagers burn down the lab
<staph> self actualization I think its called
<Discarnate> Laz - VERY true.
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor: probably true,
<Ocsrazor> Laz, what is the frankenstein effect?
<Ocsrazor> Ohhh
<ChrisRovner> <BJK> no.. here's to kicker.. immortals are forced to be more helpful and alturitic by defaul of being immortal...longer term perspecitve, keeping friendly relations if you know you'll bump into someone again
<XxDoubleHelixX> put a big gun on the top and we will see who scews with who
<BJKlein> thanks chris.. and yes I was being sarcastic.. but that was not my public front
<XxDoubleHelixX> anyways...
<staph> that reminds me.... a true new modality.... highly effective non-lethal or permanent injuring means of crowd control
<Sumadartsun> but the questions actually apply at all times where population can't immediately grow
<Ocsrazor> Good PR is definitely a priority Laz
<Mind> Offering the end to aging seems to me like good PR
<Discarnate> Ocs - perhaps more of a priority than even research.
<Ocsrazor> Agreed Dis
<Mind> We can doth both at the same time
<XxDoubleHelixX> im not giving up research to talk to some godbots
<Mind> :-)
<Discarnate> Double - What good is the research if you can't use it?
<XxDoubleHelixX> ill wire myself to a virus stock
<Lazarus_Long> So the show of hand again please, immortalas are inherently selfish?
<Discarnate> <-- raises his hand
<Ocsrazor> We really need the anti-religion though DH, not like I'm giving up my research either, but it is on my mind frequently
<MichaelA> immortalists aren't inherently selfish, no more than someone who protects a beautiful flower from dying is selfish ;D
<Lazarus_Long> I suspect we haven 't yet all agreed one way or another,
<MichaelA> immortalists *can* be selfish if they label themselves as such
<Ocsrazor> better PR -> more political pressure -> more research $
<Lazarus_Long> Michael that is certainly selfish to the seeds
<staph> Eli (IIRC) once said something about every human death diminishes every living human
<Discarnate> Michael - as long as there is a cost to the action of being immortal, we're being selfish.
<MichaelA> you can define "selfish" to encompass practically everything if you try hard enough, but that doesn't grasp the spirit of the word
<Discarnate> And as far as I can see, there will *ALWAYS* be a cost.
<XxDoubleHelixX> Yes, but it sounded to me like the researchers would have to be involved with this
<Davidov> Selfish is relative to the person. Depends on either one's goals, too
<Davidov> It isn't necessarily a objective trait
<staph> we will not conquer death, but only because I think people will always want to die
<XxDoubleHelixX> leave it to the bio minors with bus degrees
<Ziana> discarnate- there's a cost to you choosing to be sitting here chatting online instead of out helping the homeless, yet here you are... ;-)
<MichaelA> Ziana, wow, hi
<Lazarus_Long> I agree that perception is probably the more important issue but like any product it is easier to sell if we believe what we are promoting
<Discarnate> *grin* Ah, but here, Ziana, I'm helping the world. Hopefully.
<Mind> exactly DIS
<Ocsrazor> I would like to be, I focus so much on info theory that I can't but think about how to get more sentients working on improving the condition of humanity
<Ziana> hiya michael
<Discarnate> Hoping to influence the minds of some of the great thinkers of the modern day...
<Lazarus_Long> nice to see you again Ziana
<Discarnate> *shrug* Dunno how good I am at it.
<MichaelA> many of the great thinkers are already here, maybe you're talking about the *well-known* thinkers
<staph> how about a #SL4, #immortal, and #virus breeding program
<Ocsrazor> we definitely need some people to step and counter the current direction of our pol insts
<staph> lol
<Discarnate> Ah, but others read the logs, and others are influenced via conversations with those present, or who read the logs... Contagion theory.
<Davidov> I'm in staph :D
<Mind> the pols are creating problems right now
<Ziana> staph- slight problem with that plan... ;-)
<staph> I;d be scared of the kids
<Lazarus_Long> Thereis an old addage, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, people need clear results not amorphous intentions
<staph> yeah, to few females
<Discarnate> Besides, we're all more than just genes.
<staph> means the nead for polyandry
<Discarnate> Laz - Disagree. People need PERCEPTION of clear results.
<Davidov> Well lets start with me and you Ziana
<Lazarus_Long> agreed Dis
<staph> a little twist on the old polygamy humans like so much
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh bush's people pulled aroudn 233 mill so we could have some anthrax vac.
* Ziana ain't volunteering, lol
<XxDoubleHelixX> sucks for that funding that could of actually done something
<staph> not even for like 5 husbands lol
<MichaelA> men like polygamy so much, not humans
<Ocsrazor> isn't that rediculous staph ;^)
<Lazarus_Long> but I am hoping for credibility not a scam
<staph> yup
<Ziana> five husbands? nah. now, if you offered five computers... ;-)
<Discarnate> Laz - I'm hoping for survival.
<XxDoubleHelixX> from the NIH or NIADH, whatever thats called
<staph> there are actually a few polyandrous socieites...
<Discarnate> <-- pessimistic. *sour grin*
<Eliezer> okay, I was wondering how long it would take some damn fool to jokingly proposition Ziana on one of these chat channels
<Ocsrazor> a girl who has her priorities straight
<Ocsrazor> ;^)
<staph> Ziana
<Ziana> lol
<Lazarus_Long> survival we must work hope is insufficient
<Eliezer> fortunately it took a very long time - maybe even over a year
<staph> how about 5 486's
<Eliezer> you probably can't say that on many other IRC channels
<Eliezer> but I still think we should have gone for a decade
<Ziana> alas, now the record is blown! ;-)
<Discarnate> Hrm... Double entendre?
<MichaelA> we probably beat every single server out there
<Ziana> enough 486s to add up to five P4s, sure ;-)
<Lazarus_Long> why are immortals hung up about gender related identification issues if they are no longer committed to bigender reproduction?
<XxDoubleHelixX> What Dis?
<Mind> have a good night...must sleep now
<Discarnate> Sorry - not you, DoubleHelix.
<MichaelA> because there are better things to commit to?
<staph> gender stuff can mess you up at this point
<MichaelA> there *may* be
<Lazarus_Long> Ageed staph but it won't disapperar as an exapmle of the threat the publis sense
<Discarnate> Until we DO have practical immortality, there's no other way to maintain the species. I'm all FOR gender related identification issues...
<Lazarus_Long> whoops public
<MichaelA> it's hard to avoid being identified as your gender without totally making a huge effort to convince people otherwise
<staph>
<MichaelA> if that's what you mean, heh
<Davidov> especially with tight clothes
<MichaelA> yes, but tight clothes are sort of silly
<staph> interestingly, transgenders call into question the common notion of 90% + heritablity of homosexuality
<Lazarus_Long> cloths are silly Michael if UI can wear a transmorph skin made of naofiber
<Ziana> down with tight clothes! ;-)
<Lazarus_Long> nanofiber*
<MichaelA> very true Laz
<Discarnate> *shakes head*
<Eliezer> switching between genders is a *lot* more work than wearing a skin
<Eliezer> there'd be a *lot* of cognitive work
<Eliezer> and more cognitive work if you wanted to stay sane after switching back
<MichaelA> to do so convincingly, your life would have to revolve around it
<Lazarus_Long> I wasn't worried about that elizer I would just like to be warm in any environment and breathe underwater
<Eliezer> even post-Singularity, switching between genders won't be a trivial decision, I think
<Eliezer> you'd have to be very spiritually advanced to just ranma back and forth
<Lazarus_Long> also absorb sunlight for energy needs
<MichaelA> that's an odd comment, Eliezer
<Discarnate> Michael - depends on the location. Via an online relationship? Nearly trivial.
<Eliezer> how so, Michael?
<Ocsrazor> eli interesting that our society is both becoming more gender neutral and polarizing at the same time
<MichaelA> if you stepped slightly above humanity intelligence-wise, I don't see how it would be difficult to switch back and forth between male and female psychologies
<Lazarus_Long> transgenderism is easier now than most people are comfortable
<MichaelA> I don't see how it would be spiritually taxing
<Eliezer> because there are two intelligent species on this planet, not one
<staph> ..... what about transspecies.... human to uplifted dolphin
<Eliezer> male to female *is* transspecies
<Discarnate> Now THAT will be odd, staph.
<Eliezer> real, different brainware
<staph> yeah
<Lazarus_Long> that may be down teh road a bit saph but not too far beyonf teh horizon
<MichaelA> yes, but the difference would shrink once you stepped a bit outside of both of them, no?
<Eliezer> not just a bit
<staph> or what about this: human to non-uplifted elephant (Leakey IMO figured this out a while ago).....
<Sumadartsun> I thought different species could not interbreed (by definition)
<Eliezer> on a cosmic scale, "just a bit", maybe
<Ocsrazor> yes Michael, once you could understand the cognitive processes and mimic them
<ChrisRovner> That doesn't mean it has to stay that way after the Singularity. My bet is that there will be thousands of different genders, and easily transitable
<Eliezer> from our perspective, "very spiritually advanced"
<MichaelA> say that humans have self-modification ability at 5%, where it takes a year for a 5% ability to produce a psychological gender transfer, if we upped our self-mod ability to 10% or more, wouldn't it be so much more trivial?
<MichaelA> oh, agreed
<Lazarus_Long> male to feamle is not transpecies, it is a physiopsychologica shift nothing more, resolved moer by behavioral roles than consciousness
<staph> sum: not interbreeding
<staph> remove brain and insert in cloned dolphin body
<Lazarus_Long> It is not too far fetched to make Womb bearing an optional activity
<MichaelA> Chris, my bet is that the degrees of freedom will open up in so many directions besides gender that it won't be a salient classification schema for beings anymore
<Ocsrazor> there is a lot of developmental information preprogrammed laz, in addition to cultural programmming
<Lazarus_Long> yes but a lot of that is carried on by the developmental placenta

[Lazarus Long]

There is a lot more about selfishness BJ did the log get wiped after this point?

The gender issue is important to the perception of selfishness because so much of the memetics governing the issue are incorporate in the social imperative for procreation. We are perceived as selfish if we are seen as coming out against "Motherhood" and being MOM is still THE elemental aspect of gender definition and orientation. Being male is only relevant in relation to Motherhood, and bi-gender is evolutionarily obsolete if procreation is eliminated. The behavior as well as the psychology becomes as "vestigial" as your appendix.

Attack Apple Pie all you want but going against Motherhood makes us all appear like ungrateful brats and demonstrably "selfish" to the demands of our species, to the demands of family, and the demands of those that want "unlimited" opportunity for their offspring. This is even a back drop to why most of the rest of the world has rejected much of Euro American Feminism in favor of their own homegrown movements. Individual Control over procreative Rights (Choice) is not the same as elimination of those Rights or a societal diminution of them to the status of “Privilege”.

Women want economic equality and an equitable distribution of labor but evolutionarily we are constructed for different roles defined through Natural Selection that preclude the ability to be perfectly the same unless “gender” as it is defined is altered. The point is that what we are talking about overlaps this significant global debate as it affects cultural memetic paradigms. Are working women more valuable to society then a Mother tending her young? Is anybody going to claim that being Mom is less important than say being a writer, or a secretary, or even just cleaning hotel rooms?

This is the core not only of our PR problem but of Euro American feminism as the rest of the emerging world perceives its inherent threat to their family cultural definitions. Threaten the family and most people go into an automatic defend the nest attack mode and this is part of the memetics that makes Suicide Bombers psychologically possible.

If we are saying that if you want children you die, Immortality then equals selfish in the public perception, if we are saying that Immortals MUST give up procreativity, then immortality equals selfish in the public perception.

If we are saying that immortals reserve the RIGHT to bear offspring then the debate becomes a resource allocation one and a generational one that reflects “seniority against the expectation of opportunity and the infusion of Vitality” that corresponds to successive generations struggling against the ingrained aspects of older generation’s mindsets.

Progress (separate discussion) has been insured evolutionarily (till now) against stagnation by the attrition of the current generation in power and the necessity to survive and assume the mantle of authority for the youth (Kass’s argument). By introducing immortality into the equation socially we are altering pragmatically most of the socio-economic memetic models that are currently dependent on this process, from labor to taxation, from “planned obsolescence to Social Security.
War is an expression of Planned Obsolescence applied to populations as defined by Social Capitalism. It is a means of applying a market ethic of competition to the question of the “supply and demand” evaluation of an Individual Human’s worth. It is an aspect of the application of selfishness if I see your societal demands as infringing on my society’s resources and right to both promote and defend itself through procreative strategies.

This is not an idle concern it is a subtle back drop to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict now. Fertility rates are a part of the strategy poorer population use to confront richer smaller populations that maintain dominant control over them. As the population exceeds economic stability the hardship that becomes the experience of the individual member makes living less meaningful and thus provides a desire to sacrifice one’s self for the greater good of your collective. Palestinians are having children at two to three times the rate of the Israelis in order to overwhelm them through an eventual application of the democratic principle or through a human wave assault predicated on the logistics of the battlefield.

I do not see these as irreconcilable issues but I do see them as serious Public Relations challenges . It is a problem that won't go away by itself and it is one that overlaps so many, many social debates that are prevalent in the Global Political Arena.

But again we were nearly done with the gender aspect where this dialogue breaks off and went back for an extended period trying to define and resolve other aspects of selfishness. Because one thing was clear at the end of the chat nobody was particularly happy with anyone else's definition of what "selfish" means. I guess we are all a little bit proprietary and selfish about our definitions.

[Bruce Klein]

laz, here's the remainder of the log..


19:51:43 ChrisRovner MichaelA: indeed
19:51:47 Eliezer okay, all the males on this channel feel free to tell me to shut up if this gets disturbing, but suppose you shifted to female, had sex with a male, and then shifted back to male. one, you just had a hell of a lot of information change places so that that seemed like a natural thing to do. and now you, as a heterosexual male, recall the memories of being a heterosexual female
19:52:07 staph wow
19:52:17 staph I've heard diff. opinions on that
19:52:22 MichaelA that would be a very interesting experience
19:52:23 Ocsrazor why is that so disturbing? ;^)
19:52:36 BJKlein BJKlein (~bjk@adsl-20-148-199.bhm.bellsouth.net) has quit IRC [Read error: Connection reset by peer]

19:52:40 Eliezer your *memories of different brainware* have to be such that you actually recall *being a heterosexual female*, rather than mapping the memories onto your *current* brainware and gender identity
19:52:41 staph Varley's books have suggested the psych switch would be natural with the body change
19:52:43 Lazarus_Long so what if I merged my mind with my sexual partner and lived teh experience from both perspectives?
19:52:54 MichaelA Nus is right about the species thing though, I think there should be a different word used to describe the cognitive differences between males and females
19:53:07 staph I don't think varleys right though
19:53:07 MichaelA Males and females are somewhat like two different species, mutually bootstrapping off of one another
19:53:10 Lazarus_Long cybernetic linkage may provide that sooner than is expected
19:53:24 Discarnate Eliezer - the way I'm wired/programmed/whatever now, I'd still be me. Male.
19:53:35 staph Laz: the rabbit hole is deep indeed
19:53:44 Ocsrazor species is not a good word for this discussion, as it has a very specific bio definition

19:53:47 Lazarus_Long hearth/hunter distinction is social memetics XY chromosomes are biological
19:53:50 MichaelA I agree
19:53:50 Discarnate staph - Varley's FICTION (altho' good fiction) has suggested that.
19:53:57 MichaelA We need to invent more words *fast*
19:54:01 staph dis
19:54:03 staph I know
19:54:07 ChrisRovner lol
19:54:08 ChrisRovner true
19:54:09 Eliezer I know, Ocsrazor - I was making the point that you get different complex adaptations across genders, just like you get different complex adaptations across species
19:54:11 staph I just like his stuff
19:54:17 MichaelA I want a Latin prefix that can be used to refer to morality with
19:54:38 Sumadartsun http://phrontistery.50megs.com/
19:54:56 jubungalord jubungalord (~jubungalo@dip-91.maxg1-3.dips.csonline.net) has joined #immortal

19:54:56 staph em-
19:55:02 staph emotion , empathy
19:55:04 Sumadartsun "axio"?
19:55:05 staph etc
19:55:15 Sumadartsun probably not
19:55:17 Eliezer the current transsexuals already have female/male minds, they just need to wake up one morning in a female/male body
19:55:29 Ocsrazor to modify what kind of word michael
19:55:33 Eliezer changing from a male *mind* to a female *mind* is not trivial
19:55:43 MichaelA axio doesn't work
19:55:47 Eliezer the amount of information changing around is large
19:56:01 Lazarus_Long is gender orientation an example of genetic selfishness?
19:56:01 MichaelA I modify any word I choose to add as a suffix, Peter
19:56:13 Lazarus_Long as in Dawkins?
19:56:13 Ocsrazor how so selfishness Laz?
19:56:44 MichaelA selfish gene
19:56:58 MichaelA it's just the Dawkins way of viewing evolution
19:57:09 Eliezer now, if you knew and understood each change being made, if you could hold that whole change in your mind and implement it under your own power, not just from male to female, but also as a female who remembers being male, then you could do a natural switch
19:57:19 Ocsrazor i don't think female genes want to maximize femaleness, but provide a selective advantage to the species genes as a whole
19:57:20 Eliezer but that would seem to require being very spiritually advanced
19:57:31 Lazarus_Long and is teh gender argument an aspect of how the instincts of the larger mass of humanity fears immorality.
19:57:33 MichaelA I don't think that that's humanly possible, Eliezer
19:57:35 Eliezer and if you did it with assistance, the amount of true cognitive change involved is considerable
19:57:47 Lazarus_Long The concept of Mother is extinct if there are no children
19:57:48 Eliezer that's what I mean by saying it's not a trivial decision, even post-Singularity
19:57:54 Eliezer major cognitive revisions involved
19:58:00 MichaelA But that degree of self-modification is somewhere between the roof of what is humanly possible and full self-editing capabilities
19:58:07 Lazarus_Long the definitionof female has just been modified to a varient of male
19:58:16 MichaelA Well, by the same token, flash-upgrading to a superintelligence wouldn't be a trivial decision either
19:58:29 Ocsrazor I think the ole defintions will prob remain in our species descendants psyche
19:58:37 Ocsrazor Laz
19:58:59 MichaelA The evolution of female gossiping is really cool
19:59:44 Eliezer oh, yeah, I heard that Leda Cosmides and her husband were working on that
19:59:45 Ocsrazor its an ancient form of power sharing through information control;^)
19:59:58 Eliezer (that was a joke)
20:00:10 Lazarus_Long why if eventually we can even manipulate individual genetics to allow cross over developmental characteristics to manifest as full gender by choice
20:00:14 Lazarus_Long or no gender
20:00:26 Lazarus_Long or bizaar new genders based on fads
20:00:48 MichaelA har har har, Eliezer :D
20:01:00 XxDoubleHelixX so a new common question would be: "what gender are you today?"
20:01:03 MichaelA the pictures of Cosmides and Tooby together are really cute and nice, imo
20:01:25 Ocsrazor we really are facing something like a Cambrian Explosion in terms of human shapes
20:01:27 Lazarus_Long if peoples mindsets are fixed on gender then they are nt adapting to the shift requred by immortality ot continue adapting
20:01:29 Ocsrazor and minds
20:01:53 MichaelA since "gender" describes a sexual, biologically based division, I believe that differences among humans could start with new genders and such, but start to break along lines unrelated to sexual or biological divisions
20:02:46 MichaelA we are facing a Cambrian Explosion of minds, which results in second-order morphological and structural changes that exceed even the variance of minds, maybe
20:03:04 MichaelA because it seems like tiny changes in mind create big changes in behavior
20:03:25 Eliezer that's just because it's so much easier to change behavior than minds
20:03:32 Eliezer plastic surgery outrunning neurosurgery
20:03:33 Lazarus_Long immortals that found niches could build isolated communities off and even on world where they develop their own paradigms for expression and then we have societies in contact with differring social imperatives that are not too unlike todday
20:03:56 MichaelA behavior and structure are less complex and more superficial
20:04:36 Lazarus_Long michael both are reflective of environmental adaptation
20:05:11 Ocsrazor this is the thing that scares the hell out of me when I think about the tech we are developing
20:05:15 MichaelA well of course
20:05:26 Jasonov Jasonov is now known as nrv8

20:05:30 Lazarus_Long going back to the beginning how should we package our image so as to not appear selfish? and can we?
20:05:38 Ocsrazor the viscious competition for info/energy that may be brewing
20:05:38 MichaelA I think we can and should
20:05:46 Ocsrazor bringing it all back together
20:05:55 Lazarus_Long And if we aren't selfish how do we prove it?
20:06:05 MichaelA We should emphasize eliminating nonconsensual death for everyone above eliminating death for ourselves, in my opinion (Bruce's may be different, not sure)
20:06:11 Ocsrazor by doing good things for a large number of people...
20:06:30 Lazarus_Long that is a good start whether immortal or not Occam but how do we link it to us?
20:06:38 Ocsrazor and making it very clear the positive effects on society as a whole
20:06:56 jubungalord jubungalord (~jubungalo@dip-91.maxg1-3.dips.csonline.net) has quit IRC [Quit: ]

20:07:15 Ocsrazor there has been some excellent work done by a nonprofit Med research org
20:07:19 Lazarus_Long saving a child is unselfish, until the parent can't pay the bill
20:07:43 MichaelA the immortalist philosophy stresses life for everyone; another thing we should be interested in is freeing others from religion so they can make the choice of trying for infinite life on their own, which is a message I think that many humanists could identity with
20:07:45 Discarnate Laz - tell the Shriners
20:07:47 Lazarus_Long the the parent is good too but the kids can't pay teh bill either
20:07:56 Lazarus_Long saving the*
20:08:16 Sumadartsun maybe "immortalitarian"
20:08:31 Lazarus_Long the Shriners and numerous groups do great things but they don't claim to be trying for immortality
20:08:43 MichaelA immortalism + egalitarianism = immortalitarian, perhaps?
20:08:54 ChrisRovner Ocsrazor: competition is inefficient. Ultratechnology will surely replace present social structures by cooperative dynamics sooner or later
20:08:57 Discarnate No, but they DO claim to be helping children, which is what I'd suggest be one focus of the attack.
20:09:00 MichaelA immortalism + altruism + truism = immortuism?
20:09:08 Ziana so then one might be an immortalitarian singularitarian?
20:09:09 Discarnate Help children by letting them LIVE.
20:09:11 MichaelA immortruism*
20:09:16 Ziana quite a mouthful ;-)
20:09:37 MichaelA easier to abbrev. it as i13n s13n, Ziana
20:09:38 Lazarus_Long If we can create a memetic of Transhumanism for the common good yes, sort of unicersal empowerment like paralle social development to the "vote"
20:09:48 Ocsrazor the lasker foundation has done some excellent work...
20:09:53 Discarnate Ziana - too close to totalitarian...
20:10:01 Lazarus_Long universal *
20:10:02 Ocsrazor showing how valuable the investment in medical research is
20:10:13 Discarnate IMO, 'course.
20:10:19 Ziana so through in libertarian ;-)
20:10:22 Ziana throw in, even
20:10:32 Ziana (eek)
20:10:45 Discarnate Do it and duck - that's not one of the best-flavored memes currently in vogue, IMO
20:10:48 Ziana michael- wouldn't that still be pronounced the long way, though?
20:11:03 Ocsrazor the report "Exceptional Returns" shows how investment into longevity is producing significant positive effects on the US economy
20:11:05 Lazarus_Long libertarian isn't all that popular. People feel libertarian but they join a party that has bipolar membership
20:11:15 Sumadartsun eyeonethreen esonethreen
20:11:32 Discarnate KISS - "I'm out to stop death." or "I'm for life."
20:11:32 Ziana ^ ah, yep, that'll be instantly understood ;-)
20:11:53 Discarnate Both have been abused in the past, but could be retasked, perhaps..
20:12:10 Ocsrazor Dis, I always thought we should hijack alot of the pro-life slogans
20:12:11 Discarnate All this polysyllabic accuracy is wonderful and good - but won't win the popular heart.
20:12:20 Discarnate Ocs - Just don't get burned by 'em.
20:12:26 Ocsrazor ;^)
20:12:27 celindra How about "Attention citizens of America -- quit dying."
20:12:29 Lazarus_Long "For Lifers" could usurp the fundie set
20:12:37 Discarnate YES!! Good one, celindra!
20:12:38 Ocsrazor turn it on them, yep Laz
20:12:59 Discarnate Or even, "Attention, Humans - You don't HAVE to die!"


20:13:06 jubungalord jubungalord (~jubungalo@dip-91.maxg1-3.dips.csonline.net) has joined #immortal

20:13:11 MichaelA "immy singy" then, Ziana
20:13:14 Discarnate To add humor, "Unfortunately, we can't do anything about taxes yet, tho'
20:13:16 Lazarus_Long no death is scarely I am shocked at the number of people hyper about the right to die
20:13:19 Ocsrazor show the fundies to be the hypocrits they are
20:13:27 celindra "Real men don't die"
20:13:44 Ziana michael- lol, that works
20:13:45 MichaelA "death is for sissies..?"
20:13:51 Lazarus_Long going against death is obvious and infered but For life is the political spin that will bring people onboard
20:13:51 Ocsrazor life based culture, not death based
20:14:06 MichaelA * MichaelA brbs
20:14:09 Discarnate "When the going gets tough, the tough KEEP going"?
20:14:39 Lazarus_Long Ocam is right no death is a no go but yes life is a socially acceptable meme and can bring out our best social conscience
20:15:15 Ocsrazor there are some nice bible quotes that can be used very effectively with xtians
20:15:16 celindra Excuse me while I randomly throw out slogans --
20:15:22 Lazarus_Long "Creation not Destruction"
20:15:26 Discarnate Probably - and it throws those against it as being clearly PRO-DEATH
20:15:51 Discarnate Ocs - don't go that route. Too many interpretations/twists on that good bookl
20:16:02 celindra "Do you want your child to die?"
20:16:04 Discarnate IMO, still.
20:16:15 Discarnate "Life - the GOOD four letter word!"
20:16:31 Ocsrazor I know Dis that is why it is so much fun to play with ;^)
20:16:33 Sumadartsun Sumadartsun (~NN@fia129-90.dsl.hccnet.nl) has quit IRC [Quit: death bad, sleep good]

20:16:38 celindra "If we had eliminated death, the OJ trial would have never happened"
20:16:38 Discarnate *rolls eyes*
20:16:39 Lazarus_Long "Life Insurance is death insurance Health benefits are for life"
20:16:49 Discarnate Laz - *applause*
20:17:08 Discarnate Ocs- don't poke the monkeys. They fling poo.
20:17:15 Discarnate *wry grin*
20:17:19 Lazarus_Long invest in today and tomorrow LIve to enjoy your investment
20:17:36 Lazarus_Long You read teh article Dis?
20:17:43 Discarnate "Eat, drink, and be merry - tomorrow you won't need to die"
20:17:54 Ocsrazor I have shut down a number of Jehovahs witnesses, left them speechless
20:17:55 Discarnate Which article, Laz?
20:18:16 Lazarus_Long I posted teh article onteh British study where they put a computer in teh monley cage
20:18:22 Discarnate Ocs - so've I. However, that takes 1x1, and is a NEGATIVE spin. Go for hte positive spin.
20:18:43 Lazarus_Long they wanted to see how long it would take to write a Shakesperian novel
20:18:44 Discarnate *chuckle* O, poor 'pooter... lol
20:18:49 Discarnate *ROFLMAO*
20:18:52 Ocsrazor I know, I'm just playing...
20:18:54 Discarnate Infinite monkeys...
20:19:13 Ocsrazor seriously I have written alot of PR for longevity...
20:19:18 Lazarus_Long the favorite pastime was urinating and deficating on the keyboard and monitor
20:19:22 Discarnate OK - in which case, I'll shelve the "for all things there is a season" obvious rebuttal
20:19:24 Discarnate *griN*
20:19:37 Ziana and don't forget the bashing with rocks! ~cringe~
20:19:39 Ocsrazor see my stuff at Maxlife.org in the FAQs
20:19:41 Lazarus_Long I touhgt we could all relate to our cousins
20:19:48 Discarnate Gotcha, Ocs - and shall do so.
20:20:04 Discarnate Laz - seems to me, the computers tend to do the opposite here. Spam, anyone?
20:20:23 Lazarus_Long They bashe dit with a rocjk first and repeatedly Ziana
20:20:35 Discarnate Gotta love it when a vacuum tube blows.
20:20:55 Ocsrazor I also wrote a 70 page document called "The Case for Life Extension Research" which is not public, but BJ has a copy of
20:21:04 Ocsrazor and is welcome to publish
20:21:15 Ziana laz- ech, such abuse ;-)
20:21:56 Discarnate Mmmm... I sit corrected. *smile*
20:21:58 Lazarus_Long it was probably smoe poor out to pasture 486 , what a way to treat your elders :(
20:22:12 Discarnate Better that than a commodore 64... *grin*
20:22:55 Ocsrazor the good thing about neural implantation, upgrades are always possible ;^)
20:23:07 Lazarus_Long What was fascinating thoughis that it also confirmed they were paying attention


20:23:43 Discarnate It was a threat (environmental change), and they treated it as such?
20:23:44 Lazarus_Long they repeated their choice of letters and began experimaenting in a liited and controled manner for letter choice while observing the screen for the results
20:23:52 Lazarus_Long limited*
20:24:19 Davidov Davidov (~davidisad@adsl-154-145-25.ags.bellsouth.net) has quit IRC [Quit: ]

20:24:20 Discarnate Oh? Neat!
20:25:03 Lazarus_Long they were only observed for a month
20:25:38 Lazarus_Long but it does bring up Brin's uplift question
20:25:40 Discarnate *lol* And how long did it take Shakespeare to master English to the point he wrote his works?
20:26:27 Ocsrazor OK yall, I have to go bash my keyboard for a while and hope an intelligible abstract comes out by tommorrow
20:26:33 Ocsrazor have a good night
20:26:41 Lazarus_Long not the writing Shakespere part these monkies were n't even aware of english but through cause and effect they were gaining access to computer awareness
20:27:00 Lazarus_Long Be nice to your computer and it will ignore you anyway
20:27:10 Lazarus_Long g'night Ocaam
20:27:37 Ocsrazor Ocsrazor (Ocsrazor@ibb-447.ibb.gatech.edu) has left #Immortal

20:28:10 Lazarus_Long Anyone have anything to add on selfishness, or selflessness?
20:28:41 Lazarus_Long Eliezer do you equate teh selfless and altruist ?
20:28:54 Discarnate I saw someone state that the general consensus was 'not selfish' - true?
20:29:30 Lazarus_Long we should make a poll BJ to get official but while biased I would prefer to go on record as not selfish
20:30:20 XxDoubleHelixX not selfish indeed
20:30:49 Lazarus_Long well it looks like the monkey shines shood everyone away, well almost
20:31:13 celindra i think the overall view was "not selfish"
20:31:29 celindra But we never really defined "selfish"
20:32:15 Lazarus_Long Discarnate, I don't think this conversation scratched the surface much of what we had ben discussing in the posts, exactly celindra
20:33:04 Lazarus_Long I think we are carefully stepping around a duplicitous use of language
20:33:19 celindra The meat of the discussion dealt with -- zero-sum transactions, altruism and the public image of immortalism
20:33:22 celindra So there
20:33:25 celindra :-)
20:33:54 Lazarus_Long there are multiple meanings to this word I compared its use to the word "Race" in the topic
20:34:41 Lazarus_Long there is a load of social baggage and a number of optional overlapping choices for application
20:36:06 Lazarus_Long BTW if the quest for immortality is perceived as the focus of an all white boys club we are in trouble too
20:36:07 jubungalord I don't think anything can be selfishness. Selfishness is an anthropomorphic label to establish a better social order. The whole consept of utilitarianism is nonsense. Intentions are meaningless, results are everything.
20:36:44 Discarnate Agreed, Laz...
20:36:57 Lazarus_Long So you have been paying attention jubun
20:37:23 Discarnate Celindra - Um... Is THAT all there is to it? What about greed? Lust? All those lovely human emotions?
20:37:25 Discarnate *wry grin*
20:37:26 jubungalord sort of through the topic jumping
20:37:35 Lazarus_Long that is back to celindra's point we haven't agreed on how to define it
20:38:17 Discarnate Selfishness is using a resources to better oneself at an unreasonable cost to others, IMO.
20:38:46 Discarnate The big one which I've not seen mentioned (possibly due to local weather) was control.
20:38:46 MichaelA how much is "unreasonable" is totally up to the person
20:38:52 MichaelA that goes back to the original problem
20:38:53 Lazarus_Long that is better Dis but what about with regard to say handicaped persons?
20:39:04 MichaelA that's a circular definition
20:39:07 Discarnate Handicapped how, Laz?
20:39:19 Discarnate Michael - we're humans. *lol* LOTS of circular reasoning!
20:39:28 Discarnate And - of course, you're right.
20:39:32 MichaelA in all cases you are appealing to an underlying common standard of reasonableness that we all share, but is too complex and subtle to put into words
20:39:51 Discarnate Well, first off, are you certain we all share it? I'm not.
20:40:00 MichaelA the circular reasoning always involves manipulating symbols containing tons of internal complexity
20:40:04 MichaelA we all share a lot of it
20:40:10 MichaelA that's why that sentence is even possible
20:40:21 Lazarus_Long we need to be seen as part f their support not threat but a resource argument shows they demand much more than the average and do not necessarilly return proportionately back
20:40:21 Discarnate I believe most people believe in/understand self interest. I do NOT believe that reasonableness is shared.
20:40:24 MichaelA you're using the semantics of objectivity
20:40:46 MichaelA much of it is, but there is certainly variance
20:41:06 Lazarus_Long I think I will go look for Democratus isn't he the guy witht ehlamp seeking truthfulness?
20:41:08 MichaelA humans have very specific notions about self-interest, what is appropriately self-interested and what is not
20:41:13 Discarnate Variance to the point of cross-cultural opposition?
20:41:17 Lazarus_Long no that was Demosthenes so sorry
20:41:32 MichaelA well, sure, humans always oppose things

20:41:41 Discarnate Michael - I tend to disagree.
20:41:53 Lazarus_Long your in denial Dis
20:41:56 Discarnate About the specific 'appropriateness' of self interest, that is.
20:41:58 Lazarus_Long
20:41:59 Eliezer I don't think that was Demosthenes
20:42:08 Discarnate Um. No, New York, not Egypt, Laz. *impish grin*
20:42:10 Eliezer Diogenes
20:42:21 jubungalord Selfishness = choosing the unnecessary negative result of others when given a decision where such a result is socially unacceptable
20:42:35 Lazarus_Long Your right Eliezer take the mans Cigar
20:43:00 Eliezer are we talking about exceptional, noticeable selfishness, or the formal definition of selfishness as any egocentric desirability bias whatsoever?
20:43:43 Discarnate That's a big part of the question right there, Eliezer.
20:43:54 Discarnate My reaction is towards the latter, but others may disagree
20:44:09 MichaelA humans arguing about morality usually are referring to somewhere in the greyscale between noticeable selfishness and human-typical selfishness
20:44:10 Lazarus_Long part of the oproblem in the very beginnign was breakdown about individual versus collective self tha imediately jumps out
20:45:05 Lazarus_Long competition as er Natural Slelction presumes selfishness that is why I asked in the posts if by selfish we mean Social Darwinism?
20:45:59 MichaelA which post is this?
20:46:10 Lazarus_Long the thread calling for this discussion
20:46:56 Lazarus_Long Dsicarnate and I among others floated smoe aspects for review during the week
20:47:26 MichaelA I see
20:48:27 XxDoubleHelixX XxDoubleHelixX (~Java@vdsl-151-118-10-239.dnvr.uswest.net) has quit IRC [Quit: Leaving]

20:48:30 Lazarus_Long we have covered some of the points but a few have simply been stepped around
20:48:42 Lazarus_Long again liek the definition
20:49:26 Lazarus_Long we are somewhat arguing at cross purposes if thisi s like a chinese menu and you are taking one from column A and me from B
20:49:43 Discarnate I think, actually, one of the BIG points did get covered - the perception of selfishness.
20:49:53 jubungalord not always does it presume selfishness laz, as Bloom pionts out. Unless species or a group of species can have a collective selfishness
20:49:55 Lazarus_Long that was important Dis
20:50:29 Discarnate jubunga - IMO, they can. As can organizations across species lines, or within a given species.
20:50:34 Lazarus_Long I think they can Jub, Cultural Imperative and ethno centrism are examples
20:50:54 Discarnate That is - jungle flora & fauna choking out savannah flora & fauna.
20:51:02 Discarnate Another good set of examples, Laz
20:51:02 SharpTak SharpTak (JavaUser@ppp112.ms.centurytel.net) has joined #immortal

20:51:41 Lazarus_Long there are both species basic and social optins possible Dis
20:51:57 Discarnate Agreed
20:52:39 Lazarus_Long that is why I compared the definition to "social" darwinism rather than just makeing a speciation case
20:53:15 Lazarus_Long I would also argue Human Selectin is selfish but it is a separate issue not pedicated on immortality
20:53:39 Discarnate As would filling a slot in a corporation/organizaton.
20:53:52 Discarnate Anyone got a counterarguement? *curious look*
20:54:01 Lazarus_Long Human Selection is potentially selfish I should say
20:54:20 jubungalord in all cases the word selfish should not be used instead each should have it's own term
20:55:06 Lazarus_Long agreed Jub and this is why I compare teh word to the useo f the word race because everybody is jsut defending their personal applicatoin
20:55:10 Discarnate Would you agree that each of these terms would be specific subsets of 'selfishness' in the didactic definition, jabugna?
20:56:15 Lazarus_Long is being self aware a stage of selfishness? and is defining yourself selfish?
20:56:30 jubungalord i think the word should not be used to label any broad category it is misleading.
20:56:38 Discarnate Hmmm.... Yeah, I'd think so, Laz.
20:57:03 Discarnate True, jubunga, but until we have those words, what else SHOULD we use?
20:57:03 Lazarus_Long power over one's self is a deteminationof choice for the alocation of effort as a social resource
20:57:17 Discarnate I'm not trying to be snippy - I mean the question.
20:58:58 Discarnate Laz - another valid question here, and one which I don't expect to be answered - is what is the appropriate dominant need? Self? Species? Nation? Gender?
20:59:13 Lazarus_Long individual empowerment as a need for freedom exists in direct competition with collective need of individual participation as an elemental resoure of collective effort
20:59:53 Lazarus_Long Yes Dis each defines a subset of relationships that are manaeable but demand attention to detail
21:01:13 Discarnate And this dilemma will continue as long as there exists more than one layer of organization - self, family, city, etc on up to all intelligence everywhere.
21:01:27 Discarnate So - let it rest, and sidestep back to the main question...
21:01:41 Lazarus_Long HOw are we perceived?
21:02:01 Discarnate Just how selfish *IS* seeking immortality, compared with accepting death - the alternative.
21:02:11 Discarnate That one's already been pretty well hashed over, Laz, IMO
21:02:29 Discarnate That's the "public" stuff. This is the real meat, IMO.
21:02:58 Lazarus_Long Not if immortality is also seen as fullfilling the Cronos model, and we are denying future generatins a right to exist
21:03:13 Lazarus_Long procreative obligatoin principle
21:03:31 staph staph is now known as staph-sleep

21:03:59 Lazarus_Long didn't you have a rgandmaother who told you it was your duty to provide offspring:)


21:04:15 Discarnate Chronos model?
21:04:41 Discarnate Sleep well, staph.
21:04:42 Lazarus_Long Cronos ate all his kids so the Olympians could never be born
21:04:48 Discarnate Ahhh...
21:04:52 Discarnate Gotcha.
21:05:12 Discarnate So - another hurdle to overcome i the public eye... Hadn't directly considered this one.
21:05:25 Lazarus_Long The first Promethian betrayal is of the Titans when he sides with Zeua whose mother feeds a rock to Cronus to fake teh death of her child
21:05:30 Discarnate Off the cuff - Don't focus on the current generation. Instead, focus on the children.
21:06:09 Lazarus_Long that is important but limited for the current crisis but vital if we survive it
21:07:07 Lazarus_Long The reason I use mythological imagry is because they represent latent memes that are prevalent throughout global society
21:07:29 Discarnate True, but not my meaning. Aim it as, "Wouldn't you like your children to not have to loose you to death? To be there to watch your grandchild born?" ec
21:07:30 Discarnate Er etc
21:08:39 Lazarus_Long I tried that on my 12 year old and she responded with: I don't want you to die daddy but I don't want you to tell me I can't, or tha tother people have to live if they don't want to".
21:08:58 Discarnate Wise beyond her years... *smile*
21:09:21 Lazarus_Long Ther is a LOT of baggage withteh boomers seeing tehir own parents die off in nursing homes now
21:09:28 Discarnate *nod*nod*nod*
21:09:46 Discarnate And also being a financial/emotional/time burden on the boomers, to be crass about it.
21:10:04 Lazarus_Long we need to bring boomers online soon or my daughter won't get a chance to exercise choice
21:10:37 Lazarus_Long if they see their parents die horrible deaths they will revert to denial andavoid teh issue
21:11:02 Lazarus_Long denial is a big problem most people don't want to face death or have to think about it
21:11:25 Discarnate The other thing is that it's clouding the issue with side emotions.
21:11:54 Discarnate The average Joe associates age with decrepitude, with lack of capability, NOT with joy and happiness.
21:12:00 Discarnate This will also have to be handled.
21:12:13 Lazarus_Long the helathcare system is already preceived as overworked understaffed, making false promises and dehumanizing
21:12:13 Discarnate Doesn't help that we're in a throw-away culture.
21:12:25 Lazarus_Long that too
21:12:26 Discarnate Mostly, IMO, because it *IS*...
21:13:03 Ziana * Ziana waves
21:13:13 Ziana Ziana (~boing@66.114.24.198) has quit IRC [Quit: ]

21:13:14 ravi What do u mean "throw away culture"
21:13:19 Lazarus_Long and that brings up my social capitalism issue and teh treatment of individuals as a supply and demand commodity
21:13:20 Discarnate BJ was asked earlier tonight by a 17yr old when he thought immortality would happen. BJ answered that he expected the current under-50 crowd to have a good chance at it.
21:13:38 Discarnate ravi - When things break, they're not repaired, so much as replaced.
21:14:07 Discarnate Repair shops are loosing business as gear becomes more and more affordable, and mass produced, and designed to break unfixably after a set period.
21:14:26 Lazarus_Long we don't want repair the economy is predicated on planned obsolescence
21:14:37 Discarnate Eggzactly, Laz.
21:14:45 Discarnate That clarify it, ravi?
21:15:07 Lazarus_Long cosumerism is a religion reinforced memetically and economically
21:15:24 ravi yes...so do u mena when a person gets old...they should be thrown away
21:15:41 Lazarus_Long no they shouldn't but that is how they are treated now
21:15:45 Discarnate The problem w/ BJ's answer (and I hope he reads this log) is that it cuts away the baby boomer's immediate assistance.
21:16:13 SharpTak My 2 cents: in a sense that's exactly what it means. Once a person's grown old and done their shere they're seen as obsolete and off less use then the current batch of youth
21:16:13 Lazarus_Long look at how the Bush administration has just devalued teh Life of older Americans
21:16:32 Discarnate ravi - They shouldn't be. I'm a packrat. I HATE to see all those hopes and experiences packed away in bodies which don't work, hidden away in nursing homes, and put in the earht.
21:16:56 Discarnate Just devalued? How so, Laz? Methinks me missed something.
21:16:57 Lazarus_Long not if they are immortal, then competitin reverses and seniority becomes teh selfish control
21:17:00 ravi yes I agree... they shouldn't.....but they do...i feel bad fo my grandmother
21:17:06 ravi she is in a nursing home now
21:17:26 ravi she has so much to offer...but to waste her final years in a nursing home
21:17:36 Lazarus_Long It is posted but Bush snuck this in some of the recent executive orders I believe
21:17:51 Discarnate As is mine. I'm not a paramedic, nor a nurse. I can't help her directly w/ hermedical problems. But I CAN help some with her quality of life, and spend time with her, and get her the heck OUT of there on occasion
21:18:01 Discarnate <-- will research, Laz.
21:18:22 Discarnate ravi - I agree. Breaks my heart, too.
21:18:33 Lazarus_Long It came out of environmental legistlation and Occam posted a blurb on it too
21:19:03 Discarnate K... Danke!
21:19:23 Lazarus_Long yes ravi and this is why we have troubel too because all too many peolpe dread teh old folks home with GOOD reason
21:20:00 ravi what scares me is that sometime in the future that will be me unless something changes....i think that it is affecting the baby boomer mindset that in may be 25 years they might me in the same position
21:20:38 Lazarus_Long Few older folks will willopt for life over cosmetics, they want to feel young now and burn out rather than fade away
21:20:56 Lazarus_Long ravi you are in FL right?
21:21:07 Lazarus_Long I believe you posted that you are 58?

21:21:23 ravi gainesville, FL.....no...that is Raver....i am 19
21:22:06 Lazarus_Long oh sorry I was curious if you were a boomer when you were saying 235 years, you have at least 70
21:22:13 Lazarus_Long 25 Years*
21:23:08 Lazarus_Long I turn 50 in a few months and I expect to be an experiment when teh time comes because somebody has to go first
21:23:33 ravi what do u mean experiment
21:24:08 Lazarus_Long I will push staying well with what I have but sooner or later I think the risk is worth the gamble to apply cutting edge tech and go for a cybernetic option
21:24:29 ravi well it will be close for the baby boomer generation
21:25:02 ravi u have to hope there is an increase in life span by the time u get old
21:25:07 SharpTak so I take it then that you're of the mindset that uploading will be, at lease experimentally, available by the time you require it Laz?
21:25:08 Lazarus_Long I am the younger patr of the true boomers Korean war baby not WWII
21:25:39 Eliezer Eliezer (sentience@c-24-98-33-236.atl.client2.attbi.com) has left #immortal

21:25:40 Lazarus_Long I suspect it to be the most viable option in 3 devades along with biomechanical support
21:25:50 Lazarus_Long decades
21:26:02 ravi and catch that wave...and upon another life span increase and ride that wave
21:26:15 SharpTak Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
21:26:16 Lazarus_Long exactly ravi
21:26:23 ravi i have a friend who is 60 right now
21:26:25 Discarnate Laz - depends a LOT on Moore staying right, don't it?
21:26:29 ravi actually my dad's friend
21:26:34 ravi and he expects to do that
21:27:19 Lazarus_Long It isn't just about Moore anymore, a lot is coming out of prsthetic research
21:27:31 Lazarus_Long prosthetic*
21:27:58 ravi so Lazarus...what tech do u think the baby boomers will have avaiable to use
21:28:04 Lazarus_Long how the mind develops a "self" is a tricky issue but not insoluable
21:28:10 ravi first that are life saving
21:28:27 Lazarus_Long biomechanicals and nao applications
21:28:49 Discarnate Nano for a body solution, I fear will be more'n 30 years down the pike.
21:29:07 Lazarus_Long we will use nao to offset pancreatic function, maybe lungs too soon and also to perhaps improved rejectino issues
21:29:09 Discarnate But not nano in a 'clean' environment
21:29:48 Lazarus_Long not sef assembled there are already artificial hemoglobin and other nanoparticles being creates
21:30:15 Lazarus_Long created* and I am too tired I think to type straight
21:30:42 ravi how old are u Discarnate?
21:31:18 Lazarus_Long they are producing a wide array of synthetic or "biomimetic" applications now, and artificial organs are going to also develop over teh next devades
21:31:43 Lazarus_Long also genetically modified species for xenotransplantations
21:31:59 Discarnate 33
21:32:02 ravi soo do u see urself making it without freezing urself? Laz
21:32:03 SharpTak Laz; Don't they already have an artificial memory decoder/encoder for amnesia patients being tested on mice?
21:32:21 SharpTak Don't worry ravi, you aren't the youngest person here. I'm of the fresh age of 18, even if I am new here.
21:32:24 Discarnate *blink* Do they, Sharp?
21:32:32 Lazarus_Long I am not confident of self preservation through cryo
21:32:39 Discarnate Where'd ya run across that? If they do, it's news to me!
21:32:50 Lazarus_Long DNA yes memory "engrams" I doubt
21:32:54 SharpTak I believe they do, one minute and I should have a link to the site.
21:33:00 Discarnate Gratze
21:33:29 Lazarus_Long That is the goal of the hippocampal imlant yes Sharp
21:33:50 Lazarus_Long but it is a long way from being "humanized"
21:33:54 ravi have u signed up for cryogenics laz?
21:34:15 Lazarus_Long though they have passed the first phase and this is good
21:34:25 Lazarus_Long no ravi
21:34:25 SharpTak ah that's what it's called Laz, thanks. True it's a long way off but then most of the technology with applications is either still in the drawing board stage or or just starting
21:34:53 Lazarus_Long not that long I think ten years and we will see serious human trials
21:34:54 jubungalord jubungalord (~jubungalo@dip-91.maxg1-3.dips.csonline.net) has quit IRC [Quit: ]

21:36:06 ravi how many people here have a cryogenics plan?
21:36:16 Lazarus_Long once we identify the hard connectino and the "software interface" we will be making quick inroads to linking a mind u directly with the web
21:36:51 Discarnate I do not. Nor am I interested in it at this time.
21:36:58 celindra I almost have one, ravi
21:37:11 celindra Just gotta get the insurance settled
21:37:12 Lazarus_Long I don't buy into resuccitatino theory, I don't believe all memory is chemical
21:37:21 Discarnate Laz - perhaps. I really suspect that there will be significant personal differences, and that each interface will be different.
21:37:27 Discarnate Good luck, celindra.


21:37:40 Lazarus_Long agreed celindra good luck
21:37:48 Discarnate Even if it is, I don't believe they've got good enough anti-icing protocols ATM.
21:38:02 ravi which one do u plan to sign up for Celindra? Alcor
21:38:13 celindra Alcor
21:38:26 celindra But I think my need for cryonics will be greatly reduced once my protective exoskeleton arrives in the mail ... in about 30 years
21:38:44 Lazarus_Long what is you ropino on the memory issue celindra?
21:38:54 Lazarus_Long opinion*
21:39:39 celindra I think its mostly chemical/electrical
21:39:51 celindra And should remain intact
21:40:25 Lazarus_Long I see two problems the body resusitates with no memory, or basically no body is resussitated just DNA rebuilt, it is the electrical encryption that i don't think is salvageable
21:40:50 Lazarus_Long chemical is signal but isit memory?
21:41:12 Lazarus_Long we do appear to have a field operating too
21:41:44 Discarnate Well... since we're well off the selfishness question, and work beckons... G'nite, y'all. *smile*
21:41:50 Discarnate Have a merry whatever-it-is...
21:41:52 Lazarus_Long that isn't frozen it is lost by law, you must be brain dead before they can freeze
21:42:03 Discarnate Discarnate (~Here@ny-utica7b-59.aburny.adelphia.net) has left #immortal

21:42:07 celindra For practical purposes, if it talks like me and walks like me .. it'll probably be me
21:42:11 Lazarus_Long Take Dis and I should depart as well
21:42:27 SharpTak figures, I just found the article Dis wanted too...
21:42:47 Lazarus_Long so as long as this body is reactivated it s a win in your opinion, that is ok
21:43:04 Lazarus_Long On Bush?
21:43:12 Lazarus_Long devaluing life?
21:43:17 SharpTak no, on the hippocampus
21:43:26 Lazarus_Long Just PM him the links
21:43:39 SharpTak though I plan on researching Bush's devalue of life as well...
21:43:46 celindra Frankly, we all have memories we could stand to lose :-)
21:44:19 Lazarus_Long that was some prety sneaky politicking he pulled in the last few weeks
21:44:47 SharpTak true, as much as I hate his policies he does have skill when it comes to sneaking things through legislation
21:44:59 Lazarus_Long Oh cleindra and here I am planning on adding a vast quantity of RAM and ROM to offset wanting to acquire vast new skills
21:45:34 ravi Laz...in ur opinion...what are the chances of the baby boomers staying alive until immortality comes along...
21:45:49 SharpTak well I've got a busy day tomorrow so g'night all. It was a pleasure finally being able to at least catch the tail end of a conversation here.
21:46:02 Lazarus_Long I wan tto put a math coprocesing ability onboard so that I can multitask
21:46:09 SharpTak SharpTak (JavaUser@ppp112.ms.centurytel.net) has quit IRC [Quit: Leaving]

21:46:18 Lazarus_Long limited ravi, most of us are not likely to survive our pasts
21:46:48 celindra I tend to agree with Laz
21:46:55 celindra Unfortunately
21:47:14 Lazarus_Long we have eaten wrong, lived among unregulated toxins, and have limited social ability to adapt to shifting memetic paradigms
21:47:38 ravi then for baby boomers u are saying, probobaly they will have to freeze themselves
21:48:25 celindra But the will to survive is a powerful force ... combine that with the potential for near-term immortatlity and who knows what can happen?
21:48:41 Lazarus_Long I thin the sociopsychological trauma may be worse than even teh physical, some form of stasis is there opportunity but I am saying they may not be able to adapt psychologically ergardless
21:48:51 Lazarus_Long regardless*
21:49:43 ravi well what i am afraid of is the religious backlash that will come when and if immortality comes
21:49:48 Lazarus_Long celindra look at how the gender issue was received tonignt and these were younger individuals generally
21:49:53 ravi it could set it back for years
21:50:45 Lazarus_Long I don't trust the establishmetn to not overrun cryo if it is not abroad in a stable isolated economy like Switzerland or sonething
21:51:15 Lazarus_Long one of my biggest fears on cryo is the third generation supports
21:51:48 celindra Cryo is at risk on all fronts -- legal, religous, etc.
21:51:57 Lazarus_Long as the responsibilityof keeping the corpsicles goes to latter generatins there will be a devline in economic support
21:52:05 Lazarus_Long decline*
21:52:40 Lazarus_Long the bills go up and as practical immortality becomes available no new takers to keep teh bills paid
21:52:40 ravi well if that i the only option...i will take it...it is better then being burned or put unerground
21:52:58 ravi *underground
21:53:02 Lazarus_Long Any port in a storm
21:53:39 Lazarus_Long I don't think cellular damage will get solved easily either
21:54:14 celindra Let's just hope that future generations adhere to the philosophy of Nikolai Federov:
21:54:16 celindra The common task of humanity is the resurrection of all previous generations. Brotherhood cannot be limited to the living but must include all generations.
21:54:35 ravi how far is nanotech today?
21:54:47 Lazarus_Long I think some aqueous substitution method will get developed but still so many questions
21:55:04 Lazarus_Long nanotech is still an unknown variable
21:55:17 Lazarus_Long lots of potential but the practical side is limited



21:55:56 Lazarus_Long thereare great things coming for electronics outof nanotech though and these will be in the five year range
21:56:45 Lazarus_Long they are proucing molecular size transistors and other components as well as superconductive switching
21:56:50 Lazarus_Long poroducing*
21:57:10 ravi Celindra...do u plan to have only ur head frozen or ur whole body
21:57:23 Lazarus_Long lousy typing I must go'
21:58:22 Lazarus_Long waiting for celindra to respond beore saying good bye
21:58:34 celindra Body
21:58:48 celindra Not much of a cost difference with insurance
21:59:30 Lazarus_Long do yo pay insurance till you need it or is it like a whole life policy that gets paid up?
21:59:52 Lazarus_Long term versus whole life I guess
21:59:57 celindra Whole life
22:00:11 celindra You have it payable to Alcor
22:00:28 celindra But you can change it to pay to anyone if you wish
22:00:29 Lukian Lukian (~mIRC@203-109-238-27.ultrawholesale.com.au) has joined #immortal

22:00:35 celindra In case you change your mind
22:00:53 celindra I don't think they let you do it with term
22:01:03 Lazarus_Long oh so Alcor isn't the underwiter, just teh beneficiary
22:01:10 celindra Right
22:01:33 Lazarus_Long did you say you are in your 30's?
22:01:39 celindra 20's
22:02:10 Lazarus_Long Why are you this concerned for the need to freeze, accident?
22:02:32 celindra Pretty much
22:02:52 ravi or sudden death
22:03:03 celindra It's somewhat of a psychological comfort
22:03:07 Lazarus_Long well I hope you never need it
22:03:19 celindra Not planning on using it :-)
22:03:27 Lazarus_Long I must go be well everyone
22:03:31 Lazarus_Long been fun
22:03:39 Lazarus_Long Lazarus_Long (JavaUser@ACA8AD27.ipt.aol.com) has quit IRC [Quit: Leaving]

22:04:35 ravi celindra...how did u get interested in immortality
22:04:53 celindra Good question .. I don't really remember
22:05:10 celindra I took a long and twisted path to get to this point in my life
22:06:08 celindra Really, I think it was abandoning religion that did it
22:06:21 ravi well for me i took a hard look at my religion (hinduism) and other religios
22:06:22 celindra No one to look out for me at that point
22:06:48 ravi and all religions have a common theme for expaning death
22:06:58 celindra Yes, and for accepting death
22:07:30 ravi but every religion has a difff. explanation
22:07:44 ravi how can all these religions be right?
22:08:36 ravi i mean i would like to believe in my religion and accept reincarination...but it doesn't seem possible to me
22:08:53 ravi i guess i take the scientific approach
22:09:30 ravi also i ran into this quote.."Being born is not a crime so why should it carry a death sentence"
22:09:46 celindra True
22:10:02 celindra Religion serves a purpose
22:10:20 celindra But it is not always beneficial
22:10:25 celindra In reality, immortalists walk a dark and lonely path, knowing that if they fail, they will cease to exist. I sometimes envy the religous -- they seem to have something to fall back on other than their own efforts.
22:11:41 ravi i mean if people really beleive they are going to heaven after death///why not kill ur self now...why go throught this life when u knw u have heaven waiting for u?
22:11:52 celindra Exactly
22:12:21 celindra Much of theology is spent arguing why dying is good, but suicide is bad
22:12:31 ravi everybody wants to live that extra year...even if u have a deadly disease...they ant to vreath a extra day
22:12:49 ravi wnat to breath
22:13:34 ravi true
22:14:53 ravi well i think generation X, which u and me are in, def. won't have to resort to cryogencis
22:15:14 ravi it is the baby boomers who are on the edge
22:16:09 celindra Sadly, the boomers are a large chunk of the population
22:16:28 celindra I hope they don't need cryo
22:16:52 ravi true, i just wish i could convince my mom and dad to buy into immortality and at least sign up for cryo
22:17:14 ravi but they beleive in their religion...and think immortality is impossible
22:18:00 celindra Still a chance for them to change
22:18:11 ravi my parents are part of the baby boomer generation

22:18:23 ravi yes i knw...and i am working on them
22:18:25 celindra The grand future technology spectacle is just beginning
22:18:50 celindra They'll change when they experience that
22:18:51 ravi they think i am wasting my time reading immortality books, articles and etc
22:19:26 celindra Hmm ... they sound secure in their beliefs
22:19:35 celindra You'll have to shake their foundations a bit
22:19:45 celindra Open up some cracks in their armor
22:19:56 ravi well not secure...they think i am crazy thinking i could be immortal
22:20:12 ravi i am sure they would leave their religion...if they knw they could live forever
22:20:18 ravi like most people
22:20:51 ravi but they think it is impossible...which i hope not so near in the future we can change that attitude
22:21:35 ravi when more tech comes out...i am sure more people will start believing
22:21:36 celindra My parents are neutral -- they have grave plots already reserved, but I think I could convince them to go cryo
22:22:03 ravi how old are ur parents
22:22:14 celindra 40ish
22:22:48 celindra In fact, if I paid for the life insurance, I'm almost certain they'd go for it.
22:22:56 jubungalord jubungalord (~jubungalo@63.172.169.95) has joined #immortal

22:23:11 ravi i would do anything to get my parents on a cyro plan
22:23:52 celindra What is their objection?
22:24:05 celindra Do they think they won't be reincarnated if frozen?
22:24:05 ravi i just can't even imangine my parents dead....i would do anything to save their lives...if only they would do the sma
22:24:14 ravi that is part of it
22:24:16 ravi i beleive
22:24:37 ravi hindus hold scared of releasing th soul after death
22:24:59 ravi if u don't release the soul then u will never be reincarinated
22:25:22 ravi second, they think i am crazy
22:25:33 ravi even to think of immortality
22:25:44 ravi they beleive it si impossible
22:26:16 ravi which i hope when new technologies come out that they will change their minds
22:27:12 celindra The big pre-singularity tech buildup is what I call the grand spectacle
22:27:28 celindra I think it will be the single biggest evangelizer for immortality
22:27:35 ravi when do u think the singularity will come
22:27:42 celindra Dunno
22:27:50 celindra The infrastructre isn't there yet
22:29:50 ravi well the baby boomers have time...i just hope it is enough time
22:30:41 ravi u don't think generation X would have to get frozen do u?
22:30:58 celindra 50 / 50 chance
22:31:03 celindra Depends on what we do
22:31:23 celindra Immortality takes a focused effort
22:31:59 celindra I feel powerless sitting around waiting for others to do things
22:32:15 celindra So I try to do something -- anything
22:32:29 ravi well i beleive if we put in the effort like when we initally build the space program....we could have aging under control in 20 years
22:32:41 celindra Yes
22:32:44 ravi if only we can find a president that will do that
22:32:59 ravi def NOT BUSH
22:33:04 celindra Won't happen
22:33:41 celindra Sadly, this generation may have to pass on for any true progress to occur
22:33:49 celindra They have the money and the power
22:34:26 ravi but i don't think the organization is there
22:36:42 celindra Right
22:36:56 celindra How many organizations have an anti-aging mission?
22:37:00 celindra Few
22:37:03 celindra Too few
22:37:19 ravi well same here...i feel helpless just siting here...so i try to at least educate my self as much as i can on the topic and stay up to date....
22:37:39 celindra That's something ... better than apathy
22:38:06 ravi i beleive i worry to much sometime about death...soem once said "don't be afraid u will die...be afraid u never lived"
22:40:17 celindra Right, sometimes you just have to suck it up and admit that you may die
22:41:02 ravi this is the only life u are garenteed
22:42:17 ravi well i gotta get some sleep..nice chatting with u celindra....take care and good night
22:42:26 celindra But you have See ya

[Discarnate]

Eliezer made an excellent point about this chat topic, which I kept meaning to bring up.

My answer to the initial question "Is immortality selfish" is an instant "of course". That's because I see life as being selfish, in any form, and (most? any?) activity of life as being selfish. This is true from a resource standpoint - that is, it takes resources for life to perform any action, and there are limited resources available, reducing the resources available for other actions.

Basic economics, in other words.

However, there's another formulation of the same question - How selfish is the search for immortality compared to NOT seeking immortality.

This is a much less easily defined answer, in part because we really don't know what the costs of immortality will be. At all. Oh, we've got a few hints, but most of it is *not* understood at this time, and won't be until we actually have something similar in place.

Also, in part, it depends on how we use such a technology. I think most people here would object to using such a technology ONLY to extend the lives of, to pick a much maligned group, lawyers. Yet such a group DOES have much practically applicable power. What's to prevent them from gaining control of such a process and limiting it to themselves?

I'm sure there's people here who, on reading that last, are certain that the technology in question will become 'free' or 'copyleft', or 'public domain' or the like. Could be - I hope so. I also hope that there are no major costs associated with this - immortality for a few MIGHT WELL BE worse than no immortality at all. It sure was a staple of sci-fi on such a while back, those few books which directly addressed the issue.

And most of those books would fit the 'horror' genre, as well as the sci-fi genre.

So - let's rephrase this question a bit - What's the cost of the search for immortality, and is it - given all the possible (if not probable) results and side effects - worth such a cost?

[immortalitysystems.com]

Discarnate,

Live is extremely dangerous.
Only the breaking of laws, on the genetic level that would be called a mutation, makes evolution possibel.
On the memetic level, should we call it culture, there has always been a breaking of "laws" that brought us to the point were we are now.

If we combine "gene engineering" and "extraterrestrial (off planet) migration" there will be benefits that justify most means.

I am in my 6Oth so don't blame me if i hope that there will be somebody soon who has the ability and moral courage to do what it takes to offer us a way to go to "heaven/orbital space" without having to die first. The option of feeling like when i was 25 would be good too!

[Discarnate]

Life definitely *is* dangerous.

One of the potential dangers is a lack of cohesion in society. One potential risk factor for that is the breaking of laws.

I almost agree with your statement, 'If we combine "gene engineering" and "extraterrestrial (off planet) migration" there will be benefits that justify most means.'

If we get off planet, there MIGHT be benefits for some, either those which hold the financial reins on earth or those who make the break for the stars. The remainder will be in the same situation, except some percentage of resources will have been used up on getting others benefits out of space.

I don't blaim you, or anyone, for hoping. I do blaim pepole who promote a course of actions without looking at the drawbacks at the same time as the benefits.

-Discarnate

[Lazarus Long]

Almost three fourths of the Earth’s surface is water, and we exploit it excessively till stocks are nearly depleted. Even if we try to properly repopulate some stocks the process will take decades and there is more than sufficient room. Many of us can move to the sea.

Between nanotech and adaptive genetic applications we could create true underwater habitat in one generation that could receive millions into artificial reef and developed regions. Amphibious submerged cities accessible from above through entry exit ports at key stations and underwater on the shelves and banks with floating islands and aquaculture farming are definitely with in reason. These underwater cities would be chambered but beyond the hurricanes and typhoons by virtue of being submerged.

Nanotech suits can probably provide even a pure terrestrial type adequate adaptive ability even without changing the genetics. Artificial gills could be made to be almost as reliable as natural ones. But there would be numerous aspects, the ability to generate a surface charge like an electric eel for defense, and biomimetic enhanced musculature for added speed and distance under your own power. These underwater urban environments would be little different than malls in many respects but powered by various energy sources including geothermal when located by vents and volcanic sources.

The point is that it would be vast easier and less far to be able to provide a new age of colonization to move of shore. It cannot be done for long but it might buy enough time to learn how to effectively go off world. There is room however to move billions of people and social function into the seas around the world and this could be done just into the twelve mile limits in to absorb people and develop the technology but once it is developed the new cities could be built at many place around the globe.