45 replies to this topic

[DJS]

A topic that I have become interested in, but can't find a lick of information on is [trends for futurism world wide].

Does anyone know what our numbers/vital stats are? Is futurism growing faster in certain societies than in others?

I've noticed the thread where German Immortalists are trying to team up with us. Where is the idea of life extension at in Germany, or Russia, or China?

Can we start networking with our brethren?

Also, if anyone has found any statistics on futurism/THism/Immortalism in other cultures please let me know.

Thanks

DonS

Edited by DonSpanton, 15 February 2005 - 07:12 PM.

[Chip]

I came across the following site yesterday http://www.bethechange.org.uk/ . I've joined but haven't contributed to their forum yet. Seems it is mainly sociological in its leanings but I see that one of their requested speakers is founder of a neutriceutical supplying company. Metabolics - Functional Biochemistry
(Chris Astill-Smith, DO - England) http://www.metabolics.co.uk

Seems one could ask for the information you seek, that would be of interest to me too and perhaps many of Imminst at "Be The Change."

Networking similar minded individuals seems to be crucial to our chances. See the article on Bit Torrent in the latest Discover Magazine? They suggest that this P2P paradigm may become the major architecture of the web.

[Kalepha]

Don, what’s more important, getting people to fantasize about the same problems we fantasize about or acquiring the funds to achieve our arbitrary goals, which are time-sensitive, as quickly as possible? If the former, we shall become self-righteous missionaries of The Word. If the latter, there’s little point in focusing much outside the territory where the gross national income is as high as the rest of the world combined.

[kraemahz]

Nate, the two things are not mutually exclusive. The more people who believe in the cause the more chance there is for it to be funded. Furthermore, this is and should be a global effort. To say that America and its few good allies are all we need to complete our goals is self-centered foolishness. It's not like we can't garner international support while aquiring funding. It's a simple point of numbers: The more people who ascribe to the cause the more hands there are to work towards it.

[Kalepha]

Don, I should add that I’m aware you’re asking for a census of pre-existing futurists. But since we already know this demographic is so small, I can’t understand how a census would be of any help other than searching for one of this infinitesimal magnitude would entail injecting memes more so than observing them.

[Kalepha]

Kraemahz, if someone isn’t already self-motivated to become physically immortal without external persuasion, then they would turn out to be useless for all practical purposes.

[Chip]

Oh bother, Nate. That is ridiculous. I do agree with you concerning the numbers not being of that great importance but the idea that someone not on the boat now wont be of significant assistance to the vessels smooth and productive sailing eventually, hogwash.

Ultimately, the numbers will be of value. I like the insight knowledge of how Bit Torrent takes advantage of the swarming of communications to make it an asset rather than destroying the sources of data. Another way to think of it is we are an amorphous solution and "interjecting memes" may lead to crystalizing of ideas. I really don't like to use the word memes as I think it detracts and we are better off considering concepts and understandings and seek to communicate them in a way that enhances our efforts to find immortality. That being said, maybe if the right idea can be synthesized by relatively like minded individuals it will retroactively cause this amorphous collection to be a super-saturated solution and "something wonderful is going to happen."

[Kalepha]

Chip, undoubtedly it's a fine balance between how many super-minds we ultimately want existing inside too tight of a space and how many super-minds we need to neutralize existential threats. For some, other minds affecting space of other minds is worse than death.

[Chip]

Hmmm, yes, I see that dichotomy as a reasonable conjecture. If you take a look at the video of the last conference that Be the Change fostered, on their home page http://www.bethechange.org.uk/ , you can see that some actually think there are no limits to the space.

Existential threats and who we take into our fold to help deal with them are directly related to what we think we are as existing beings. Some think we are part of humanity. Others, only see individuals, trees in the forest?

[JMorgan]

Kraemahz, if someone isn’t already self-motivated to become physically immortal without external persuasion, then they would turn out to be useless for all practical purposes.

I believe the vast majority of people simply don't believe it's even possible. I was't self-motivated... I didn't even believe it was possible until a few months ago! Now that I do, I support it 100%.

[JMorgan]

Since we already know this demographic is so small, I can’t understand how a census would be of any help...

You never know where the next Einstein or Edison will come from. Every person we find can add something to the debate, or may have an idea we hadn't thought of.

Also, I would argue that "progress" itself carries it's own singularity curve. Progress starts out slow, but then builds up faster and faster until it reaches a tipping point. Often the most amount of progress occurs at the end of the curve. We will not achieve anything substantial until the entire world recognizes the possibility of radical life extension. Only then will we truly see the results of what we set in motion.

Interestingly, I dont think the United States will be the ones to push this progress through. There are still too many ignorant minds here to allow it to happen. The major advances are taking place in Europe, Asia, Israel, and other places where people aren't held back by the "ethical" debate.

[Kalepha]

Chip Existential threats and who we take into our fold to help deal with them are directly related to what we think we are as existing beings.

Chip, I already know what I am as an existing being: one who is conned by non-truth-bearing evolutionary forces to believe that imagining problems and solving them bears truth. If I am going to vainly allow myself to self-deceive, I utterly can’t see why I should be proactive in proselytizing and cultivating more vain self-deceivers. But, by all means, be my guest – I simply don’t have the stomach.

[Chip]

I appreciate the acknowledgement that you are self-deceiving but sounds like a vicious circle of no escape to use that as an excuse for anything whatsoever, expecially the afore judgement of other people near and far as having the same failing.

Oh well. As to the topic, one might look for the online version of The Futurist magazine but being somewhat of a top down organization, it might prove as a reference for data and statistics rather than links to networking. I think that "Be the Change" forum holds potentials. There should be others out there like it. What ever happened to the Extropians? Did I spell that right?

[Chip]

Oh, The Futurist is published by the World Future Society. They apparently sponser a number of forums. Weeeee...

http://www.wfs.org/inter.htm

Scrap that. They really are not forums, go figure. Still might be a lead to explore this topic further.

[Chip]

Ah, yes. The list of affiliates of which Immortality Institute is one made the following worthy of a bookmark for me, The Extropy Institute

[Kalepha]

Malchiah, the context might be more complicated than the general problem you identify with the context you perceive. Some of us might be impelled to imagine a larger problem than death. Combined with a time period and a way one is situated in the universe, there might not be enough cognitively accessible information to make the Panglossian guess that by concentrating only on death as an exclusive class of problem we are more likely to live happily ever after.

[Kalepha]

The first step is to distinguish between compelling and impelling problems. The second step is to describe one's problems as impelling, because that's what they are. The third step is to solve them without pretending they're compelling problems.

Although this procedure is monumentally more difficult than procedure types instilled by instincts, if enough cognitions act like authentic cognitions, the universal descriptions of impelling problems become much more imaginative and complex, while their solutions would entail greater outcomes not possible otherwise, had problems been postulated with universal descriptions that falsely presume they're compelling.

I simply don't see a bright light at the end of the tunnel where cognitions make judgments based on false representations of themselves.

[Kalepha]

[*]compelling forces: cognitive-independent forces
[*]impelling forces: cognitive-dependent forces

[brokenportal]

If we are to pursue absolute truths then I don't find it problematic to facilitate that pursuit through achieving indefinite lifespans and unfettered intelligence.

[brokenportal]

Cosmos

So what your saying is that of course, as most to all of us beleive, that the way to find absolute truth is most likely through indefinite life spans....

I step out on a limb, the same limb you may, and many others, and say that there is an absolute truth that I support which is that all of the critical thinking of human kind want the best good for themselves.

How do you get the best good for yourself in any other way than continuing to explicate the infinity of good that comes with existence? What other good could there be?

The only way to refute this would be to assert that more good could come from non existence, wouldnt it? You tell me.



---I wrote this once and it made a lot more sense. Then it got erased through computer glitches. Dont you hate that?---

[DJS]

There is the definite possibility that all values (and therefore goals) are arbitrary. But it would then folow that my values are just as good as anyone else's. And since I am impelled to choose a set of values for myself, then they might as well be the ones generated from within my subjective reality. It only makes sense that the values which I am most intimate with, the ones which structure my universe, are the one that I would desire to perpetuate. Indeed, this preference could also be nothing more than an evolutionary construct. Oh well life sucks, get a helmet )

Nate, simply put, I do have the stomach for it and if all values are arbitrary then who are you to judge?

Yes, I have an agenda. Yes, I am very much the animal...

Edited by DonSpanton, 17 February 2005 - 12:53 AM.

[DJS]

Why?

Why not?

[DJS]

The question that keeps coming to my mind Nate is this: if there was a universe of arbitrary values and another of non-arbitary ones, which would you choose?

[Kalepha]

Don Nate, simply put, I do have the stomach for it and if all values are arbitrary then who are you to judge?

I’m glad you have the stomach, Don. It may or may not blind you from what will be relevant, according to you, to your future self. I’m not sure. I can only share that I perceive enough avenues toward what I think will be relevant to my future self to where I don’t need to be intellectually incoherent. But this doesn’t imply I believe that you are.

If I believe, combined, which I do, (a) that I can shut completely down at any instant, (b) that every single problem (i.e., goals, values) is contingent and imaginary, © that zero of my problems are inherently anyone else’s problem, (d) that there are various avenues to pursue in solving any one of my imaginary problems, and (e) that other minds affect what will be relevant to my future self whenever they try to solve problems as if they are inherently my problems, then I would be intellectually incoherent if I strut around the universe as if it’s necessary that cognitions other than me should share the same fantasies.

If you don’t believe what I believe, then you may not be intellectually incoherent. I wouldn’t know. I can only use myself, usually, to explicate how and why I might have a scruple for particular actions. Take from it what you will.

Don The question that keeps coming to my mind Nate is this: if there was a universe of arbitrary values and another of non-arbitary ones, which would you choose?

Most certainly arbitrary. It has just come to implicate that a philosophy is a lot harder to develop than what I had originally anticipated. But I wouldn’t have it any other way.

[Chip]

If you want to spend your time pontificatiing about pointlessness, enjoy.

[sleep]

[Kalepha]

cosmos My question to you Nate, do you believe all activism is intellectually incoherent?

I think that would depend on (d) mostly. If one feels he or she (1) understands the state of affairs well enough and (2) still can’t devise alternative courses of action, then perhaps the least one would do is search for like-mindedness.

cosmos Do you anticipate your beliefs could change with a recursively self-improving transhuman intellect?

In terms of imposition, I can only hope not. If I can’t set reasonable boundaries (which would be invisibility by today’s standards) while not being violated by other cognitions even then, then I wouldn’t be intelligent – I’d still be a barbarian.