Re: The End of Privacy ?

Michael Lorrey (
Wed, 01 Jul 1998 21:56:06 -0400

den Otter wrote:

> Anders Sandberg wrote:
> <snipped some excellent points in order to provide some superficial
> comments>
> > I'm a bit worried that the discussions on this list (and elsewhere)
> > tend to be dominated by less well considered opinions (or what
> > *appears* to be little considered opinions at least). There are many
> > people out there who actually think extropians are gun-toting
> Some extropians /transhumanists have guns yes, and others don't have
> them but would *like* to have them. However, the majority seems to
> either not to care about guns, or outright reject them. Whether this
> is good or bad is another discussion alltogether, of course.

Actually as I recall, in the informal, unscientific, anonymous survey I took on this list this past winter, those who admitted to gun ownership out numbered those who admitted to non-gun ownership by 2 to 1, and if you included those who did not own guns but wanted to in the 'pro-gun' group, of all those who spoke to me privately on the issue, around 70-75% were 'pro-gun'.

Since Prof. John Lott's research of FBI crime stats over many years has shown that gun ownerhip conclusively reduces the incidence of crime, while most other 'less well considered' policies tend to increase or have no effect on crime, that gun ownership is an important extropian theme.

> > survivalists
> We certainly are survivalists. Not only we don't want to die
> prematurely, we even don't want to die *at all*. We reject the
> inevitability of death itself. It doesn't get more survivalist than
> that! ;-)

Exactly. Personal defense is an important part of any longevity plan.

> > beliving in a technocalypse
> Belief in the singularity is indeed pretty mainstream in transhumanism.
> The possibility of a technogeddon is even mentioned in the transhuman
> principles.

Yes, though most extropians disparage those who dwell so negatively on catastrophes, calling such behavior 'disasturbation'.

> > , and all this talk about
> > creating heavily fortified island nations,
> Fotified or not (I prefer obscure myself), an island nation would
> solve several problems at once (for example: euthanasia & cryonics,
> freedom from idiotic taxes, right to take any drugs & treatments
> you want, conduct all sorts of business that's heaviliy regulated/
> illegal/overtaxed in other regions, unregulated use of gene therapy/body
> augmentation etc.) In the case of a nuclear war or some other global
> disaster, a remote island can mean the difference between life and
> death.

Except for global warming, and oceanic asteroidal/cometary impacts....I personally perfer the tops of old, geologically dormant mountains (they are easier to build skyhooks on too!)

> > surviving the Y2000 problem
> Although I personally don't expect any really serious problems, let
> alone the end of civilization, it's better to be safe than sorry.
> Stacking up on emergency supplies is relatively simple, and can
> mean a great difference if, against all odds, things go very wrong.

The year 2000 will be a great year to go bankrupt in.... hide your assets folks...

> > and escaping into space
> Moving to space (preferably some time *before* the singularity/
> some other disaster) is a very sound idea: distance is a great
> defense; it buys you time to prepare for whatever comes
> your way. If it turns out that there's no disaster, you can
> always go back or whatever (and in space you're pretty much
> free to do what you want, much more so than on an island).
> Of course the feasibility of escaping to, and living in, space
> is something else, but it certainly shouldn't be dismissed as
> paranoia.

Its mostly for those who want to see a bit of the universe first, or are worried about thermonuclear games by post human godlings....

> > doesn't help that image.
> Imo, the image is largely correct. Or at least it *should be*
> correct. Right now there's way to little focus on the practical
> side of facing the radical changes which we predict. Of course,
> I know what you mean; the above libertarian-esque ideas have
> been tainted by other groups, so we shouldn't talk about them
> for PR reasons. Nevertheless, I think survival and prospering
> are too fundamental goals to be compromised. If there's a way to have
> our cake and eat it too (i.e. being a successful "survivalist"
> group while keeping a "politically correct" image),

Yes, being a tree hugging, tofu munching, pacifist can certainly help to dissuade public disfavor, unless you move to Antelope, Wyoming.....

> then that
> would be great, of course. Maybe it could be done by keeping
> the "practical" institutions (if there ever will be any) at
> least officially separate from the "educational" ones. In
> any case, all our eggs should not be in one basket.
> > Let's use rational thinking instead, and use our tools of theoretical
> > applied science, game theory, economics and sociology to do some
> > serious analysis of the problem.
> Yes, of course. But isn't there already a consensus that there will
> be very radical changes within the next 30-100 years? And given the
> many wars and other violence troughout history (and even today), it
> is only logical to assume that sooner or later the new powerful
> technologies will be used to cause harm. The fact that increasing
> numbers of people will have access to increasingly more powerful
> (potential) weapons only makes matters worse. Indeed if we do go
> extinct, it will probably be within the coming decades. To survive
> strange times, strange measures (like moving to space) might be needed.

Very much so, and covering your ass every step of the way with whatever means necessary may also be needed.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?