Re: Extropian Principles 3.0: Final (?) version now up

Max More (
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:06:18 -0800

I've changed the phrasing in the Perpetual Improvement section to this: "Extropians affirm a rational, non-coercive environmentalism aimed at sustaining
and enhancing the conditions for our flourishing."

No mention of a price system. I do think that, in just about all cases (dealing
with possible ozone deletion may possibly be an exception) using the price mechanism (and carefully defining property rights where they currently don't exist, such as in ocean fishing) is the best way to handle pollution and resources. If a non-price mechanism can do the job as well at less cost, that's
fine. The Principles are not intended to specify particular mechanisms, so I'm grateful that you pointed this out. I presume that you will not find anything objectionable in this rephrasing.

At 12:17 PM 10/27/98 +1300, J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
>because there would be no business to be had when it became known that
>anyone could make the battery without my say so, which is exactly the
>case and is why your National Security Agencies would destroy anyone who
>acted against their vested interests.

This now has nothing to do with the Principles, but I do want to briefly comment. I see no reason to expect the NSA to destroy someone who invents a great technology that they want to give away. Please give some reason to believe your extraordinary claim. Even if your claim were true, it has nothing to do with what I (or many Extropians) propose, since the NSA is a government agency that we would be glad to do away with (and the FDA and other such regulatory agencies that often *are* used to suppress competition). What you're
talking about may exist in capitalism, but it's not the free market capitalism that many of us favor.

>Money has many of the properties of platinum in the above crude
>manufacturing example, i.e., it clumps together in some areas and leaves
>other spaces largely empty. Furthermore, corporations that use money are
>the epitome of authoritarianism in that they don't tend to create
>anything worthwhile that they can't control.

How is it authoritarian to *refrain* from doing something?

>Sorry Max, but I see many signs of alternatives to the price system. My
>own AI primitive, The Ingrid Thought Processor, for example, can handle
>information far more diverse than conventional accounting systems and
>yet isn't bogged down by concepts of wealth; - it is a factor but only
>one of many. The fact that it is capable of channeling the information
>conduits to create the above battery example is a case in point. I give
>Ingrid away and will spend the rest of my life in its development; -
>others are also.

No one's stopping you. (Have you been visited by the NSA?) If it works and does
all you claim, then I don't see Extropians doing anything other than celebrating the improvement in social systems. Until we see it working, I think
most of us are skeptical. Previous attempts to do away with markets, money, and
prices in complex societies have led only to massive economic dislocation and starvation. Those of us who have read our Hayek understand the role of the price system as an information signalling mechanism that is hard to beat. (It's
not always necessary--in simple economies barter works; in households non-monetary exchanges work; within corporations multiple market transactions are replaced with simple direction that everyone has agreed to).

Apart from this, I agree with Robin's response. "Capital" doesn't imply money.


Max More, Ph.D. (soon also: <>)
Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies President, Extropy Institute:,