Eudaemonists Mailing List Archives October 2003

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:55 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] FSP Tracking progress

Mike Lorrey said:

>
> We're pretty sure NH is going to win the FSP vote. A large number of
> members are ready to move as soon as the vote is announced.
>

This is indeed good news, seeing as I live in CT, a move to New
Hampshire wont be a big deal.

I had read mention that the FSP will be disbanded following the voting
of the state, since its goal had been achieved, though it may remain in
some form. I was wondering if there were any plans to objectively track
the progress made toward freedom, both politically and economically, and
if this is something the FSP might be interested in doing after the
vote. It would serve to prove what they had been saying.

Thinking of how one might track these is interesting, any suggestions
out there?

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:25 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Cc: transtopia@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] NH wins Free State Project vote.... and party

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACTS:

Elizabeth McKinstry, Vice-President
Phone: 734-904-5712
Email: emckinstry@freestateproject.org
Jason Sorens, President
Phone: 203-432-5824
Email: jsorens@freestateproject.org
Website: www.freestateproject.org

Free State Project picks New Hampshire

· Group aims to recruit 20,000 liberty-minded individuals to move

· Membership vote selects NH out of ten candidates for planned
migration

· Free Staters hope to reinforce, enhance "sphere of individual
liberty" in the Live Free or Die state

· Project has earned backing of NH governor, some state legislators

· Trickle of early movers expected to start this year

Aiming to preserve one bastion of freedom in the age of intrusive
government, members of the rapidly growing Free State Project (FSP)
have made a crucial decision. Voting via mail-in ballot after months of
feisty debate, Free Staters chose New Hampshire as their future home.

Founded in 2001, the FSP's goal is to concentrate 20,000
liberty-oriented voters in one state. There, it is hoped, they will
work to enhance and extend its existing culture of liberty. But until
this week, it was anyone's guess whether that state would be Montana,
Wyoming, Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Idaho, North
Dakota, South Dakota, or Alaska.

The membership election took place through the innovative Condorcet's
Method, which allowed voters to rank all states and selected the state
that received a higher ranking than each other state from a majority of
voters. The runner-up state was Wyoming, which defeated every other
state but fell to New Hampshire by the decisive margin of 55 per cent
to 45 per cent.

"New Hampshire is clearly the consensus choice of Free Staters,"
commented FSP President and Yale political science professor Jason
Sorens. "New Hampshire won a plurality of first-preference votes from
every region of the country except the West."

"It's not difficult to see the reasons for New Hampshire's victory,"
adds Vice-President Elizabeth McKinstry, who is originally from New
England. "The state boasts the lowest state and local tax burden in
the continental U.S., the leanest state government in the country in
terms of government spending and employment, a citizen legislature, a
healthy job market, and perhaps most important, local support for our
movement."

Over 100 New Hampshire residents have signed up for the Free State
Project already, willing to move elsewhere but hoping to bring the
movement to their home state. Governor Craig Benson even pledged to
support the aims of the FSP, and several members of the legislature
have signed up as members.

According to FSP Director of Member Services and Florida attorney Tim
Condon, Free Staters should also be a boon for the economy of New
Hampshire. "According to a member survey conducted concomitantly with
the vote, 50% of our members have at least a Bachelor's degree, with
18% having done postgraduate work. Seventy-five per cent are under age
50, with 38% between the ages of 18 and 34. Those earning $60,000 or
more per year constitute 44% of all members. The clear picture that
emerges is one of a largely young, well educated, upwardly mobile
group."

Several hurdles still face the movement, which currently has about
4,500 members pledged to migrate to New Hampshire. These challenges
include recruiting another 15,500 members and continuing to build
support for their cause within New Hampshire. If current recruitment
trends continue, the group expects to reach 20,000 commitments by 2006,
after which point members have five years in which to move.

But as Condon notes, "The member survey shows that 53% of members plan
to move within three years, not waiting for the 20,000-member
benchmark. Early movers should help recruitment by building a record
of success."

CELEBRATION PARTY: Concord, NH

Come one, come all!! Everyone welcome.

Don Gorman and John Barnes have planned a celebration tonight
following the announcement that New Hampshire has been selected as
the Free State.

Place: Barley House Restaurant
Address: 161 North Main St., Concord, NH (across from the State House)
Time: 7:00 pm

We hope to see everyone there!!

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:32 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] good bye...

> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
>
> Michael writes
>
> > As I said when starting this list, all ideas will be welcome, but
> > purveyors of ideas must realize that they will be called to task by
> > others who may disagree with them. I want to point out that had
this
> > discussion occurred on the extropy list, it is likely that, Mike
Lorrey,
> > and John Clark would have been warned for being to abrasive, or some
> > such nonsense.
>
> Hmmm. Actually, I was about to issue the following
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Office of the Eudaemonist List Police
>
> C I T A T I O N
>
> Named Offender: Michael Lorrey
> Crime: Excessively Abusive Language
> Named Victim: Perry Metzger
> Date of Offense: Thursday, September 25, 2003
>
> Evidence of Guilt:
> ...
>
> Particular Charge: Personal attack consisting of insulting
> characterization of a gross portion of
> the physical person of the victim, to wit,
> "[your] bitchy little ass"

On the contrary, I would consider this the grey area between an ad
hominem attack and a mere objective description. I called Perry
Ignorant of cold war geopolitical issues many times, I was merely
stating a fact. I am not sure how small Perry's ass is, it may be
little or it may be large, if it is little, then that would be a mere
objective description. If it is large, then perhaps it would make him
feel better about his rear having someone say it was little. As for
Bitchy, incessant complaining seems to have been Perry's forte in that
debate, and 'Bitchy' seems an adequate descriptor. Had Mike Lorrey said
'You fuck face, Nazi, caveman!' I would have perhaps considered it an
unnecessary ad hominem.

However, Perry was being very brash and absolutely convinced of the
validity of his convictions, and the second I challenged him, pointing
out that he was giving sanction of the victim by paying tax dollars and
thus subjugating his sacrosanct ideals for practicality, that he could
no longer call himself a libertarian. He then took his ball and went
home, sounds like either being 'bitchy' or being a troll to me.

>
> Particular Charge: Demeaning characterization of victim's
> alleged personal behavior, "hiding"
> in an apartment, insinuating cowardice

Given the context of the discussion, Perry arguing that he was a
libertarian and we were not, this was a valid piece of evidence against
his case. Since he was willingly participating in the very system he
condemned, he was as guilty as any of us. (Though I do not consider us
'guilty')

>
> Particular Charge: Sarcastic characterization of victim's
> personal lifestyles and tastes, to wit,
> viz., "sip your lattes", "Indian cuisine"
> in an unnecessarily offensive and insulting
> manner.

Well, does Perry sip lattes? Eat Indian Cuisine? I know not...

>
> Punishment: To be determined by his honor list owner
> and high mucky-muck Michael F. Dickey, Esq.
> ______________________________________________________________

As punishment, Mr. Lorrey has to send me $5 =)

>
>
> But (perhaps fortunately), I was pressed for time during the alleged
> incident, and had to forego my constabular duties. But let this be
> a warning to those who engage in offensive behavior.
>
> Lee Corbin, Self-Appointed List Policeman.

Well, Mr. Self Appointed list policeman, remember the NCP!!! I don't
want to see the MAN abusing his power.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:44 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] September Archives posted

Hey guys, the discussions from September are available in the archive
now.

http://www.matus1976.com/eudaemonists/mailing_list.htm (scroll to
bottom)

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:17 PM
To: Matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] good bye...

--- Matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
> >
> > Particular Charge: Sarcastic characterization of victim's
> > personal lifestyles and tastes, to wit,
> > viz., "sip your lattes", "Indian cuisine"
> > in an unnecessarily offensive and insulting
> > manner.
>
> Well, does Perry sip lattes? Eat Indian Cuisine? I know not...

I would not have said so I if I did not know for a fact that Perry
does. I've witnessed him doing so. When we met at a vegan Indian
restaurant in New York for an extropians meet, he was just as snooty,
so I'm not speaking from ignorance here.

>
> >
> > Punishment: To be determined by his honor list owner
> > and high mucky-muck Michael F. Dickey, Esq.
> > ______________________________________________________________
>
> As punishment, Mr. Lorrey has to send me $5 =)

If you move to the Free State, I'll buy you a beer...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:17 PM
To: Matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] good bye...

If you move to the Free State, I'll buy you a beer...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 6:02 PM
To: John Barnes; Richard Berger; Jaqueline Casey; eudaemonists@matus1976.com; exi freedom list; Dan Suse; Dan Suse; Michael Weins; Andrew Lorrey; Norman Lorrey; Bill Mann; Catherine Melocik; Cynthia and Russell Melocik; Elizabeth Monteleone; Thomas Monteleone; Harvey Newstrom; FSP NH Live Free or Die; galtsgulch@yahoogroups.com; Travis Hardwick; Jo Hastings; Doug Jones; karen.b.lorrey@valley.net
Subject: [eudaemonists] COOL TIP: Protect your address book against worms

I belong to a lot of email lists, which is how I know most people that
I am sending this to. Email worms have become a big problem lately on
the internet, because they grab your address book and send themselves
to everyone it it starting at the top. Here is a great tip a friend
sent me which will help protect your address book against being used by
worms to spread themselves. I highly recommend you use this for
yourself and tell others about it, as well as any other good strategies
you come up with. Worms spread exponentially via email. The best way to
combat them is to spread knowledge by the same method. Enjoy:

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR ADDRESS BOOK!

I learned a computer trick today that's really
ingenious in its simplicity. As you may know, when/if
a worm virus gets into your computer it heads straight
for your email address book, and sends itself
to everyone in there, thus infecting all your friends
and associates.

This trick won't keep the virus from getting into your
computer, but it will stop it from using your address
book to spread further, and it will alert you to the
fact that the worm has gotten into your system.

Here's what you do:

First, open your address book and click on "new
contact," just as you would do if you were adding a
new friend to your list of email addresses.

In the window where you would type your friend's first
name, type in "A".

For the screen name or email address,
"AAAAAAA@AAA.AAA".
Now, here's what you've done and why it works:

The "name" "A" will be placed at the top of your
address book as entry#1.

This will be where the worm will start in an effort to
send itself to all your friends. But, when it tries
to send itself to AAAAAAA@AAA.AAA, it will be
undeliverable because of the phony email address you
entered. If the first attempt fails (which it will
because of the phony address), the worm goes no
further and your friends will not be infected.
Here's the second great advantage of this method:
If an email cannot be delivered, you will be notified
of this in your In Box almost immediately. Hence, if
you ever get an email telling you that an email
addressed to AAAAAAA@AAA.AAAA could not be delivered,
you know right away that you have the worm virus
in your system. You can then take steps to get rid of
it!

If everybody you know does this then you need not ever
worry about opening mail from friends.

Pass this on to all your friends

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:40 PM
To: Matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Perry Metzger's Lamented Departure

Michael writes

> > Particular Charge: Personal attack consisting of insulting
> > characterization of a gross portion of
> > the physical person of the victim, to wit,
> > "[your] bitchy little ass"
>
> On the contrary, I would consider this the grey area between an ad
> hominem attack and a mere objective description.

Oh, doubtless.

> I called Perry Ignorant of cold war geopolitical issues many times, I
> was merely stating a fact.

Ha! That is the sort of "fact" that is seldom agreed to
by all parties! :-) I have found less problematical ways
of implying people's lack of, er, um, interest---yes,
interest in certain areas. You will reflect that it
never accomplishes anything substantial to refer to what
you see as certain 'facts' about someone. Besides ticking
them off, and raising the stakes, of course.

> I am not sure how small Perry's ass is, it may be
> little or it may be large, if it is little, then that would be a mere
> objective description. If it is large, then perhaps it would make him
> feel better about his rear having someone say it was little.

Now, this takes the cake. Clearly you have mastered the rather
useless art of rationalizing, taking it perhaps to an entirely
new level! ;-)

(My emoticon for ;-) laughing or joking, whatever---a friend
and I compared what we thought our emoticons were being taken
as---and were rather shocked that we were not making ourselves
understood!)

> As for Bitchy, incessant complaining seems to have been Perry's forte
> in that debate, and 'Bitchy' seems an adequate descriptor.

Oh, I suppose. Perhaps he might not even disagreed! To be
honest, I did lose a little respect for him; I know that he's
very knowledgeable in many areas, and it was disappointing to
see that he'd dropped to arguing over and over the *meaning*
of terms, and whether certain parties were entitled to boast
certain labels. Silly.

> Had Mike Lorrey said 'You fuck face, Nazi, caveman!' I would have
> perhaps considered it an unnecessary ad hominem.

Heh, heh, heh. I'll try to use that some time, just to see
what kind of "warning" I get!

> However, Perry was being very brash and absolutely convinced of the
> validity of his convictions, and the second I challenged him, pointing
> out that he was giving sanction of the victim by paying tax dollars and
> thus subjugating his sacrosanct ideals for practicality, that he could
> no longer call himself a libertarian. He then took his ball and went
> home, sounds like either being 'bitchy' or being a troll to me.

One can never be certain. He could have tired of the word game as
much as we, and yet not wanted to bother talking to people challenging
*that* level of his worldview, much as I no longer have time to discuss
science with non-realists, or debate religious people on God's existence,
or (probably several other things).

> > Particular Charge: Demeaning characterization of victim's
> > alleged personal behavior, "hiding"
> > in an apartment, insinuating cowardice
>
> Given the context of the discussion, Perry arguing that he was a
> libertarian and we were not, this was a valid piece of evidence against
> his case. Since he was willingly participating in the very system he
> condemned, he was as guilty as any of us. (Though I do not consider us
> 'guilty')

Oh, I suppose so.

> > Punishment: To be determined by his honor list owner
> > and high mucky-muck Michael F. Dickey, Esq.
> > ______________________________________________________________
>
> As punishment, Mr. Lorrey has to send me $5 =)

Ah, and so what would be the fine for "fuckface Nazi caveman"?
(Just kidding.)

Lee

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:44 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Perry Metzger's Lamented Departure

Michael writes

Oh, doubtless.

> I called Perry Ignorant of cold war geopolitical issues many times, I
> was merely stating a fact.

Now, this takes the cake. Clearly you have mastered the rather
useless art of rationalizing, taking it perhaps to an entirely
new level! ;-)

(My emoticon for ;-) laughing or joking, whatever---a friend
and I compared what we thought our emoticons were being taken
as---and were rather shocked that we were not making ourselves
understood!)

> As for Bitchy, incessant complaining seems to have been Perry's forte
> in that debate, and 'Bitchy' seems an adequate descriptor.

> Had Mike Lorrey said 'You fuck face, Nazi, caveman!' I would have
> perhaps considered it an unnecessary ad hominem.

Heh, heh, heh. I'll try to use that some time, just to see
what kind of "warning" I get!

Oh, I suppose so.

Ah, and so what would be the fine for "fuckface Nazi caveman"?
(Just kidding.)

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:22 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com; exi-freedom@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] So is Claire Wolfe a libertarian or not?

With all the litmus testing going on lately, I thought I post an
excerpt from Claire Wolfe's latest blog entry here. I doubt very much
that some holier than thous around here would try to claim that SHE
isn't a 'true' libertarian, and yet she is making the exact same
arguments that I have been condemned for. Read on:

Thursday, October 2, 2003
"I STILL support the one and only FSP!

.....snip.....
But this is a key moment in history -- both America's and the FSP's.
Jason Sorens and company have already worked wonders as cat herders.
Now the job of getting 15,000 more libertarian supporters will be far
harder than getting the first 5,000. The FSP needs -- and deserves --
more, not less, support now that the state has been chosen.

We libertarians have a sorry history of shattering every hopeful group
effort by proclaiming that the other participants aren't "pure" enough
to associate with, or by going off in a snit to "do our own thing" the
moment any decision goes against us. That old, unproductive pattern
is in danger of repeating in the wake of yesterday's state
announcement.

But what's more important? Do "do our own thing" or to do freedom
on a big scale?

We need the FSP as our best hope of freedom -- even if neither the
state nor the people who chose it are "perfect" enough for some of us.
Yes, we can have our lonely little circles of "purity" -- and we can
smugly enjoy our own solitary principled perfection until the
bulldozer of the state rolls over us. Or we can fragment into two or
three or four separate FSPs, each competing for members from the
same tiny pool of freedom lovers, so that NO project ends up getting
enough people to make a difference in any state. Or we can make some
god forbid compromises on tactics (not principles) and maybe, just
maybe, restore one state to the American dream.

http://www.clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/00000317.html
Posted by Claire @ 07:40 PM CST

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:02 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] UK's Superhero

'Superhero' takes on clampers

The self-proclaimed superhero operates in Kent and London
Clad in a blue leotard and wielding a saw, a man claiming to be the UK's
first wheel clamp vigilante is offering his services to motorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3112670.stm

"My obsession with wheel-clamping is actually a rebellion against a much
deeper malaise," he said.

"Namely, the arrogant contempt that politicians hold for the people who
put them into power, and whom they claim to represent."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:34 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] FSP Sing up

Well, I just signed up to the Free State Project. This project has me
quite excited, living in CT a move to New Hampshire will not be very
inconvenient, additionally, I have been working to start my own company
and hope to be able to bring jobs to the state, and operate a business
in a much more business friendly environment. But most importantly, I
want to see some of the libertarian ideals put into action. I am glad
that the FSP's goal is a minarchist one, and not an anarcho-cap one, as
evident from recent discussions. I am all for a tentative step into the
waters, dip my feet in, try it out. If it works out well (and I am
confident it will) then perhaps an anarco-cap project might be
warranted, perhaps by then one of those floating cities will be started,
if not, being annoyed, Ill start my own. I am curious what other
members of this mailing list are signed up (I know Mike Lorrey is) and,
more importantly, ones that are not signed up, and why they might not
be. I am interested in hearing compelling arguments to not sign up to
contemplate on my own, not in convincing those not signed up who are
sure they do not want to, to change their mind.

The Agreement is pretty reasonable, by signing up you agree to move to
New Hampshire within five years of the time that they have 20,000
members sign up. If they never get 20,000 members, then its no skin off
your back, and you are not obliged to move. If they do get 20,000, most
libertarian minded people will probably be wanting to move there. I am
not sure what the repercussions are if you do not move, even though you
signed up, I suspect there are not any. Mike?

I would be interested in hearing others thoughts.

Thanks

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:52 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] FSP Sing up

--- Matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:

> be. I am interested in hearing compelling arguments to not sign up
> to
> contemplate on my own, not in convincing those not signed up who are
> sure they do not want to, to change their mind.

Well, there are those in the national LP, and those whose state LP is
nothing more than their thursday night poker buddies, who don't like
the FSP and claim that we will be draining efforts in the rest of the
country (especially the 'efforts' of those who are gonna have to find
new poker buddies). ;)

There are several of the bunker mentalities out west (you know the
type, the whole 'black helicopter' typology) who think that NH is the
absolute worst state for this experiment. They opted out of having to
move to NH when opting out of candidate states was available and are
being really poor sports about losing. They are now trying to piece
together a "western free state project", but are being warned against
using the FSP name, which is trademarked.

There were about 1000 people of the 5500 who voted who had opted out of
NH. Since Oct 1st (last wednesday) we've made up for that loss with 300
new members so far. Our ongoing average growth rate is about 110
members a week, so we should reach 20,000 members in a little over 2
years, assuming the rate does not increase (I think it will increase
now that the uncertainty over the destination is over). The contract
requires that we reach 20k within three years.

Claire Wolf was originally one of the sagebrush porcupines (FSP members
are called porcupines) who had opted out of east coast states. We in NH
dumped all of our opt-outs and declared our 'glass eater' status (i.e.
we were willing to do anything, even eat glass, to live in freedom).
Claire loved this show of class and dropped her opt outs, so now she
will be moving here. Vin Suprynowisz (sp?) has also joined and will be
moving here. Gary Nolan and Mike Badnarik, both LP candidates for
president, have joined and will be moving here. Actor/Comic Doug
Stanhope (current co-host of "The Man Show" on Comedy Central) was a
member who had opted out of east coast states, don't know if he's
changed his mind or not.

>
> The Agreement is pretty reasonable, by signing up you agree to move
> to New Hampshire within five years of the time that they have 20,000
> members sign up. If they never get 20,000 members, then its no skin
> off your back, and you are not obliged to move. If they do get
> 20,000, most libertarian minded people will probably be wanting
> to move there. I am
> not sure what the repercussions are if you do not move, even though
> you signed up, I suspect there are not any. Mike?

It's a contract, so what ever degree of honor you place in keeping your
contracts is between you and your personal Roscoe. Will the FSP send
out goons to enforce the contract? Not bloody likely. Will some of us
hound you across the internet until the Omega Point for being a
shyster?.... mmmmmmmmeebbbbeeee ;)

As it is, there are already people moving here. A girl from Portland OR
moved last month, and another lady from DC moved this summer. A fellow
from Maine was here this weekend and I was showing him around the state
and we shopped for land prices. We went to the FSP/LPNH organizational
meeting in Concord last night and met another guy who just moved here
and a couple from Connecticut who will be moving in several months came
by as well.

As more and more move here ahead of the 20k point, this is going to
accellerate the growth in membership. We will be posting the number of
members moved as time goes on. I personally predict we reach 20k in
about a year and two months, and you guys KNOW how accurate my
predictions can be... ;)

The LPNH convention is going to be Nov 1st and Governor Benson will be
the keynote speaker. Governor Benson is a Friend of the FSP (he signed
the statement but opted out of all states but NH) and, hint hint, was
registered as an independent up until a year before he ran for
governor. He has been *good* friends with LPNH Chair John Babiarz for a
while. hint hint hint.... Benson appointed John to be on his Efficiency
in Government Commission.... hint hint hint... several newspapers have
accused him of being a 'closet libertarian'. Benson just smirks....

The FSP already has two state legislators as full members, as well as a
number of selectmen and other local politicians across the state. The
NH Republican Alliance has asked the LPNH (with whome they have a very
positive relationship) to send someone to their retreat to talk about
the FSP, and even some democrats have approached us about building
alliances on common issues. The only real opponents here are the
Democrat leaders, esp Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, who seemed to be on
the verge of a nervous breakdown the other night when interviewed by
the tv folks about our vote.

So, I personally encourage those intent on making this succeed to move
here as soon as they are able to, based on personal circumstances. I
regard the 20k escape clause and the five year window as simply cushion
for those who are not in a position to make risky moves (and Jason and
I were the ones who came up with these escape clauses and windows back
in the summer of 2001). This is one of those Field of Dreams things: if
you build it, they will come.

We already here are getting organized to help those who are moving. We
are putting together resource lists for anything you need to know,
anybody you need to contact, to make your move run smoothly. Every
county will have one or more FSP/LPNH contact people who can answer
questions for those working now on moving and will hand you off to
specific organizations and agencies, websites or other resources to
help you out.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:52 PM
To: Matus
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] FSP Sing up

--- Matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:

> be. I am interested in hearing compelling arguments to not sign up
> to
> contemplate on my own, not in convincing those not signed up who are
> sure they do not want to, to change their mind.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:06 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Drug produces faster healing and fewer

Drug produces faster healing and fewer scars

From - http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994218

10:56 02 October 03

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free
issues.

Initial trials of a drug that reduces scar formation have produced
encouraging results. Although the substance still has numerous
regulatory hurdles to clear, it is the first of its type to be tested on
people. If the drug proves successful, it could routinely be used to
prevent scarring after surgery or following serious accidents.

"Scarring is a problem that is much more important to patients than it
is to doctors," says Mark Ferguson, an expert on skin healing at the
University of Manchester, UK, and chief executive of Renovo, the company
set up to develop the drug.

Even a skilful performance in the operating theatre can leave a patient
with a disfiguring scar that restricts movement. Facial scarring, in
particular, can have a profound effect on self-confidence.

The anti-scarring drug consists of a signalling molecule produced during
wound healing called transforming growth factor beta 3 (TGFß3). Ferguson
found that wounds in mammalian fetuses, which heal without scarring,
contain high levels of TGFß3. After birth, mammals produce less TGFß3
when wounded.

This difference may have been an evolutionary trade-off: before we had
antiseptics and antibiotics, preventing infection of wounds was far more
important than avoiding scarring. The massive inflammatory response that
destroys invading bacteria and swiftly closes wounds also slows healing
and creates the tangled masses of tissue that form scars.

Cell migration

TGFß3 acts by speeding up cell migration. Ferguson thinks it encourages
fibroblasts and keratinocytes, two of the cell types that generate new
skin, move more rapidly into the wound site. This allows the skin to
regenerate its usual orderly structure before a scar can form.

At a meeting at the Royal Society in London, UK, last week, Ferguson
reported results of the first clinical trials of TGFß3. The experiments
involved making two separate wounds in volunteers' arms. One wound was
injected with the drug while the other was injected with a placebo.
Ferguson says the final product might be given as a cream or injected
into the bloodstream.

To date, the drug has been tried on just over 300 volunteers. It does
not always prevent scarring, Ferguson says, but it does reduce it. And
it also dramatically speeds up healing. Some wounds took around seven
days to heal without the drug but only two days with it. Adjusting the
size and timing of the dose should produce even better results, he
thinks, although it will probably work better in some people than
others.

Surprisingly, the results were most impressive in people over 60 years
old. Some of the wounds healed so well the researchers could not find
them.

Eye surgeons already use a range of drugs to reduce scarring of the eye.
Most of these are not suitable for use on the skin, but doctors hope at
least one under development will work anywhere in the body (New
Scientist print edition, 21 June 2003).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:05 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] The pursuit of happiness

Since Eudaemonism is the rational pursuit of happiness, I take interest
in any studies or articles that relate to the scientific understanding
of happiness. I want to de-emphasize 'happiness' as a trite abstract
term, and replace it, as a concept in discussions on this forum, as
Aristotle's concept of total human well being. Following is an
interesting article from New Scientist.

Graphics 1 -
http://www.matus1976.com/eudaemonists/articles%20essays/persuitofhappine
ss_1.jpg

Graphic 2 -
http://www.matus1976.com/eudaemonists/articles%20essays/persuitofhappine
ss_2.jpg

The pursuit of happiness

From NewScientist, October 2003

New Scientist vol 180 issue 2415 - 04 October 2003, page 40

It is the subject of countless treatises and self-help books. In the US,
the quest for it is an inalienable right enshrined in the Declaration of
Independence. Now investigating it has become an academic discipline.
Michael Bond looks at the new science of how to be happy

WHERE or how are we supposed to find happiness? Through good works and
helping people, perhaps, or by finding religion or discovering the joys
of "downshifting"? Well, maybe. But whatever strategy you choose, it'll
help enormously if you live in Puerto Rico or Denmark.

The latest global analysis of how levels of satisfaction and happiness
vary from country to country shows that the most "satisfied" people tend
to live in Latin America, Western Europe and North America. Eastern
Europeans are the least satisfied. The figures - published here for the
first time - come from the 1999-2001 World Values Survey (see Graphic).
The countries where New Scientist has most readers all come in the top
third, with New Zealand ranked 15th for overall satisfaction, the US
16th, Australia 20th and Britain 24th - though Australia beats the other
three for day-to-day happiness.

It is not the first time such league tables have been drawn up. What is
new is how experts and politicians are taking such data increasingly
seriously. Over the past decade, the study of happiness, formerly the
preserve of philosophers, therapists and gurus, has morphed into a bona
fide discipline. You can find "professors of happiness" at leading
universities, "quality of life" institutes the world over, and thousands
of research papers. It even has its own journal, the Journal of
Happiness Studies (www.kluweronline.com/issn/1389-4978).

And policy advisers are getting interested. In the UK, the Cabinet
Office has held a string of seminars on life satisfaction, and last
December the prime minister's Strategy Unit published a paper
recommending policies that might increase the nation's happiness
(www.number-10.gov.uk/su/ls/paper.pdf). These include using
quality-of-life indicators when making decisions about health and
education (go for the option that leads to greatest life satisfaction),
and finding an alternative to gross domestic product as a measure of how
well the country is doing - one that reflects happiness as well as
welfare, education and human rights.

As political agendas go, it seems blissfully uncontroversial. But just
how realistic is it to set goals based on happiness or life
satisfaction? And what happens when the traditional goals of growth and
consumer activity conflict with national happiness goals? The government
of Bhutan has already declared itself more concerned with gross national
happiness than gross national product. But Bhutan is not a major western
economy. Would the governments of the UK or US be willing to chase GNH
(however it may be measured) at the expense of GNP?

"My guess is that, yes, we will see the emergence of 'lifestyle
politics'," says David Halpern, lead author of the paper from Tony
Blair's Strategy Unit. "We shouldn't be naive, though. We still need a
real economy."

What above all else has made the systematic study of happiness possible
is data gathered from hundreds of surveys measuring happiness across
different cultures, professions, religions, social and economic groups.
These surveys use various methods, such as asking people how happy they
feel at a particular moment, or at random times over a few weeks, or
even asking their family and friends. In this way researchers can
investigate, for example, how much difference money makes to a person's
happiness after their basic material needs have been met; whether happy
people are more likely to be leaders or live longer; and whether
inequality in wealth and status is as important a source of
dissatisfaction as we might think.

"It is an exciting area," says Ruut Veenhoven, professor of social
conditions for human happiness at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, and
editor-in-chief of the Journal of Happiness Studies. "We can now show
which behaviours are risky as far as happiness goes, in the same way
medical research has shown us what is bad for our health. We should
eventually be able to show what kind of lifestyle suits what kind of
person."

So what lessons does the research hold for governments keen to improve
their people's happiness? While it is tempting to hold up those nations
and populations that report the highest levels of happiness or life
satisfaction as a model for others to follow, even those optimistic
about the science think this unwise. "Interpreting the data can be a
great problem," admits Veenhoven. The word "happiness" has no precise
equivalent in some languages. Even in English it means different things
to different people - Veenhoven has recorded 15 separate academic
definitions.

Another complication is that satisfaction is not quite the same thing as
happiness. When asked how happy they are, people tend to consider first
their current emotional state. The trouble is that a person's mood can
fluctuate from moment to moment. So to get a better idea of someone's
overall "subjective well-being" researchers seek cognitive as well as
emotional measures. They ask people to take a step back and consider how
satisfied they are with their lives overall and how meaningful they
judge their lives to be. A person's subjective well-being incorporates
both these emotive and cognitive judgements, and different people weigh
them differently. This helps to explain the otherwise baffling finding
that people under 35 tend to be "happier" than those over 75 yet less
satisfied with their lives.

It also helps to explain the fact that several nations that report low
or average life satisfaction in the World Values Survey at the same time
report high percentages of very happy people. Nigeria, for examples,
comes top of the list for happiness, but is near the middle for
satisfaction. "The Nigerian public has a striking tendency to give more
very high and very low responses than other publics," says Ronald
Inglehart at the University of Michigan, who chairs the World Values
Survey steering committee. "The Japanese have the opposite tendency:
they cluster near the middle."

Another result from the surveys that conceals layers of intriguing
complexity concerns wealth. Asian countries such as Japan and South
Korea report lower levels of subjective well-being than their incomes
would predict, and the US and certain other western nations higher. So
westerners are happier than Asians? Not necessarily.

Different cultures value happiness in very different ways. In
individualistic western countries, it is often seen as a reflection of
personal achievement. Being unhappy implies that you have not made the
most of your life. Latin American countries, which also report high
happiness levels, have a similarly high regard for those with an upbeat
attitude. Eunkook Mark Suh at Yonsei University in Seoul thinks this
pressure to be happy could lead people to over-report how happy they
feel.

Meanwhile in the more collectivist nations such as Japan, China and
South Korea, people have a more fatalistic attitude towards happiness.
"They believe it is very much a blessing from heavenly sources," says
Suh. "One of the consequences of such an attitude is that you don't have
to feel inferior or guilty about not being very happy, since happiness
does not reflect your ability." Indeed, in Asian cultures the pursuit of
happiness is often frowned on - which in turn could lead people to
under-report how happy they feel.

What's more, the things that give people happiness, satisfaction and
meaning in their lives vary considerably between cultures. Shinobu
Kitayama at Kyoto University in Japan and Hazel Rose Markus at Stanford
University, California, believe that how satisfied a person is with
their life depends largely on how successfully they adhere to their
particular cultural "standard".

In the US, satisfaction comes from personal success, self-expression,
pride, a high sense of self-esteem and a distinct sense of self. In
Japan, on the other hand, it comes from fulfilling the expectations of
your family, meeting your social responsibilities, self-discipline,
cooperation and friendliness. So while in the US it is perfectly
appropriate to pursue your own happiness, in Japan you are more likely
to find happiness by not directly pursuing it.

And there's another twist. The happiest nations - mostly western and
individualistic ones - also tend to have the highest levels of suicide.
"There are some real downsides to individualistic cultures," says Ed
Diener at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "People with
mental illness are in real trouble with no extended family to watch over
them."

There is plenty more about national happiness levels that has
researchers scratching their heads. One of the most significant
observations is that in industrialised nations, average happiness has
remained virtually static since the second world war, despite a
considerable rise in average income (see Graphic). The exception is
Denmark, where people have become more satisfied with life over the past
30 years - no one is quite sure why.

A growing number of researchers are putting the static trend down to
consumerism. Survey after survey has shown that the desire for material
goods, which has increased hand in hand with average income, is a
"happiness suppressant".

One study, by Tim Kasser at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, found
that young adults who focus on money, image and fame tend to be more
depressed, have less enthusiasm for life and suffer more physical
symptoms such as headaches and sore throats than others (The High Price
of Materialism, MIT Press, 2002). Kasser believes that people tend to
embrace material values when they are feeling insecure (retail therapy,
anyone?). "Advertisements have become more sophisticated," says Kasser.
"They try to tie their message to people's psychological needs. But it
is a false link. It is toxic."

Kasser, who has not owned a television since 1992, wants governments to
categorise advertising as a form of pollution and either tax it or force
advertisers to print warning messages about how materialism can damage
your health. His point is that since nothing about materialism can help
you find happiness, governments should discourage it and instead promote
things that can. For instance, they could support businesses that allow
their employees plenty of time off to be with their families, and that
practise equality through profit-sharing.

Idealistic? Of course. Yet these days even hard-headed economists tend
to agree that the key to making people happier is to shift from pure
economic growth - which fuels a consumerist culture that is antithetical
to happiness - to personal growth. By this reckoning, a government's
priorities should be to reduce unemployment and job insecurity, improve
mental healthcare, encourage direct democracy (studies in Switzerland,
where referendums are common, suggest people are happier the more they
feel in control of their lives), and - perhaps most controversially -
discourage the pursuit of status.

This last is crucial, believes Richard Layard, co-director of the Centre
for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, since the
pursuit of social status is "truly fruitless" at the level of society.
So, out go devices such as performance-related pay and league tables
when they are deliberately made public in order to motivate people
through the quest for rank. "This condemns as many to fail as to succeed
- not a good formula for raising human happiness," says Layard.

Of course, the idea that inequality in general leads to unhappiness is
not new. And there are some anomalies: Colombia and Brazil, for example,
two nations with high levels of inequality, consistently report high
life satisfaction. But what is surprising to some is just how
influential perceived status - or the lack of it - is in determining
well-being.

For example, Clyde Hertzman at the University of British Columbia in
Vancouver found that disparities in health - both between wealthy
countries and between citizens within those countries - have far more to
do with the anxiety and stress that inequality causes than with its
impact on education, housing or healthcare (American Scientist, vol 89,
p 538).

Governments would do well to worry about the happiness of their
electorate. Political instability appears to go hand in hand with low
life satisfaction, although it is difficult to say for sure which causes
which. The lowest subjective well-being ever recorded - 1.6 out of 10 -
was among inhabitants of the Dominican Republic in 1962 during the
period between the dictator Rafael Trujillo's assassination and the
overthrow of the constitutional government.

Carol Graham at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC warns that
countries trying to deepen democratic reforms need to concentrate on
keeping their "middle-earners" happy and secure. In a study in Peru,
Graham found that this group, whose support no government in a
developing country can do without, are far less satisfied than the poor,
for they take as their reference point the very wealthy, whose income
and status they will be hard-pushed to match. The poor, meanwhile, take
as their reference point the middle-earners, who are more within their
reach. Once again, what counts is not what you have so much as what
others have.

Which paradoxically could be a warning to governments hoping to improve
their global happiness rankings. Strive too hard to climb the table and
you are in danger of turning the pursuit of happiness into yet another
competitive quest for status - just what researchers have shown is a
sure path to making people miserable.

Author - Michael Bond

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:39 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Drug produces faster healing and fewer

It remains to be seen why evolution did not provide this.
After all, one's fitness (as defined, of course, by the
number of offspring one has), might very well be decreased
by a prominent scar.

I wonder if the repugnace of scars is just cultural, and
was not a part of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness
(EEA).

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matus [mailto:matus@matus1976.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:06 AM
> To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
> Subject: [eudaemonists] Drug produces faster healing and fewer
>
>
> Drug produces faster healing and fewer scars
>
> >From - http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994218
>
> 10:56 02 October 03
>
> Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free
> issues.
>
> Initial trials of a drug that reduces scar formation have produced
> encouraging results. Although the substance still has numerous
> regulatory hurdles to clear, it is the first of its type to be tested on
> people. If the drug proves successful, it could routinely be used to
> prevent scarring after surgery or following serious accidents.
>
> "Scarring is a problem that is much more important to patients than it
> is to doctors," says Mark Ferguson, an expert on skin healing at the
> University of Manchester, UK, and chief executive of Renovo, the company
> set up to develop the drug.
>
> Even a skilful performance in the operating theatre can leave a patient
> with a disfiguring scar that restricts movement. Facial scarring, in
> particular, can have a profound effect on self-confidence.
>
> The anti-scarring drug consists of a signalling molecule produced during
> wound healing called transforming growth factor beta 3 (TGFß3). Ferguson
> found that wounds in mammalian fetuses, which heal without scarring,
> contain high levels of TGFß3. After birth, mammals produce less TGFß3
> when wounded.
>
> This difference may have been an evolutionary trade-off: before we had
> antiseptics and antibiotics, preventing infection of wounds was far more
> important than avoiding scarring. The massive inflammatory response that
> destroys invading bacteria and swiftly closes wounds also slows healing
> and creates the tangled masses of tissue that form scars.
>
>
> Cell migration
>
>
> TGFß3 acts by speeding up cell migration. Ferguson thinks it encourages
> fibroblasts and keratinocytes, two of the cell types that generate new
> skin, move more rapidly into the wound site. This allows the skin to
> regenerate its usual orderly structure before a scar can form.
>
> At a meeting at the Royal Society in London, UK, last week, Ferguson
> reported results of the first clinical trials of TGFß3. The experiments
> involved making two separate wounds in volunteers' arms. One wound was
> injected with the drug while the other was injected with a placebo.
> Ferguson says the final product might be given as a cream or injected
> into the bloodstream.
>
> To date, the drug has been tried on just over 300 volunteers. It does
> not always prevent scarring, Ferguson says, but it does reduce it. And
> it also dramatically speeds up healing. Some wounds took around seven
> days to heal without the drug but only two days with it. Adjusting the
> size and timing of the dose should produce even better results, he
> thinks, although it will probably work better in some people than
> others.
>
> Surprisingly, the results were most impressive in people over 60 years
> old. Some of the wounds healed so well the researchers could not find
> them.
>
> Eye surgeons already use a range of drugs to reduce scarring of the eye.
> Most of these are not suitable for use on the skin, but doctors hope at
> least one under development will work anywhere in the body (New
> Scientist print edition, 21 June 2003).
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:04 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Drug produces faster healing and fewer

> Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Drug produces faster healing and fewer
>
> It remains to be seen why evolution did not provide this.
> After all, one's fitness (as defined, of course, by the
> number of offspring one has), might very well be decreased
> by a prominent scar.
>
> I wonder if the repugnace of scars is just cultural, and
> was not a part of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness
> (EEA).
>
> Lee
>

It (ones perceived fitness) could possibly be increased also, one could
survive, readily, a wound bad enough to leave a scar might in itself
demonstrate the fitness of the individual. I've read similar themed
arguments of the ridiculous oversized nature of some birds' tails,
(aside from pure sexual selection feedback loops) the peacock for
instance; whose large tails are obviously physical detriments. Yet the
appeal, it's argued, is that they can survive even with such an obvious
handicap. Perhaps this also in part led to the cultural habits of self
mutilation in Hunter Gatherer tribes.

Of course, being a student of evolutionary biology that I am, I find
myself able to think up (imagine) an evolutionary reason for just about
everything, so who knows, scars or no scars.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 2:57 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Causality

In 1996 John Clark maintained that "A causes B" means nothing
more and nothing less than A always comes before B. After a
lengthy discussion, I became convinced.

John (or anyone else), do you have a clear counter-example?

Thanks,
Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:38 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] RE: [Extropy-chat] Direct control of robot arms

Since I don't like the extropy board much anymore, I thought I would
send my comments on this to my list instead.

> Amazing new developments in direct mental control of devices.
> This may have already been discussed on the list but I've not seen it.
>
> Just recently, researchers announced monkeys have been trained to use
> robot
> arms controlled by electrodes mounted in the brain. Really stunning
work.
> I'd
> like to see if humans could, with similar mechanisms, learn to use
> mechanisms
> distinctly different from the inbuilt ones, like paraplegics
controlling
> wheelchairs. Anime-style bodysuits become a distinct possibility too.
> What will
> it do to our concept of "handicapped" if a quadriplegic could outlift
a
> powerlifter? Very extropic possbilities.
>

I have wondered if one could use SQUIDS in an array mounted around a
users head to accurately measure thought patterns. Applying regular old
pattern recognition software to such an output would allow thoughts to
control machines. Additionally, if the magnetic fields the SQUIDS
picked up where duplicated by small coils surrounding the head, those
same thoughts could be imprinted back into the mind. Such a system
should work for sub vocalized commands just as well as and as intuitive
commands (like clenching a fist, or perform a series of motions) If
tied into a digital storage system, all one would have to do is learn
something once, well, the first time, and the computer enhancement would
ensure quality memories indefinitely, yet still feel just like accessing
regular memories do.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:39 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] RE: [Extropy-chat] Direct control of robot arms

Michael writes

> > Just recently, researchers announced monkeys have
> > been trained to use robot arms controlled by
> > electrodes mounted in the brain. Really stunning
> > work.
> > I'd like to see if humans could, with similar
> > mechanisms, learn to use mechanisms
> > distinctly different from the inbuilt ones,
> > like paraplegics controlling wheelchairs.
> > Anime-style bodysuits become a distinct
> > possibility too. What will it do to our
> > concept of "handicapped" if a quadriplegic
> > could outlift a
> > powerlifter? Very extropic possbilities.
>
> I have wondered if one could use SQUIDS in an array mounted around a
> users head to accurately measure thought patterns. Applying regular old
> pattern recognition software to such an output would allow thoughts to
> control machines.

Sounds perfectly feasible, I would think.

> Additionally, if the magnetic fields the SQUIDS picked
> up were duplicated by small coils surrounding the head, those
> same thoughts could be imprinted back into the mind.

What? How do you know that? What makes you think so?

> Such a system
> should work for sub vocalized commands just as well as and as intuitive
> commands (like clenching a fist, or perform a series of motions) If
> tied into a digital storage system, all one would have to do is learn
> something once, well, the first time, and the computer enhancement would
> ensure quality memories indefinitely, yet still feel just like accessing
> regular memories do.

Well, of course, that would be terrific.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 1:25 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Memory enhancement was RE: ... Direct control of robot arms

> >
> > I have wondered if one could use SQUIDS in an array mounted around a
> > users head to accurately measure thought patterns. Applying regular
old
> > pattern recognition software to such an output would allow thoughts
to
> > control machines.
>
> Sounds perfectly feasible, I would think.
>
> > Additionally, if the magnetic fields the SQUIDS picked
> > up were duplicated by small coils surrounding the head, those
> > same thoughts could be imprinted back into the mind.
>
> What? How do you know that? What makes you think so?

I believe that is Faradays law. A current creates a magnetic field, if
that field has a magnitude of X at a series of points, then creating a
field that has the same magnitude of X at the same series of points will
induce a current in the same place and direction that the original came
from. Or something like that. By creating a field strength that varies
across the surface of this mindreading cap squids and of solenoids, an
average center (or area) will have a current induced. Of course, I
think there is more to memory than currents in neurons, but I wonder if
the induced current would be enough to be that constant subtle reminder
that makes you easily and quickly able to remember the full details. A
lot of the recent work on using electromagnets to stimulate the brain is
full of hints to this effect, but they currently use large ungainly
inaccurate coils, the neuron equivalent of a big cannon. But I could be
completely wrong.

>
> > Such a system
> > should work for sub vocalized commands just as well as and as
intuitive
> > commands (like clenching a fist, or perform a series of motions) If
> > tied into a digital storage system, all one would have to do is
learn
> > something once, well, the first time, and the computer enhancement
would
> > ensure quality memories indefinitely, yet still feel just like
accessing
> > regular memories do.
>
> Well, of course, that would be terrific.
>
> Lee
>

Ive thought a lot about achieving practical memory enhancement. While I
do not talk much about my Eudaemonic principles, it is a significant
driving force in my daily life to pursue everything that is enjoyable
and valuable. I get disheartened because by the time I learn something,
I have mostly forgotten it. Currently my memory needs a large amount of
maintenance; anything that reduces that maintenance required or
increases the time between maintenance makes me able to learn more
things. As I see it, the shorter the time between querying a bit of
digital stored information and the time you process it, the more
indistinguishable it becomes from actually enhanced memory. I think I
system where you learn something once, and perfect it, but never have
degradation in your memory, would be most preferable.

As for the time and maintenance required for my memories, I have always
wanted to actually test that, and see how long I can go without needing
a maintenance. For example, I play guitar (barely) and know the
beginning of a lot of led zeppelin songs. I only pick up my guitar
every six months or so, and have trouble remembering how to play what I
'know' But after some effort, I figure it out again, with help from the
now vague memory, and then it is as good as new. If I waited 12 months,
for instance, I wouldn't remember any of what I knew, and would have to
relearn the song in its entirety. I take dopenizil, which clinical
studies have shown extends the length of time that a memory is present
(tested in airline pilots) but I have yet to devise my own objective
test of it.

This would be great as I learn a new skill every few months, most
recently welding, metal forming and cutting, etc. I am taking a two day
class on composite construction this weekend, and no doubt two months
down the road I will have forgotten most of what I learned in the
course. Every time I sit down and tech myself some programming I forget
it by the time I actually want to use it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:24 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Casinos

Communities here in California appear to be able to allow
casinos at will. So all it probably takes is some money
to the right people on the city council, or at least the
promise of a lot of revenue-sharing.

It would seem to me that fellow conservative/libertarians
on this list might be split on the issue.

Your views?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:24 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casinos

> Communities here in California appear to be able to allow
> casinos at will. So all it probably takes is some money
> to the right people on the city council, or at least the
> promise of a lot of revenue-sharing.
>
> It would seem to me that fellow conservative/libertarians
> on this list might be split on the issue.
>
> Your views?
>
> Lee
>

I would say that you either allow everyone to run casinos, or no one.
As a libertarian fundamentally, everyone should be able to run them,
ideally with some private rating and monitoring regulation going on.

Here in CT, obviously only the Indian tribes get to start ones, and then
its only certain ones that are able to. After the Mashentuckets opened
the first, they agreed to pay the state some few hundred million every
year as long as they didn't allow any other casinos. A few years later
the Mohegans opened one, they must have bribed the state more than the
mashentuckets.

Just recently a smoking ban was enacted, all public places, restaurants,
bars, etc, can not allow smoking indoors. Except the casino. This
seems extraordinarily unfair to all local business. Rumor is that the
ban wouldn't have passed had the casinos been included.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:31 AM
To: Matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casinos

Michael writes

> > Communities here in California appear to be able to allow
> > casinos at will. So all it probably takes is some money
> > to the right people on the city council, or at least the
> > promise of a lot of revenue-sharing.
> >
> > It would seem to me that fellow conservative/libertarians
> > on this list might be split on the issue.
> >
> > Your views?
>
> I would say that you either allow everyone to run casinos, or no one.
> As a libertarian fundamentally, everyone should be able to run them,
> ideally with some private rating and monitoring regulation going on.

What about the following? Just as states have the legal right to
prohibit or allow gambling and prostitution, why not allow communities
the same legal right? Of course, to have the desired impact on a
community, any prohibition would have to be effective over a reasonably
large area.

Lee

> Here in CT, obviously only the Indian tribes get to start ones, and then
> its only certain ones that are able to. After the Mashentuckets opened
> the first, they agreed to pay the state some few hundred million every
> year as long as they didn't allow any other casinos. A few years later
> the Mohegans opened one, they must have bribed the state more than the
> mashentuckets.
>
> Just recently a smoking ban was enacted, all public places, restaurants,
> bars, etc, can not allow smoking indoors. Except the casino. This
> seems extraordinarily unfair to all local business. Rumor is that the
> ban wouldn't have passed had the casinos been included.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com
>
>
From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:42 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casinos

>
> Michael writes
>
> > > Communities here in California appear to be able to allow
> > > casinos at will. So all it probably takes is some money
> > > to the right people on the city council, or at least the
> > > promise of a lot of revenue-sharing.
> > >
> > > It would seem to me that fellow conservative/libertarians
> > > on this list might be split on the issue.
> > >
> > > Your views?
> >
> > I would say that you either allow everyone to run casinos, or no
one.
> > As a libertarian fundamentally, everyone should be able to run them,
> > ideally with some private rating and monitoring regulation going on.
>
> What about the following? Just as states have the legal right to
> prohibit or allow gambling and prostitution, why not allow communities
> the same legal right? Of course, to have the desired impact on a
> community, any prohibition would have to be effective over a
reasonably
> large area.
>
> Lee

Well, at the fundamental level I don't think states should be able
prohibit anything that isn't an assault on person or property. So they
shouldn't be prohibiting gambling or prostitution.

I think most communities would be too small to deviate too much from a
neighboring one. But you could certainly see drastic differences a few
counties over. I think towns and communities can already institute regs
and such, governing the heights and appearance of buildings, for
instance, or zoning for that matter. But the more power to regulate
each sub-section of whatever has, the larger and more bloated the whole
system gets. Ugh.

All this makes me excited to see what happens in New Hampshire. Will
all the zoning laws go? Will we see prostitution and Casinos?

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:50 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa

This is an interesting and very critical article by Chris Hitchens on
Mother Theresa.

Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa
(Interview)
by Matt Cherry

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

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 16, Number
4.

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

Below, Matt Cherry, executive director of the Council for Secular
Humanism, interviews Christopher Hitchens about his book The Missionary
Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (Verso, 1995) and his
television program, which strongly criticized Mother Teresa. The
interview recapitulates the most devastating critiques of Mother Teresa
ever made. It also gives a very telling account by a leading journalist
into the U.S. media's great reluctance to criticize religion and
religious leaders.

As Free Inquiry was going to press, we heard that Mother Teresa was
suffering from heart trouble and malaria and there was concern about her
chances of survival. It was, therefore, suggested to the editors that it
would be inappropriate to print an interview that contains criticism of
Mother Teresa's work and influence. However, in view of the media's
general failure to investigate the work of Mother Teresa or to publish
critical comments about her, the editors felt it important to proceed
with the publication of this revealing interview.

Christopher Hitchens is "Critic at Large" for Vanity Fair, writes the
Minority Report column for The Nation, and is a frequent guest on
current affairs and commentary television programs. He has written
numerous books on international current affairs, including Blood, Class
and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies.

— EDS.

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

Free Inquiry: According to polls, Mother Teresa is the most respected
woman in the world. Her name is a by-word for selfless dedication in the
service of humanity. So why are you picking on this sainted old woman?

Christopher Hitchens: Partly because that impression is so widespread.
But also because the sheer fact that this is considered unquestionable
is a sign of what we are up against, namely the problem of credulity.
One of the most salient examples of people's willingness to believe
anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical
acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would
normally be thinking - however lazily - in a secular or rational manner.
In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim.

It's unexamined journalistically - no one really takes a look at what
she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is
spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their
lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third
World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is
that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most
extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine? If you ask most people if
they agree with the pope's views on population, for example, they say
they think they are rather extreme. Well here's someone whose life's
work is the propagation of the most extreme version of that.

That's the first motive. The second was a sort of journalistic curiosity
as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about
Mother Teresa's theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn't
help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family
in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money - over a million
dollars - from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler,
even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she
has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many
other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland
from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban
on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most
conservative and obscurantist forces.

FI: Do you think this is because she is a shrewd political operator or
that she is just naïve and used as a tool by others?

HITCHENS: I've often been asked that. And I couldn't say from real
acquaintance with her which view is correct, because I've only met her
once. But from observing her I don't think that she's naïve. I don't
think she is particularly intelligent or that she has a complex mind,
but I think she has a certain cunning.

Her instincts are very good: she seems to know when and where she might
be needed and to turn up, still looking very simple. But it's a long way
from Calcutta to Port au Prince airport in Haiti, and it's a long way
from the airport to the presidential palace. And one can't just, in your
humble way and dressed in a simple sari, turn up there. Quite a lot of
things have to be arranged and thought about and allowed for in advance.
You don't end up suddenly out of sheer simple naïveté giving a speech
saying that the Duvalier family love the poor. All of that involves
quite a high level of planning and calculation. But I think the genius
of it is to make it look simple.

One of Mother Teresa's biographers - almost all the books written about
her are by completely uncritical devotees - says, with a sense of
absolute wonderment, that when Mother Teresa first met the pope in the
Vatican, she arrived by bus dressed only in a sari that cost one rupee.
Now that would be my definition of behaving ostentatiously. A normal
person would put on at least her best scarf and take a taxi. To do it in
the way that she did is the reverse of the simple path. It's obviously
theatrical and calculated. And yet it is immediately written down as a
sign of her utter holiness and devotion. Well, one doesn't have to be
too cynical to see through that.

FI: You point out that, although she is very open about promoting
Catholicism, Mother Teresa has this reputation of holiness amongst many
non-Catholics and even secular people. And her reputation is based upon
her charitable work for the sick and dying in Calcutta. What does she
actually do there? What are her care facilities like?

HITCHENS: The care facilities are grotesquely simple: rudimentary,
unscientific, miles behind any modern conception of what medical science
is supposed to do. There have been a number of articles - I've collected
some more since my book came out - about the failure and primitivism of
her treatment of lepers and the dying, of her attitude towards
medication and prophylaxis. Very rightly is it said that she tends to
the dying, because if you were doing anything but dying she hasn't
really got much to offer.

This is interesting because, first, she only proclaims to be providing
people with a Catholic death, and, second, because of the enormous
amounts of money mainly donated to rather than raised by her Order.
We've been unable to audit this - no one has ever demanded an accounting
of how much money has flowed in her direction. With that money she could
have built at least one absolutely spanking new, modern teaching
hospital in Calcutta without noticing the cost.

The facilities she runs are as primitive now as when she first became a
celebrity. So that's obviously not where the money goes.

FI: How much money do you reckon she receives?

HITCHENS: Well, I have the testimony of a former very active member of
her Order who worked for her for many years and ended up in the office
Mother Teresa maintains in New York City. She was in charge of taking
the money to the bank. She estimates that there must be $50 million in
that bank account alone. She said that one of the things that began to
raise doubts in her mind was that the Sisters always had to go around
pretending that they were very poor and they couldn't use the money for
anything in the neighborhood that required alleviation. Under the cloak
of avowed poverty they were still soliciting donations, labor, food, and
so on from local merchants. This she found as a matter of conscience to
be offensive.

Now if that is the case for one place in New York, and since we know
what huge sums she has been given by institutions like the Nobel Peace
committee, other religious institutions, secular prize-giving
organizations, and so on, we can speculate that if this money was being
used for the relief of suffering we would be able to see the effect.

FI: So the $50 million is a very small portion of her wealth?

HITCHENS: I think it's a very small portion, and we should call for an
audit of her organization. She carefully doesn't keep the money in India
because the Indian government requires disclosure of foreign missionary
organizations funds.

I think the answer to questions about her wealth was given by her in an
interview where she said she had opened convents and nunneries in 120
countries. The money has simply been used for the greater glory of her
order and the building of dogmatic, religious institutions.

FI: So she is spending the money on her own order of nuns? And that
order will be named after her?

HITCHENS: Both of those suggestions are speculation, but they are good
speculation. I think the order will be named after her when she becomes
a saint, which is also a certainty: she is on the fast track to
canonization and would be even if we didn't have a pope who was
manufacturing saints by the bushel. He has canonized and beatified more
people than eight of his predecessors combined.

FI: Hence the title of your book: The Missionary Position.

HITCHENS: That has got some people worked up. Of the very, very few
people who have reviewed this book in the United States, one or two have
objected to that title on the grounds that it's "sophomoric." Well, I
think that a triple entendre requires a bit of sophistication.

FI: And your television program in the United Kingdom was called "Hell's
Angel."

HITCHENS: Yes, very much over my objection, because I thought that that
name had not even a single entendre to it. I wanted to call it "Sacred
Cow." The book is the television program expanded by about a third. The
program was limited by what we could find of Mother Teresa's activities
recorded on film. In fact, I was delighted by how much of her activity
was available on film: for example, her praising the Albanian dictator
Enver Hoxha. There is also film of her groveling to the Duvaliers:
licking the feet of the rich instead of washing the feet of the poor.
But "60 Minutes" demanded a price that was greater than the whole cost
of the rest of the production. So we had to use stills.

FI: How did Mother Teresa become such a great symbol of charity and
saintliness?

HITCHENS: Her break into stardom came when Malcolm Muggeridge - a very
pious British political and social pundit - adopted her for his pet
cause. In 1969, he made a very famous film about her life - and later a
book called Something Beautiful for God. Both the book and the film
deserve the label hagiography.

Muggeridge was so credulous that he actually claimed that a miracle had
occurred on camera while he was making the film. He claimed that a
mysterious "kindly light" had appeared around Mother Teresa. This claim
could easily be exploded by the testimony of the cameraman himself: he
had some new film stock produced by Kodak for dark or difficult light
conditions. The new stock was used for the interview with Mother Teresa.
The light in the film looked rather odd, and the cameraman was just
about to say so when Muggeridge broke in and said, "It's a miracle, it's
divine light."

FI: Are we all victims of the Catholic public relations machine? Or has
the West seized upon Mother Teresa as salve for its conscience?

HITCHENS: Well, you are giving me my answer in your question. For a long
time the church was not quite sure what to do about her. For example,
when there was the Second Vatican Council, in the 1960s, there was an
equivalent meeting for the Catholics of the Indian subcontinent in
Bombay. Mother Teresa turned up and said she was absolutely against any
reconsideration of doctrine. She said we don't need any new thinking or
reflection, what we need is more work and more faith. So she has been
recognized as a difficult and dogmatic woman by the Catholics in India
for a long time.

I think there were others in the church who suspected she was too
ambitious, that she wouldn't accept discipline, that she wanted an order
of her own. She was always petitioning to be able to go off and start
her own show. Traditionally, the church has tended to suspect that kind
of excessive zeal. I think it was an entirely secular breakthrough
sponsored by Muggeridge, who wasn't then a Catholic.

So it wasn't the result of the propaganda of the Holy Office. But when
the Catholic church realized it had a winner on its hands, it was quick
to adopt her. She is a very great favorite of the faithful and a very
good advertisement to attract non-believers or non-Catholics. And she's
very useful for the current pope as a weapon against reformists and
challengers within the church.

As to why those who would normally consider themselves rationalists or
skeptics have fallen for the Mother Teresa myth, I think there is an
element of post-colonial condescension involved, in that most people
have a slightly bad conscience about "the wretched of the Earth" and
they are glad to feel that there are those who will take action. Then
also there is the general problem of credulity, of people being willing
- once a reputation has been established - to judge people's actions by
that reputation instead of the reputation by that action.

FI: Why do you think no other major media before you had exposed Mother
Teresa?

HITCHENS: I'm really surprised by it. And also I'm surprised that no one
in our community - that of humanists, rationalists, and atheists - had
ever thought of doing it either.

There's a laziness in my profession, of tending to make the mistake I
just identified of judging people by their reputation. In other words,
if you call Saudi Arabia a "moderate Arab state" that's what it becomes
for reportorial purposes. It doesn't matter what it does, it's a
"moderate state." Similarly for Mother Teresa: she became a symbol for
virtue, so even in cartoons, jokes, movies, and television shows, if you
want a synonym for selflessness and holiness she is always mentioned.

It's inconvenient if someone robs you of a handy metaphor. If you
finally printed the truth it would mean admitting that you missed it the
first, second, and third time around. I've noticed a strong tendency in
my profession for journalists not to like to admit that they ever missed
anything or got anything wrong.

I think this is partly the reason, although in England my book got quite
well reviewed because of the film, in the United States there seems to
be the view that this book isn't worth reviewing. And it can't be for
the usual reasons that the subject is too arcane and only of minority
interest, or that there's not enough name recognition.

I believe there's also a version of multi-culturalism involved in this.
That is to say, to be a Catholic in America is to be a member of two
kinds of community: the communion of believers and the Catholic
community, which is understood in a different sense, in other words,
large numbers of Irish, Italian, Croatian, and other ethnic groups, who
claim to be offended if any of the tenets of their religion are publicly
questioned. Thus you are in a row with a community if you choose to
question the religion. Under one interpretation of the rules of
multi-culturalism that is not kosher: you can't do that because you
can't offend people in their dearest identity. There are some secular
people who are vulnerable to that very mistake.

I'll give you an interesting example, Walter Goodman, the New York Times
television critic, saw my film and then wrote that he could not
understand why it was not being shown on American television. He laid
down a challenge to television to show this film. There was then a long
silence until I got a call from Connie Chung's people in New York. They
flew me up and said they would like to do a long item about the program,
using excerpts from it, interviewing me and talking about the row that
had resulted. They obviously wanted to put responsibility for the
criticism of Mother Teresa onto me rather than adopt it themselves -
they were already planning the damage control.

But they didn't make any program. And the reason they gave me was that
they thought that if they did they would be accused of being Jewish and
attacked in the same way as the distributors of The Last Temptation of
Christ had been. And that this would stir up Catholic-Jewish hostility
in New York. It was very honest of them to put it that way. They had
already imagined what might be said and the form it might take and they
had persuaded themselves that it wasn't worth it.

FI: So your film has never been shown in the United States?

HITCHENS: No, and it certainly never will be. You can make that
prediction with absolute certainty; and then you can brood on what that
might suggest.

FI: What was the response in Britain to your exposé of Mother Teresa?
Did you get a lot of criticism for it?

HITCHENS: When the film was shown, it prompted the largest number of
phone calls that the channel had ever logged. That was expected. It was
also expected that there would be a certain amount of similarity in the
calls. I've read the log, and many of the people rang to say exactly the
same thing, often in the same words. I think there was an element of
organization to it.

But what was more surprising was that it was also the largest number of
calls in favor that the station had ever had. That's rare because it's
usually the people who want to complain who lift the phone; people who
liked the program don't ring up. That's a phenomenon well known in the
trade, and it's a reason why people aren't actually all that impressed
when the switchboard is jammed with protest calls. They know it won't be
people calling in to praise and they know it's quite easy to organize.

A really remarkable number of people rung in to say it's high time there
was a program like this. The logs scrupulously record the calls
verbatim, and I noticed that the standard of English and of reasoning in
the pro calls was just so much higher as to make one feel that perhaps
all was not lost.

In addition to the initial viewer response, there was also a row in the
press. But on the whole both sides of the case were put. Nonetheless, it
was depressing to see how many people objected not to what was said but
to its being said at all. Even among secular people there was an
astonishment, as if I really had done something iconoclastic. People
would say "Christopher Hitchens alleges that Mother Teresa keeps company
with dictators" and so on, as though it hadn't been proven. But none of
the critics have ever said, even the most hostile ones, that anything I
say about her is untrue. No one has ever disproved any of that.

Probably the most intelligent review appeared in the Tablet, a English
monthly Catholic paper. There was a long, serious and quite sympathetic
review by someone who had obviously worked with the church in India and
knew Mother Teresa. The reviewer said Mother Teresa's work and ideology
do present some problems for the faith.

FI: But in America the idea that Mother Teresa is a sacred cow who must
not be criticized won out and your book and your critique of Mother
Teresa never got an airing?

HITCHENS: Yes, pretty much. Everything in American reviews depends on
the New York Times Book Review. My book was only mentioned in the batch
of short notices at the end. Considering that Mother Teresa had a book
out at the same time, I thought this was very strange. Any book review
editor with any red corpuscles at all would put both books together,
look up a reviewer with an interest in religion and ask him or her to
write an essay comparing and contrasting them. I have been a reviewer
and worked in a newspaper office, and that is what I would have expected
to happen. That it didn't is suggestive and rather depressing.

FI: The Mother Teresa myth requires the Indians to play the role of the
hapless victims. What do the Indians think of Mother Teresa and of the
image she gives of India?

HITCHENS: I've got an enormous pile of coverage from India, where my
book was published. And the reviews seem to be overwhelmingly favorable.
Of course it comes at a time when there is a big crisis in India about
fundamentalism and secularism.

There are many Indians who object to the image of their society and its
people that is projected. From Mother Teresa and from her fans you would
receive the impression that in Calcutta there is nothing but torpor,
squalor, and misery, and people barely have the energy to brush the
flies from their eyes while extending a begging bowl. Really and truly
that is a slander on a fantastically interesting, brave, highly evolved,
and cultured city, which has universities, film schools, theaters, book
shops, literary cafes, and very vibrant politics. There is indeed a
terrible problem of poverty and overcrowding, but despite that there
isn't all that much mendicancy. People do not tug at your sleeve and
beg. They are proud of the fact that they don't.

The sources of Calcutta's woes and miseries are the very overpopulation
that the church says is no problem, and the mass influx of refugees from
neighboring regions that have been devastated by religious and sectarian
warfare in the name of God. So those who are believers owe Calcutta big
time, they should indeed be working to alleviate what they are
responsible for. But the pretense that they are doing so is a big fraud.

FI: You mention in your book that Mother Teresa is used by the Religious
Right and fundamentalist Protestants who traditionally are very
anti-Catholic as a symbol of religious holiness with which to beat
secular humanists.

HITCHENS: Yes, she's a poster girl for the right-to-life wing in
America. She was used as the example of Christian idealism and family
values, of all things, by Ralph Reed - the front man of the Pat
Robertson forces. That's a symptom of a wider problem that I call
"reverse ecumenicism," an opportunist alliance between extreme Catholics
and extreme Protestants who used to exclude and anathematize one
another.

In private Pat Robertson has nothing but contempt for other Christian
denominations, including many other extreme Protestant ones. But in
public the Christian Coalition stresses that it is very, very keen to
make an alliance with Catholics. There is a shallow, opportunist
ecumenicism among religious extremists, and Mother Teresa is quite
willingly and happily in its service. She knows exactly who she is
working for and with. But I think she is happiest when doing things like
going to Ireland and intervening in the Divorce Referendum, as she did
recently.

By the way, there is an interesting angle to that which has not yet
appeared in print. During the Divorce Referendum the Irish Catholic
church threatened to deny the sacrament to women who wanted to be
remarried. There were no exceptions to be allowed: it didn't matter if
you had been married to an alcoholic who beat you and sexually assaulted
your children, you were not going to get a second chance in this world
or the next. And that is the position that Mother Teresa intervened in
Ireland to support.

Now shift the scene: Mother Teresa is a sort of confessor to Princess
Diana. They have met many times. You can see the mutual interest; I'm
not sure which of them needs the other the most. But Mother Teresa was
interviewed by Ladies Home Journal, a magazine read by millions of
American women, and in the course of it she says that she heard that
Princess Diana was getting divorced and she really hopes so because she
will be so much happier that way.

So there is forgiveness after all, but guess for whom. You couldn't have
it more plain than that. I was slightly stunned myself because, although
I think there are many fraudulent things about Mother Teresa, I also
think there are many authentic things about her. Anyway, she was forced
to issue a statement saying that marriage is God's work and can't be
undone and all the usual tripe. But when she was speaking from the
heart, she was more forgiving of divorce.

FI: A footnote in your book criticizes Mother Teresa for forgiving you
for your film about her.

HITCHENS: I said that I didn't ask for forgiveness and I wasn't aware
that she could bestow it in any case. Of all the things in the book,
that is the one that has attracted most hostile comment - even from
friends and people who agree with me. They ask why I object to that,
what's wrong with forgiveness? My explanation is that it would be O.K.
if she was going to forgive everyone. When she went to Bhopal after the
Union Carbide industrial accident killed thousands, she kept saying
"Forgive, forgive, forgive." It's O.K. to forgive Union Carbide for its
negligence, but for a woman married to an alcoholic child abuser in
Ireland who has ten children and no one to look after her, there is no
forgiveness in this life or the next one. But there is forgiveness for
Princess Diana.

FI: There is a Roman Catholic doctrine about the redemption of the soul
through suffering. This can be seen in Mother Teresa's work: she thinks
suffering is good, and she doesn't use pain relievers in her clinics and
so forth. Does she take the same attitude towards her own health? Does
she live in accordance with what she preaches?

HITCHENS: I hesitated to cover this in my book, but I decided I had to
publish that she has said that the suffering of the poor is something
very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility
of this example of misery and suffering.

FI: A horrible thing to say.

HITCHENS: Yes, evil in fact. To say it was unChristian unfortunately
would not be true, although many people don't realize that is what
Christians believe. It is a positively immoral remark in my opinion, and
it should be more widely known than it is.

She is old, she has had various episodes with her own health, and she
checks into some of the costliest and finest clinics in the West
herself. I hesitated to put that in the book because it seemed as though
it would be ad hominem (or ad feminam) and I try never to do that. I
think that the doctrine of hating the sin and loving the sinner is
obviously a stupid one, because its a false antithesis, but a version of
it is morally defensible. Certainly in arguments one is only supposed to
attack the arguments and not the person presenting them. But the
contrast seemed so huge in this case.

It wasn't so much that it showed that her facilities weren't any good,
but it showed that they weren't medical facilities at all. There wasn't
any place she runs that she could go; as far as I know, their point
isn't treatment. And in fairness to her, she has never really claimed
that treatment is the point. Although she does accept donations from
people who have fooled themselves into thinking so, I haven't found any
occasion where she has given a false impression of her work. The only
way she could be said to be responsible for spreading it is that she
knowingly accepts what comes due to that false impression.

FI: But if people go to her clinics for the dying and they need medical
care, does she send them on to the proper places?

HITCHENS: Not according to the testimony of a number of witnesses. I
printed the accounts of several witnesses whose testimony I could verify
and I've had many other communications from former volunteers in
Calcutta and in other missions. All of them were very shocked to find
when they got there that they had missed some very crucial point and
that very often people who come under the false impression that they
would receive medical care are either neglected or given no advice. In
other words, anyone going in the hope of alleviation of a serious
medical condition has made a huge mistake.

I've got so much testimony from former workers who contacted me after I
wrote the book, that I almost have enough material to do a sequel.

FI: I have a question as one Englishman in America to another. You are a
secular humanist Englishman who is a leading commentator on American
culture and politics. Tell me, what is it about Americans and religion?
Why is it that religion, often very primitive forms of religion, is so
powerful in perhaps the richest, most advanced, most consumerist nation
on Earth?

HITCHENS: I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to
it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I
mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself.

Why is the United States so prone to any kind of superstition, not just
organized religion, but cultism, astrology, millennial beliefs, UFOs,
any form of superstition? I've thought a lot about it. I read Harold
Bloom's book The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian
Nation (1992) about the evolution of what he thinks of as a specifically
American form of religion. There was a book by Will Herberg in the 1950s
called Protestant, Catholic, Jew where he speculated that what was
really evolving was the American way of life as a religion. And that
this was a way of life that wasn't at all spiritual or intellectual but
in a sense believed that all religion was valid as long as it
underpinned this way of life. Somehow religion was a necessary
ingredient. In other words, religion was functional. I think that's true
but it's not the whole story.

Maybe - and this is a conclusion that I am reluctant to come to - it is
because there is no established church here. A claim that is made for
established churches is that in a way they domesticate and canalize and
give a form and order to superstitious impulses. That's why they usually
succeed in annexing all local cults and making them their own, etc. Part
of their job is to soak up all the savagery around the place. I think
from an anthropological point of view, that's partly true.

In a country that very honorably and uniquely founded itself on
repudiating that idea and saying the church and the government would
always be separate, and also a country that many people came to in the
hope of practicing their own religion, you have both free competition
and a sense of manifest destiny. I think it's out of that sort of stew
that you have all these bubbles.

Chesterton used to say that, if people didn't have a belief in God, they
wouldn't believe in nothing, they would believe in anything. The
objection to that of course is that belief in God is believing in
anything. But there's still a ghost of a point in there: if people are
licensed to believe anything and call it spirituality, then they will.

FI: I think maybe it's not so much not having an established church as
not having a dominant church. In France you have strict separation, but
the Catholic church is dominant. Yet France has very high levels of
nonbelief, like countries with an established church. But in America you
have free competition of churches, and lots of competing cults, and much
more energy as a result.

HITCHENS: I'm not sure that people in the United States are as devout as
the statistics suggest. The statistics are extraordinary if you believe
them: something like 88 percent of Americans regularly attend church,
and 90 percent of them believe in the devil. I would like to have a look
at how the questions are formulated in these polls.

FI: We have done our own polls - scientifically selected samples - in
which we framed the questions ourselves, and we got very similar results
to the other polls we had read. It may be that the question is not, Why
do people believe this? - because perhaps they don't - but, Why do
people say they believe this? There's obviously a social conditioning.

HITCHENS: Yes, that's right. People obviously feel they owe the
pollsters that kind of answer.

I wonder whether the onset of the millennium is going to be as awful as
I sometimes fear. There will be uneasiness among the feeble-minded and
the emotionally insecure.

FI: Especially in America.

HITCHENS: American fundamentalism has one huge problem which is that the
United States is nowhere pre-figured in the Bible. It worries them a
lot, they keep trying to find it there, they try to interpret prophecies
to refer to the United States, but they can't succeed - even to their
own satisfaction - in getting it to come out right.

FI: You have to go to the Book of Mormon?

HITCHENS: Yes, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, who descended from the
Millerites. I can see that Scientology now enjoys charitable status as a
religion, which I think is a real triumph. I can't get over that. You
can set some idea of what it would have been like to live in
third-century Nicea when Christianity was being hammered together - an
experience I am very glad I did not have. Religious diversity is
confused with pluralism. Because of multi-culturalism and what is called
"political correctness," religion has a certain protection that it
couldn't expect to have if it was a state-sponsored racket like the
Church of England.

FI: A lot of people who aren't religious think religion should still be
beyond criticism.

HITCHENS: Certainly, because it's people's deepest and dearest beliefs,
and because they are communities as well as congregations. And I suppose
that in the minds of some people the feeling is "Well, you never know,
it may be true and then I will go to Hell." A lot of people every now
and then are visited by fear. It seems that as animals we are so
constituted. At least we can know that about ourselves, but it is such a
waste of the knowledge to interpret in any other way. On the other hand,
I'm also impressed by the number of people who manage to get by - often
without any help or support - not believing.

FI: The great thing about humanism is that so many people reach the
position independently, because it is not about teachers and doctrines.
You just end up a humanist by following your own questions.

HITCHENS: That's true. And it doesn't have any element of
wishful-thinking in it, which is another advantage. Though it's the
reason why I think it will always be hated but never eradicated.

FI: Look at the situation in Western Europe: in Holland about 55 percent
say they are humanist or non-religious; and in Britain it's up to about
30 percent and among teenagers it's 50 percent. So there's an enormous
movement in Western Europe towards secularism and humanism. Yet in
America it seems to be getting just more and more religious. Which,
considering the convergence of culture in other areas, seems quite
anomalous. Sociologists are just beginning to address this issue but
haven't done so properly yet.

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

Subscribe to Free Inquiry
Order Free Inquiry Back Issues
Free Inquiry Home Page
Secular Humanism Online Library
Council for Secular Humanism Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Webmaster@SecularHumanism.org
This page was last updated 02/17/2003

Copyright notice: The copyright for the contents of this web site rests
with the Council for Secular Humanism.
You may download and read the documents. Without permission, you may
not alter this information, repost it, or sell it.
If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the
Council for Secular Humanism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:31 AM
To: Matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casinos

Michael writes

> Well, at the fundamental level I don't think states should be able
> prohibit anything that isn't an assault on person or property. So they
> shouldn't be prohibiting gambling or prostitution.

I believe that this has to be (or should be) a function of
the culture. I mean, what laws are optimal in any society
depends to some degree upon the advancement of the people.

To be sure, we must keep uppermost in mind that protection
of individual rights and private property can cause a society
to take great strides.

But it seems to me also that a number of societies of the
present and past are not practically capable of profiting
from "excesses" of individualism and freedom. For example,
it's not clear that people who do not own property should
be allowed to vote. (They just don't have a great enough
stake in what will transpire.) And until the 18th or 19th
century, for extremely few societies would it have been
practical to abolish slavery. (In those, the peculiar
institution was probably an ESS, and any small community
that tried doing without it would have been at an economic
disadvantage---despite the terrible harm and retardation
that the institution invariably brought.)

Yes, if everyone was an independent, high-IQ, middle-class
white male, then libertarianism (and maybe even minarchy)
would work quite well. But they aren't. And I predict that
the presence of prostitution and gambling in *most* present-
day American communities increases vice, breaks up families,
and weakens the nation as a whole.

> All this makes me excited to see what happens in New Hampshire. Will
> all the zoning laws go? Will we see prostitution and Casinos?

Well, ideally, that is the point of having 50 states; we get to
conduct 50 experiments. Of course, the experiments are not
controlled, and so whatever eventuates in New Hampshire will
only provide *some* indication of the success or failure of
a given policy.

Lee

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:30 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casinos

> Michael writes
>
> > Well, at the fundamental level I don't think states should be able
> > prohibit anything that isn't an assault on person or property. So
they
> > shouldn't be prohibiting gambling or prostitution.
>
> I believe that this has to be (or should be) a function of
> the culture. I mean, what laws are optimal in any society
> depends to some degree upon the advancement of the people.

Laws should be optimal of individuals, not 'people' who are they
people, after all, but everyone besides yourself. Your comment seems to
hint to some utilitarian ethics, that in some cases the need of the many
outweigh the needs of the individual. Is this accurate?

When you say advancement of the people, do you mean as a mean? A
median? If it's a mean, a few may prosper tremendously, while the
majority suffer some. On average, everyone is better. I think any
system that tries to weigh society against the individual will always
tend toward society, at the suffering of the individual. But any system
that leans toward the individual will be better, since each individual
will be.

>
> To be sure, we must keep uppermost in mind that protection
> of individual rights and private property can cause a society
> to take great strides.
>
> But it seems to me also that a number of societies of the
> present and past are not practically capable of profiting
> from "excesses" of individualism and freedom.

Sure, the societies are not, but the individual people are certainly
capable of benefiting from excesses of individualism and freedom.

For example,
> it's not clear that people who do not own property should
> be allowed to vote. (They just don't have a great enough
> stake in what will transpire.)

Or perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything that doesn't
affect their person or property. If you are not a property owner, you
cant vote on how other peoples property should be used. If you are not
a car, boat, or jet owner, you cant vote on anything relating to those
things (of course, I wonder at the value of any laws pertaining to those
sort of thigns) But all people will always own themselves, and as such
should always be able to vote on laws pertaining to civil liberties and
defense, no?

Personally, I wonder how much politicians will have to do in a true
minarchist society, where a gov only provides national defense and
protection of property rights and civil liberties. The only voting that
will be going on will be in relation to how best use funds to accomplish
either of those basic services.

> Yes, if everyone was an independent, high-IQ, middle-class
> white male, then libertarianism (and maybe even minarchy)
> would work quite well.

What are you talking about! Most libertarians are uneducated minority
immigrants! (sarcasm) But I bet if they were able to pick between a
group of objectively listed political systems, most probably would be
libertarians, as the other guys want to pack em up and cart em back to
the hell hole they just escaped from.

But they aren't. And I predict that
> the presence of prostitution and gambling in *most* present-
> day American communities increases vice, breaks up families,
> and weakens the nation as a whole.

Well, Vice is an abstract term. Will it increase things some people
consider to be morally bankrupt, sure. Will it increase violence,
theft, and assault on persons or property? Not so sure. Break up
families? I think any trend which tends to increase the awareness of an
individual of themselves will have such an effect. The growing pace of
individualism may well see the demise of nuclear families, cant say I
would see much of a problem with that anyway. Imagine 100 years from
now, everyone is virtually immortal, a billionaire, and
super-intelligent. Where will marriage and children fit into this? The
growing reduction in birth rates in industrialized and
post-industrialized nations all ready hints to this. The post-post
industrialized nation (whatever that is) will very rarely see any new
births.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:53 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casinos

Michael writes

> [Lee wrote]
> > Michael writes
> >
> > > Well, at the fundamental level I don't think states
> > > should be able prohibit anything that isn't an
> > > assault on person or property. So they
> > > shouldn't be prohibiting gambling or prostitution.
> >
> > I believe that this has to be (or should be) a function of
> > the culture. I mean, what laws are optimal in any society
> > depends to some degree upon the advancement of the people.
>
> Laws should be optimal of individuals, not 'people' who are they
> people, after all, but everyone besides yourself.

As helpful as your criticism is elsewhere (see below),
it seems to miss the mark here. I don't think that my
statement would read any differently were I to substitute
"individuals composing the society" for "people".
(Even the Constitution begins with "We the people...".)

> Your comment seems to hint to some utilitarian ethics,
> that in some cases the need of the many outweigh the
> needs of the individual. Is this accurate?

Well, so far as I can determine, I am indeed driven by some
sort of utilitarianism. And yes, there are times during
which the needs of the many *do* outweigh the needs of one;
an example is freedom of expression for an individual during
wartime. But *the* reason that I favor legal rights for
individuals is that in the long run the many are indeed
better off.

> When you say advancement of the people, do you mean as a mean? A
> median?

I would say as a mean or median. For example, individual
Americans have the trait at the present time of being more
capable of self-government than do individual Iraqis.
An Iraqi teleported to the U.S. might very well behave
as do we, but only because he'd be in the midst of all
those Americans in whom he could place trust. I know
that when I enter a polling place, not even the Democrats
there will dream of intimidating me, and that they will
honestly record my votes. (An exception might be in those
districts inhabited by too many recent immigrants, or too
many people who have not sufficiently absorbed the main
culture.) The issue of *trust* in general has been well
dealt with by Fukuyama and others.

> > To be sure, we must keep uppermost in mind that protection
> > of individual rights and private property can cause a society
> > to take great strides.
> >
> > But it seems to me also that a number of societies of the
> > present and past are not practically capable of profiting
> > from "excesses" of individualism and freedom.
>
> Sure, the societies are not, but the individual people are certainly
> capable of benefiting from excesses of individualism and freedom.

Well, I mean suppose that you were a king of a Mayan city,
or a prince of medieval Europe, or a Mafia kingpin. As soon
as you declared that individual rights would be protected, you'd
be seen as weak, and quickly deposed. A culture is a real
thing (as is a society), and it took Englishmen centuries
to evolve the traditions and mutual respect and confidence
that made self-government possible.

> > For example, it's not clear that people who do not
> > own property should be allowed to vote. (They just
> > don't have a great enough stake in what will transpire.)
>
> Or perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything that doesn't
> affect their person or property. If you are not a property owner, you
> can't vote on how other people's property should be used. If you are not
> a car, boat, or jet owner, you cant vote on anything relating to those
> things (of course, I wonder at the value of any laws pertaining to those
> sort of things) But all people will always own themselves, and as such
> should always be able to vote on laws pertaining to civil liberties and
> defense, no?

Ideally, yes. But (again depending upon the culturally evolved
characteristics of the people) you run the risk of the voters
soon realizing that they can apportion themselves pieces of the
public treasury, as some long ago Scottish economist warned.
Suppose somehow a referendum came before all U.S. voters that
stated that everyone was going to immediately receive $5,000
from the U.S. treasury. I fear that it would pass.

So yes, in a society composed of individuals more advanced than
ours at present, it would probably be all right to allow the
property-less and the women to vote; but most societies' individuals
do not have strong enough intuitions or reason to prevent socialism
from being a direct result given a wide enough franchise.

> Personally, I wonder how much politicians will have to do in a true
> minarchist society, where a gov only provides national defense and
> protection of property rights and civil liberties. The only voting that
> will be going on will be in relation to how best use funds to accomplish
> either of those basic services.

But can we really get from here to there? Is there
a path? I am afraid that many steps apparently towards
that goal in reality take us even further away.

> > Yes, if everyone was an independent, high-IQ, middle-class
> > white male, then libertarianism (and maybe even minarchy)
> > would work quite well.
>
> What are you talking about! Most libertarians are uneducated minority
> immigrants! (sarcasm) But I bet if they were able to pick between a
> group of objectively listed political systems, most probably would be
> libertarians, as the other guys want to pack em up and cart em back to
> the hell hole they just escaped from.

On that one issue, yes. But my statement above still stands. Or
does it?

> > But they aren't. And I predict that
> > the presence of prostitution and gambling in *most* present-
> > day American communities increases vice, breaks up families,
> > and weakens the nation as a whole.
>
> Well, Vice is an abstract term.

Thank you for the warning. What happened to me to cause
this slip? Visualize the streets on which prostitution
and gambling are legal. Is there a tendency for many
people to indulge in those "vices", including drug abuse
and theft, when they sense the "anything goes" nuances of
the neighborhood? Or do such locales simply collect people
who're already up to no good, removing them from the other
areas?

> Will it increase things some people consider to be morally
> bankrupt, sure. Will it increase violence, theft, and assault
> on persons or property? Not so sure.

Yes, here I guess we must consult the literature, and try
to determine if reputable studies have been done by researchers
with no bias.

> Break up families? I think any trend which tends to increase
> the awareness of an individual of themselves will have such an
> effect. The growing pace of individualism may well see the
> demise of nuclear families, can't say I would see much of a
> problem with that anyway.

Well, it's quite a complex dynamic. I was startled to hear
on the radio a few years back that a survey of "family values"
was vastly higher at UC Berkeley than it had been years earlier.
I needed to be reminded who was attending Berkeley before that
made any sense. It's the Asians, now.

In California, (which, it has always seemed, portends the future)
we have much less individualism and much greater degree for
"family values" than previously. (Of course, the hidden majority
doesn't get on English-speaking TV much, so we Anglos don't
notice them so much.) But families are, after all, the ones
who create lots of children (except for government programs
that induce poor women to remain single and have several
children).

So you are right about the demise of nuclear families. But only
among those ethnic groups (as in Europe) slated for replacement.

> Imagine 100 years from now, everyone is virtually immortal,
> a billionaire, and super-intelligent. Where will marriage
> and children fit into this? The growing reduction in birth
> rates in industrialized and post-industrialized nations
> already hints to this. The post-post industrialized nation
> (whatever that is) will very rarely see any new births.

Well *whatever* group has lots of births for *whatever* reason
will eventually predominate. You cannot avoid the Darwinian
logic. History is a record of one tribe supplanting other,
from the Neanderthals to Moslems modern France; same place,
but about the tenth group of people.

Sure, a Singularity would change everything. Most likely,
someone will be First, and if he's at all like me, he'll
populate the visible universe with versions of himself.
If he's not, then Second will, or someone will. Somewhat
less likely, but still possible, is that someone will
succeed the way Eliezer Yudkowski would like, and create
a totally controlling dictator which will have a monopoly
on super-intelligence, and which will (hopefully) be governed
by humans' current values.

But those two scenarios are only if something *bad* doesn't
happen.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:03 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] "I want to Live Forever" Interview in New Scientist

There is a great extropic interview published in New Scientist.

"Cynthia Kenyon thinks we can have it all: health, wealth, hordes of
children - and a long life. A very long life. She disagrees with
prevailing ideas that we can only live longer by paying a high price in
terms of reduced fertility or a sluggish metabolism."

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp;jsessionid=LNGKGFCML
CEG?id=ns24171

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:51 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] FSP Sing up

>
> There are several of the bunker mentalities out west (you know the
> type, the whole 'black helicopter' typology) who think that NH is the
> absolute worst state for this experiment. They opted out of having to
> move to NH when opting out of candidate states was available and are
> being really poor sports about losing. They are now trying to piece
> together a "western free state project", but are being warned against
> using the FSP name, which is trademarked.
>

Well, never let practicality stand in the way of ideology.

> Claire Wolf was originally one of the sagebrush porcupines (FSP
members
> are called porcupines)

Why?

>
> >
> > The Agreement is pretty reasonable, by signing up you agree to move
> > to New Hampshire within five years of the time that they have 20,000
> > members sign up. If they never get 20,000 members, then its no skin
> > off your back, and you are not obliged to move. If they do get
> > 20,000, most libertarian minded people will probably be wanting
> > to move there. I am
> > not sure what the repercussions are if you do not move, even though
> > you signed up, I suspect there are not any. Mike?
>
> It's a contract, so what ever degree of honor you place in keeping
your
> contracts is between you and your personal Roscoe. Will the FSP send
> out goons to enforce the contract? Not bloody likely. Will some of us
> hound you across the internet until the Omega Point for being a
> shyster?.... mmmmmmmmeebbbbeeee ;)

The fact that it isn't clear on this may be causing some reluctance to
sign up. I know it did with me. I fully intend on moving there, as
long as it all works out okay. But Id like to give it a year or two to
make sure the nuttiest of us aren't trying succeed from the US, abolish
all forms of govt in new Hampshire absolutely, or whatever. I am all
for taking specific gradual progressive steps toward a goal.

I wonder how many more people would sign up if it said something like "I
would seriously consider moving there if 20,000 people signed up" I
think a lot of people might be reluctant to absolutely and
unquestionable agree, there may be many more interested that are taking
a wait and see attitude. I am sure all this has been considered by the
FSP all ready, I am just chattering.

> The FSP already has two state legislators as full members, as well as
a
> number of selectmen and other local politicians across the state. The
> NH Republican Alliance has asked the LPNH (with whome they have a very
> positive relationship) to send someone to their retreat to talk about
> the FSP, and even some democrats have approached us about building
> alliances on common issues. The only real opponents here are the
> Democrat leaders, esp Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, who seemed to be on
> the verge of a nervous breakdown the other night when interviewed by
> the tv folks about our vote.

Good!!! Let em shake in their paternalistic boots, I hope we run em out
of there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:24 PM
To: Matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] FSP Sing up

--- Matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:
>
> > Claire Wolf was originally one of the sagebrush porcupines (FSP
> members
> > are called porcupines)
>
> Why?

The porcupine was adopted as the FSP mascot as a symbol of a natural
embodiment of the ZAP. Not an agressive or predatory animal, the
porcupine is hostile to harassment and predation and will give
predators a face full of quills (of course, there being a pen/sword
pun/metaphor here as well). It is a parallel to the revolutionary war
flag of a rattlesnake saying 'don't tread on me'.

> >
> > It's a contract, so what ever degree of honor you place in keeping
> your
> > contracts is between you and your personal Roscoe. Will the FSP
> send
> > out goons to enforce the contract? Not bloody likely. Will some of
> us
> > hound you across the internet until the Omega Point for being a
> > shyster?.... mmmmmmmmeebbbbeeee ;)
>
> The fact that it isn't clear on this may be causing some reluctance
> to
> sign up. I know it did with me. I fully intend on moving there, as
> long as it all works out okay. But Id like to give it a year or two
> to
> make sure the nuttiest of us aren't trying succeed from the US,
> abolish
> all forms of govt in new Hampshire absolutely, or whatever. I am all
> for taking specific gradual progressive steps toward a goal.

I wouldn't worry about it. I doubt that the FSP will ever have the
funds itself to take any sort of legal action against someone who has
to bail out on the contract. If it turns out to be a problem, we may
consider making a test case or two, perhaps a class action suit, in
fact, but I don't think that would be smart. Anybody moving would have
to be willing political allies. Someone who was forced to move by court
order would not likely be easy to get along with. If someone did that
to me, I'd likely just vote against them to fuck them back.

The opt-in/opt-out process was designed to let people exercise choice
so they can't complain about being coerced. I'm pretty happy with the
results. At this point, we are getting lots of people who had opted out
of NH when they signed up deciding to opt back in and and are planning
on moving.

The primary fence sitting about joining up to now I think has been due
to uncertainty over what the final destination would actually be and
whether we could actually get the members needed. This is okay. While
statistically speaking, we really would only have needed 200 members to
accurately decide the sentiments of 20,000 future members, the 5,000
member vote threshold was designed to recruit dedicated activists who
would put liberty ahead of personal utility more than normal people,
and to build the sort of PR campaign that we were able to achieve in
the major media.

5 Thousand people is a significant number of people, enough to get
media attention to something (hell, the million mom march didn't get
many more than that) in order to generate general public awareness.
This was achieved. We had media coverage in Europe and Japan as well as
in every state in the country through this summer, and all the TV and
radio news programs on October 1st. There were over 300 articles in the
news on that day about us. We did good. If only Extropy could mount
such a campaign, something that I've been bugging about for a while,
but which nobody seemed to be too enthused about at ExI.

Natasha would cream her pants if she could get five thousand members.
Imagine how many tea parties for worshipping her at the Getty that
would mean??? ;)

>
> I wonder how many more people would sign up if it said something like
> "I
> would seriously consider moving there if 20,000 people signed up" I
> think a lot of people might be reluctant to absolutely and
> unquestionable agree, there may be many more interested that are
> taking
> a wait and see attitude. I am sure all this has been considered by
> the FSP all ready, I am just chattering.

Well, the point of making it a contract, back when Jason, I, and a few
others were discussing it back in 2001, is that part of the problem
with the country today is that not many people place any value in
keeping commitments. Flakes do not make good political activists, so
the commitment is meant to dissuade those summer soldiers and sunshine
patriots from throwing our numbers on a lark. If we made it just a
'seriously consider' type statement, we'd have to recruit 100,000
people or more just to get the 20k we need to actually move and be
active to effect change.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

From: Matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:22 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] How women compete

Everytime I open up AOL Instant messenger I receive their horrid welcome
news screen. I know I can turn it off, but I like to see what the
lowest common demonitor of public concern is as reflected by AOL's
target audiences. Articles such as "Will you cheat on your significant
other" and "Ashton and Demi's secret wedding in Vegas" are common. I
rarely ever click on them, mostly annoyed and disappointed at what
people are so concerned over these days, or what AOL thinks they are.
Anyway, today I saw

"You Won't Believe Who Cussed In Public"

I decided to bite, maybe I really wouldn't believe it!

It turns out the answer to the charge was Women in Elizabethen England.
Boy, I must say I was flabbergasted.

From -
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/cussedinpublic
/cussedinpublic

The article is kind of interesting, despite its lame theme. Here is a
quote.

"According to new research from a University of Warwick historian, the
language used then was brimming with offensive sexual insults that were
considerably more lewd than anything heard on today's broadcast media...

Women were the worst offenders. Why? It gave them power. Gossip
mongering and heated public exchanges were weapons used by women to
wield power and influence in a male-dominated society where they were
often excluded, according to University of Warwick history professor
Bernard Capp who has traced the history of Elizabethan street theater in
a book called "When Gossips Meet." He says that public name-calling by
women was used to demoralize an adversary, trigger damaging gossip
throughout the neighborhood, and turn public opinion against the alleged
offender."

I have frequently argued this to those who cared to listen. This is how
women compete, while men were running around batting other men over the
heads, shoving spears in their flesh, or marking territory with pissing
contests, women were busy chattering, forming alliances, scheming,
plotting, getting dirt other other women and men, etc. etc. Since it
would be unwise to leave children unprotected or to be injured in a
physical confrontation, this form of competition would make much more
sense to embrace. This flies in the face of the modern feeling in the
west that women are benign and more spiritually enlightened. I
frequently hear people chatter that there would be no wars if women ran
countries. I wonder given their genetic penchant for plotting and
scheming what the world would be like if they did run it.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:03 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] How women compete

Michael writes

> "You Won't Believe Who Cussed In Public"
>
> It turns out the answer to the charge was Women in Elizabethen England.
> Boy, I must say I was flabbergasted.
>
> >From -
> http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/cussedinpublic
> /cussedinpublic
>
> "According to new research from a University of Warwick historian, the
> language used then was brimming with offensive sexual insults that were
> considerably more lewd than anything heard on today's broadcast media...
>
> Women were the worst offenders. Why? It gave them power. Gossip
> mongering and heated public exchanges were weapons used by women to
> wield power and influence in a male-dominated society where they were
> often excluded, according to University of Warwick history professor
> Bernard Capp who has traced the history of Elizabethan street theater in
> a book called "When Gossips Meet." He says that public name-calling by
> women was used to demoralize an adversary, trigger damaging gossip
> throughout the neighborhood, and turn public opinion against the alleged
> offender."
>
> I have frequently argued this to those who cared to listen. This is how
> women compete, while men were running around batting other men over the
> heads, shoving spears in their flesh, or marking territory with pissing
> contests, women were busy chattering, forming alliances, scheming,
> plotting, getting dirt other other women and men, etc. etc. Since it
> would be unwise to leave children unprotected or to be injured in a
> physical confrontation, this form of competition would make much more
> sense to embrace. This flies in the face of the modern feeling in the
> west that women are benign and more spiritually enlightened. I
> frequently hear people chatter that there would be no wars if women ran
> countries. I wonder given their genetic penchant for plotting and
> scheming what the world would be like if they did run it.

Yes it's surprising; as for your last question, I do not
think that the world would be much different. The women
who'd rule would be too logical to do anything besides
declare war when it was in the best interests of their
nations.

Vice-versa, at present male administrations are logical
enough to scheme endlessly when fighting is not their
best option.

I would love to know when women stopped cussing. It's
hard to imagine it after Cromwell took over, and as hard
under the restoration. The puritans made a *lasting*
impression. I need to go read about the rise of puritanism.
The Elizabethan era surely didn't end in Elizabeth's death
in 1603, and the protestants were strong everywhere in north
Europe by 1560.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:58 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Here are some reviews of Lynn and Vanhanen's book "IQ and the
Wealth of Nations" at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/027597510X/103-6936881-2131041

28 of 28 people found the following review helpful:

IQ and national prosperity -- a problem solved, December 12, 2002
Reviewer: Chris Brand (see more about me) from Edinburgh, Midlothian United Kingdom
This book must be a good candidate for being the most important book of the 21st century.
British psychologist Richard Lynn and Finnish political scientist Tatu Vanhanen find that
recent IQ data from scores of countries world-wide show really strong correlations, of around
r = .65, with national prosperity -- whether Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated for
1820 or for the 1990s. Quite contrary to the theorizing of most Western economists of the
past fifty years, the underdeveloped (later, 'developing') countries of fifty years ago have
not generally closed the gap with the help of ongoing Western handouts and advice. Clearly,
several East Asian countries have in that time made enormous strides -- as may also happen
soon in the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe; but in the countries of sub-Saharan
Africa (i.e. largely Black Africa), mean IQ estimates hover around 70 and progress has been
slight. Of the world's 21 countries which steadily tripled their GDP from 1983 through 1990
and 1993 to 1996, none was on or near the African mainland; whereas of the 27 countries whose
GDP decreased by 50%, ten were African (Angola, Burkina Faso, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Libya,
Madagascar, Somalia, Sudan, Zambia and Sao Tome & Principe).

Yet will L&V prove persuasive about causation? Doubters will raise four particular problems.
First, IQ and the Wealth of Nations is published by an American mail order house which
charges £70 for the book. Terrorized by the politically correct, mainstream Western
'publishers' have for ten years been entirely unwilling to bring out books that touch on race
- whether by Arthur Jensen, Phil Rushton or myself. Recently, it turned out that top
psychologist Steven Pinker (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), who had converted to
hereditarianism after hearing from friends how a second child was often very different from a
first, felt he had to remove a chapter about race from the final draft of his new
pro-heredity book, The Blank Slate. L&V are not alone in finding themselves up against the
Zeitgeist, and the reception of their book has not so far been auspicious. L&V's reply will
have to be that such repression indicates that the liberal-left consensus (which in 1950
persuaded the United Nations to declare all races to be of equal intelligence) is a hysteria
that must one day lift.

Secondly, some will doubtless try to quibble with the IQ estimates that are the central
novelty of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. L&V typically present some three 'normative' IQ
studies for each of the countries they discuss; they do not provide details of social
sampling; and they estimate IQ's for some nations by taking the average of the IQs in
neighbouring countries - e.g. crediting Afghanistan with IQ 83 as an average of India's 81
and Iran's 84. Surprisingly, L&V maintain that the mean IQ in Israel is only 94 - ignoring
the possibility that Sephardic Jews, like other Africans, may have special deficits in the
visuo-spatial abilities that are needed to do well on 'culture-fair' intelligence tests like
the famous Raven's Matrices. None of this is ideal. However, L&V have a very strong reply
from both the general consistency of their IQ estimates and the sheer strength of IQ's
correlations with national productivity. If workers had seriously confounded their
assessments of national IQ, L&V would simply have had to present the usual miserably low
correlations of around .25 that obtain throughout psychology and the social sciences. As it
is, L&V have plainly struck gold.

Thirdly, there is the question of cause and effect. Can L&V convince us that IQ actually
causes national wealth, rather than vice versa? The literature on the causal importance of IQ
is only partially covered here, and L&V settle rather easily for the view that IQ and wealth
will both tend to cause each other. This concession will weaken their case in the eyes of
those who already deplore the idea that IQ is causal. L&V would have done better to point to
the exceedingly slight IQ advantages accruing to Black children in the USA even when their
fathers are seriously rich, and to the failure of the American Black-White gap in
intelligence to decrease despite many billions of American dollars being thrown at the
problem for the past forty years. Even a century of national impoverishment does not lower IQ
-- as shown by the cases of mainland China, Poland and Russia in L&V's own data. By contrast,
IQ correlates .50 with individual upward social mobility, relative to the position of the
testee's father (Touhey, 1972). The simple truth is that a normal national IQ is necessary
though not sufficient for prosperity; and that a low IQ holds whole countries back even if
individuals can compensate for dullness by good looks or hard work. Neglecting such points,
as also the full range of arguments that race differences are of substantially genetic origin
... L&V will have partly themselves to blame if their book is set aside.

Lastly, L&V show remarkable modesty about the implications of their findings. This may have
been intended as placatory; but it, too, will win them few friends. Rather than stress the
need for eugenics in Africa, L&V conclude their book with two bizarrely half-hearted
recommendations. The first is that the West should recognize continuing IQ differences and
thus continue pumping subsidies into Africa as a matter of "ethical obligation." The second
is that some fraction of this conscience money should be spent not on eugenics but on
"improvements in nutrition and the like." No change there, then, for this is what the West
has been doing ever since it abandoned the responsible idea of empire! It is remarkable that
L&V should have troubled to write a 'controversial' book which cannot be published by a
mainstream publisher only to come to such feeble practical recommendations. L&V have provided
a way of forgetting their book which social-environmentalist ideologues will be desperately
eager to take.

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

Landmark Study. Attempts to answer Age Old Quesiton, October 2, 2002
Reviewer: Joe Walker (see more about me) from San Diego, CA USA
Professor Lynn and Vanhanen attempts to answer the age old questions of wealth and poverty.
Why are some nations rich and some nations poor.

This is not a simple question, new nor something that can be answered easily. Adam Smith's
The Wealth of Nations attempted to answer this question for European nations more than two
hundred years ago. Lynn and Vahanen attempts to answer it at the turn of the century for the
world.

This book should be read with a grain of salt and lots of skepticism. The authors attempts to
postulate a national IQ for the world world, for 165 nations. Moreover, the authors attempt
to correlate IQ and economic performance. Needless to say, this is gigantic, if not
impossible task.

Much of the IQ for half the world population is either incomplete nor valid because there
just have not been any studies done at all Correlating IQ an economic performance must take
into conisderation historical, phyical and cultural factors involved for so many natins and
so many people.

However, the rise of East Asia as economic powers and Japan in particular does raise the
issue of IQ and economic performance. Is natural resources or market economies the sole path
to national wealth? Lots of countries have natural resources but are in no way developed at
all.

This is a good read and good buy just because it has economic data and IQ data on so many
nations. It is a scholarly book and not easy reading.

It's a gigantic if not altogether fallable attempt to correlate IQ and economic performance
of the whole world's nations. Looked under that light, it is a must read, must buy just
because of the intellectual grounds this book covers and enormity of the issues it grapples
with. Recommend to all interested in wealth and poverty to buy.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

This book demands a rebuttal. Where is it?, June 29, 2003
Reviewer: Graham Seibert (see more about me) from Bethesda, Md United States
Our society forms social policy, most recently the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative
action in Michigan, on the premise that all racial groups are equal. Not Lincoln's "all men
are equal under the law" but "all men are equal".

We observe inequality in every aspect of life, most notably educational achievement and
financial status. If, as society assumes, all people are equally capable of achievement,
there has to be a conspiracy holding some peoples down. And what is it? White racism, they
say, as if it could not be more obvious. Well hidden, but still manifest in "low
expectations" and "subtle disparagement" etc. We white guys have broad shoulders, but jeez,
it gets old after a while. Blacks and liberals have such low opinions of our fundamental
morality, we descendants of the abolitionists who freed the slaves and were active partners
of the NAACP over the years. It could start to affect our self esteem.

A similar conspiracy theory appears at the international level. African countries supposedly
remain poor because they have been exploited by more advanced nations. Their attempts at
industrialization supposedly fall victim to greedy foreign companies through a scheme of
"globalization" that values them only for their raw materials and cheap labor. Just as the
racism theory holds that we white guys are in cahoots to hold minorities down, this one
assumes an evil alliance among large companies and advanced countries to depress the market
value of the labor and raw materials produced by developing countries. Oppression is a
rhetorical staple at the U.N.

It has been almost 10 years since "The Bell Curve" appeared. Since that time many other books
have appeared that appear to support its arguments that peoples are different in
statistically significant ways, among them "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", "The g factor,"
"Race, Evolution and Behavior," "Genes, Peoples and Languages," and Steven Pinker's "The
Blank Slate."

As Pinker so eloquently reports, these books have been vilified by academics. Typical is
Peter Irons writing in "Jim Crow's Children" that "virtually all reputable scholars reject
claims, most recently leveled by Richard Herrenstein and Charles Murray.." or Hugh Price
disparaging "scientifically discredited" theories of intelligence in "Achievement Matters" or
Tom Wicker writing in "Tragic Failure" that "...the Bell Curve... received much condemnation
as pseudoscience." Strikingly absent from all these well annotated books are footnotes in
support of these claims. Who are these "reputable scholars" who have "discredited" these
books? Peter Irons offers one name, that of Richard Nisbett, who has authored no books on the
subject but does post a 16-page (triple-spaced) bit on his web site. Price and Wicker offer
none. The most prominent debunker, Stephen Jay Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man," rather than
offering a statistical rebuttal, attacks the premise that statistical analysis is meaningful.
He does, of course, cite a few studies that support his case.

The policy implications are vast. If all peoples are equally capable we must find and do away
with whatever prejudices are holding some back. If all peoples are not equal we have to fall
back a century or so and reconsider the white man's burden. What is the obligation of more
richly endowed individuals and nations to the less richly endowed? If society is a Darwinist
struggle between equally capable combatants, some simply more industrious than others, one
would not have too much sympathy for the losers. If the struggle is truly unequal the
humanitarian thing to do is to redistribute wealth. It is probably also the smart thing to do
-- buy peace. Give Marx partial credit, though redistributing all of it as under Communism
proved to be a disaster. Amy Chua's recommends in "World on Fire" that "market dominant
minorities" like Jews and Chinese curry favor by giving back to their adoptive countries.

Whatever the story, policy should be based on knowledge. Would some "reputable scholar"
please step forward to poke holes in Messrs. Lynn and VanHansen's argument? If that proves
impossible the U.N. might have to take their arguments into consideration. Imagine what it
would do to that body's self esteem.

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

The truth hurts..., April 17, 2003
Reviewer: allegra m steger from Houston, Texas United States
True, the numbers aren't perfect, but they should be adequate for anyone familiar with
statistics and economic theory. Their numbers are certianly better than the "fuzzy math"
passing as hard data in a lot of social science research these days.
Dr. Greg Rushing
Houston, TX

13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

IQ Affects Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Revoutionary Book, February 12, 2003
Reviewer: Charles Darwin (see more about me) from Austin, Texas USA
I accidentally ran across this book while taking a class on International economics at a
local college. The issue of wealth and poverty of nations is complicated, controversial and
full of left-right wing ideology.

According to the World Bank data and the U.S. World Factbook, how is it possible for so many
African countries to have life expectancy to be little above 40 years old. How is it
possible, once China had abolished Stalinist-Communist economics, it suddenly became the
world's fastest growing economy and will sometime in the 21 st. century overtake the U.S. as
the world largest economy?

How can some countries be so rich others while others so poor. How can some countries have
such bright future while others are mired on poverty, chaos and endless strife? Can it be the
national Intelligence (IQ) of the population?

This book does not beat around the bush. It cuts to the chase. East Asians (Japan, Korea,
China) have the world's highest IQ of around 103-107. The U.S. has IQ of 98. Mexico has IQ of
87. Africans on the African continent have IQ of 70. Please buy book for more data.

The British IQ is benchmarked at 100 as a standard measure for all other nations. Hence,
African IQ is 30 IQ points below the UK average of 100. If this is not a novel and bold idea,
I do not know what it is. The world's average IQ comes out to be only 90. Only 20% of the
world's population has IQ above the British average of 100, mostly in East Asia. Americans
will be happy to know their reported IQ is 98.

Who is Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen? If one looks at the 1994 "The Bell Curve book", he is
cited as one the world foremost scholar on IQ. Vanhanen is a professor with several academic
studies to to his credit. Basically, the issues of IQ and nations are subjects they have
written about for 30 years. The authors are not flukes but are experienced and respected
academics.

Hence, this is a serious scholarly study to be read seriously by all interested in world
economic development. The line of reasoning runs as follow: The Wealth of Nations can be
assessed on three areas:

#1. Natural Resources. Land, Oil, Diamond, Gold, Agriculture, Fishing, etc, etc. Either you
have national resources or you do not. The Middle East has Oil, Japan does not.

#2. Socialist versus Market Economies. Planned, controlled economies brings poverty. All
socialists-planned economies are poverty-basket cases. Examples are North Korea, Cuba. Cubans
have a monthly income of US$ 10. TEN DOLLARS A MONTH!

#3. National IQ and Economic Wealth. Main theses of book. Higher IQ nations can produce
products and services in demand in the international market that will bring higher wealth to
the nation.

Example, Japan has IQ of 105, can produce cars, electronics, TV, semiconductors to sell on
the international market. Africa has IQ of 70, little or no high-tech or manufactured
products to sell to market. Hence, poverty in Africa. Wealth in Japan.

Many readers will be interested in the national IQ of various nations. Please buy the book,
it's all listed there. Here are some samples. The UK IQ of 100 is used as standard benchmark.

The lowest measured is in Guinea (IQ, 59), Nigeria (IQ, 67) and highest in Japan (IQ, 105)
and Hong Kong (IQ, 107), India (IQ, 81) Iraq (IQ, 87) Mexico (IQ, 87) US (IQ, 98) and Israel
(IQ, 94).

The highest average IQs are of the East Asian nations of North East Asia (IQ, 104), European
nations (IQ, 98), and white populations of North America and Australasia (IQ, 98), South and
Southwest Asia from the Middle East through Turkey to India and Malaysia (IQ, 87), South East
Asia and the Pacific Islands (IQ, 86), Latin America and the Caribbean (IQ, 85), and Africa
(IQ, 70).

Of concern to American reader are the IQ of it's neighboring countries. Canada (IQ, 97),
Mexico (IQ, 87), Cuba (IQ, 85), Jamaica (IQ, 72), Haiti (IQ, 72) Russia (IQ, 96) Afghanistan
(IQ, 83). The numbers may be incorrect but nonetheless are worthy areas of debate and data
for additional research. Of China (IQ, 100) and India (IQ, 81), two nations in the billion
people range affecting the future of the world. China (IQ, 100) compared with U.S.A. (98)

Economist Adam Smith in 1776 in the year of the American Revolution published "The Wealth of
Nations". Smith's idea of the "Market" where buyers and sellers, supply and demand allocates
resources in society is still dominant today. The wealth of peoples, nations depends on its
ability to produce products and services that will command a high price in the international
market. This is a no-brainer, simple ideas. Please buy book.

Take it to the next step, the world market demands cars, airplanes, semiconductors,
computers, cell phone, medicine. Can all nations produce this? With Oil, you either have it
or you do not. With high-tech products, it takes a smart brain and high IQ. That's where the
national wealth and IQ comes from. IQ and national wealth and poverty: there is a direct
correlation.

Please buy the book, read, think and debate the this revolutionary book.

2 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

Not scientific, January 31, 2003
Reviewer: A reader from USA
The sample sizes are low; test subjects involves different economic backgrounds for different
countries. The authors seem to have little knowledge of statistics or mathematics. Some of
the results are crazy, for example Israel is supposed to have a mean IQ of 94(6 points less
than the UK!!)
Apart from low quality, the book could do a lot of damage to young minds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com