• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Futurism in the Past and Present


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 October 2004 - 08:16 PM


Chat Topic: Mitch Howe - Futurism in the Past and Present
Singularitarian writer and history teacher, Mitch Howe joins ImmInst to ducuss futurism in the past and present.

Chat Time: Sun. Nov 28 @ 8 PM Eastern Time [Time Zone Help]
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat (irc.lucifer.com port: 6667 #immortal)

"When we look back at any watershed moment in history, we can’t help but see it differently than those who lived through it. Today’s futurists may benefit from examining the mistakes of prognosticators past, and from recalibrating their expectations of what it will be like to experience the future based on what it was like for people in the past to experience their future. Examples of study topics which thus fascinate me are the discovery and colonization of the “New World” and the dawn of the “Atomic Age.”

As a student of history, I try to understand how civilization operates by peering through the cracks of past discontinuity. As a Singularitarian, I believe that another major discontinuity is imminent and demands our attention. And as one who suffers from periodic attacks of the writing bug (non-fiction and fiction alike), I enjoy pondering and discussing ways our future could play out, and how it might feel to those of us who live through it."

Posted Image
-- Mitch Howe
http://www.iconfound...ademy/works.htm

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 November 2004 - 02:15 AM

* BJKlein Official Chat Starts
<BJKlein> Mitch Howe - Futurism in the Past and Present
<BJKlein> Singularitarian writer and history teacher, Mitch Howe joins ImmInst to ducuss futurism as its been thought about in the past and present.
<BJKlein> http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=63&t=4395
*** Joins: ScottL (~ScottL@pool-151-201-6-112.pitt.east.verizon.net)
<MitchH> Good evening, all.
<John_Ventureville> good evening
<BJKlein> thanks for joining us... why 'futurism'? what's the importance?
*** Joins: ddhewitt (~ddhewitt@24.2.135.104)
<MitchH> Futurism's importance is in decision making, for individuals, businesses, nations...
<MitchH> but mostly it's just fun.
<MitchH> We're curious. Always have been.
<MitchH> But my research suggests that we're curious about very different things than we used to be.
<BJKlein> really?
<MitchH> Modern futurism is concerned primarily with advances in technology, and the impacts they might have on everyday life.
<Jlaveux> What kind of research would you fund if you would be extremely rich?
<MitchH> In more ancient times, people wouldv'e been concerned much more with the future of their families and communities, since technological progress wasn't fast enough to worry about.
<MitchH> And up until about the 1920s, futurist thought mostly seemed to center on the exploits that a priveledged few would enjoy. Oh, the places they'd go! But the common man is pretty much left out of these visions.
<MitchH> The assumption seems to be that the working sap would merely be further dehumanized in highly automated factories.
<BJKlein> perhaps also the tools of the time influenced thinking/futurism..
<MitchH> Jlaveux: I'll get to that a bit later :)
<MitchH> BJ: Definitely. You have to have some understanding physics to know what is and isn't likely to be possibel.
<MitchH> Obviously, most humans who ever lived didn't have access to the science we have now.
<MitchH> Take "The Invisible Man" for instance.
<BJKlein> not familar, it this a movie?
<MitchH> Our current take on physics suggests that total objective invisibility on a living person is simply impossible.
<MitchH> The story, made into numerous movies.
<Randolfe> If you had told people in 1901 that within a hundred years, three hundred people at a time would be flying through the air at 600 miles per hour, everyone would think you were stark raving mad.
<Lazlo> H.G. Wells Bruce
<MitchH> Randolfe: Probably. And those who believed you would assume that you were talking about nobility and very wealthy capitalists making the run.
<MitchH> L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, around the same time period, is actually political satire intended for adults, with a bit of futurism thrown in -- in the style of Lewis Carol.
<Randolfe> The point I'm making is that the possibilities of technology are frequently beyond our comprehension.
<MitchH> A fact that seems to have been forgotten.
<MitchH> The tin man and his cohorts in Baum's original were his metaphor for factory workers; they were losing their souls.
<MitchH> Randolfe: Yes, but in my efforts to come to some conclusions about futurism's past, I've been finding classes of failures and fallacies that might be cropping up again.
<MitchH> Sometimes in the form of overresponse to the errors of the past.
<MitchH> During the cold war, futurists often committed what I call the Jetsons Fallacy. They assumed that the future would simply be a glossier, more luxurious veneer over the same political and social reality at the time of writing.
<Jlaveux> MitchH, do you think non member of cryonics = idleness ?
<MitchH> Sci Fi writers often wrote stories of the Cold War continuing for seemingly forever. On Mars, on the Moon, in interestellar space...
<MitchH> Few seemed to think the Cold War might just fizzle out.
<John_Ventureville> "Forever War" was Vietnam in space, but it was meant to be seen that way
*** Joins: goomba (zubat@AC948341.ipt.aol.com)
<BJKlein> perhaps learning more about how evolution has molded our minds would help to predict large scale changes...
<MitchH> Cryonics is an investment that takes a large amount of faith. I don't think it's idleness, although I do think it makes sense to invest in organizations determined to make sure there is a future that would be able and willing to revive you.
<Randolfe> With events in Iraq, I sometimes think the state of war is continuous. It is just that the "Evil Empire" has changed from Russian Marxism to Islamic fundamentalism.
<Lazlo> That is because for many the Cold War was a prefferable alternative to a hot war that they viewed as more likely should the diametrically opposed forces lose the *balance of power*
<MitchH> Yes... anyway, I think that modern futuristss have overreacted to the Jetsons Fallcy in many cases...
<MitchH> ...by comitting the Fallacy of Forgotten Inertia.
<Randolfe> "War" causes people to rally around their leader, even when he is a moron like George Bush.
<ddhewitt> Good point, BJ.
<MitchH> Many of the shiny futures people talk about depend on large bureaucratic shifts and the surmounting of legal hurdles.
<MitchH> These kinds of futures are going to be harder to realize than people think.
<BJKlein> some basics are consistant... food, sex, tribalism
<MitchH> In part because of aging demographics; people are living longer, and the psychology of older people tends to be conservative.
<Lazlo> the inertia of the status quo and vested interest
<Randolfe> I get the impression that most science fiction focuses on "experiments" gone wrong--changes getting out of control. They don't fopcus on the promising side of things.
<MitchH> This is bad news for the hydrogen economy, flying cars, new power sources and distribution, and anything else with a NIMBY component.
<ddhewitt> A good story needs conflict, Randolfe.
<MitchH> Yes, to both of you :) There are error classes inherent to Sci-Fi.
<Randolfe> BJ, I'm not sure that we should focus on evolution as much as we should focus on the melting ice caps, climate changes, demographic changes, etc.
<MitchH> Because fiction writers generally have to focus on just one or two big changes in order to not sink the story.
<MitchH> And often they skew the specifics of these to fit plot needs.
<Randolfe> Mitch, what would you consider to be the most "inspiring" sci-fi? And which is the most realistic?
<MitchH> When you start throwing in dozens of interesting facts about your imaginary future, you end up with Charles Stross. He's a good writer, and I like his stories, but you have to already know so much Slashdot-type stuff to follow the story that mainstream readers just can't take it.
<MitchH> I'm one of those who feels that the impending technological Singularity makes it very hard for sci-fi taking place more than a few decades hence.
<MitchH> So the most realistic is going to be that which happens in the nearer term.
<MitchH> Some of Vernor Vinge's works fit this category.
<Lazlo> What about the the carrot and stick mytholgizing that prophetic prose has always engaged in Mitch?
<MitchH> what about it?
<Lazlo> This is prescientific but has contributed to the memetics that led to the industrial age
<Lazlo> It continues as social sci fi
<MitchH> As for the most inspiring sci-fi... pretty much anything with noble characters we can relate to; people trying to navigate the real difficulties of life in any age, past or present.
<MitchH> Lazlo: Apocalyptic psychology?
<Jlaveux> MitchH what is your education ?
<Randolfe> I agree that simple plots with a few fantasy facts are more comprehensible. Yet, you have moices like Star Wars that are filled with all kinds of new concepts and fantasies.
<BJKlein> what are your current projects, mitch?
*** Joins: Guest (~Guest@client-81-107-195-228.glfd.adsl.virgin.net)
<Lazlo> that is the stick but so are the vallahalla images goals
<MitchH> I've got a new blog where I'm tossing out all sorts of random thoughts on futurism lately: http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/
<MitchH> I've got a story universe for a novel under development; we'll see if I can ever get a book finished.
<Jlaveux> MitchH what is your education ?
<MitchH> I've got a BA in history teaching (secondary education). But I've learned much more effectively since getting out of the institution.
<BJKlein> MitchH has created his very own seed ai = baby
<BJKlein> why do you support SingInst.org?
<MitchH> Over the last month in reading material to help draw some of my conclusions for my chat topic tonight, I've become increasingly convinced that the Singularity is inevitable.
<MitchH> Too many branches of technology are converging on it.
<MitchH> And so many past failures of futurism don't apply to predictions people have made on the Singularity.
<Jlaveux> I agree with Mike, electronics is going to be far more powerful than today
<MitchH> The most common failures in futurism are missing the timeframe in which an achievement occurs, or in underestimating or overestimating the prevalence of a new technology.
<MitchH> But the creation of artificial intelligence only has to happen once.
<Jlaveux> MitchH, what do you think about Microsoft Research ?
<MitchH> I'm not familiar with that.
<Lazlo> A Singulairty may be inevitable the type of it may not be, hence the dystopic/utopic evaluation
<MitchH> Lazlo: Right, this is why I support the Singularity institute.
<MitchH> Singularity is inevitable. We must therefore try to shape it.
<MitchH> To make sure the result is something we can live with.
<BJKlein> do you think singinst should remain under the radar so to speek?
<MitchH> That's a good question. Ideally, I think they would. But they may never get the funding at their current level of exposure.
<MitchH> One question I've been asking myself is whether the Singularity is ever going to catch on as a mainstream concern the way the nuclear war and terrorism have.
<BJKlein> do you think a small group can code FAI?
<MitchH> Yes, but my opinion is decidedly non-technical. I'm just not the right person to ask.
<MitchH> Part of the reason software developers need such huge teams is because they have to include so many features and interface components that FAI programmers may not need to worry about. They'll all understand how to use a command line...
<BJKlein> apart from coding, what's the best way to 'shape' the future so as bring about a good singularity?
<MitchH> Donating to SIAI is the logical answer. Other than that, taking any action that leads to increased stability and prosperity in the world.
<BJKlein> do you give a % chance of success?
<BJKlein> as failure may mean total death?
<MitchH> Can anyone? I'm not even sure I can define success.
<MitchH> I can definitely define failure...
<BJKlein> heh
<MitchH> total death; being abandoned and locked out of a future belonging to AI; repeating cataclysms that keep us from getting to a Singularity for thousands of years... those are all definite failures.
<BJKlein> how long do you wish to live?
<Jlaveux> do you believe in the Omega Point Mike
<Jlaveux> MitchH
<MitchH> I wish to live until the day I decide I don't want to. Isn't that what everyone wants to? I'm not so naive as to think that Mitch 2004 should make life or death decisions for Mitch 2112.
<MitchH> One day at a time.
<BJKlein> ya.. but do you have an idea on what is death?
<MitchH> Omega Point? I think it's possible, but it's so far removed from my experience that I'm not prepared to say.
<MitchH> What is death? Probably oblivion, but I've read a few interesting takes regarding Everett Branches of quantum physics that suggest we may never truly die.
<Randolfe> Mitch 2112 would certainly want to continue living if he had his aging reversed and he was healthy and young again.
<MitchH> But only find ourselves increasingly unlikely, or in universes where our continued existence is likely.
<BJKlein> interesting... multi-world theory to avoid oblivion/death?
<MitchH> Mitch 2112 might be bored to tears for all I know. i'll let him decide.
<Jlaveux> do you think to be bored by life is a disease?
<MitchH> Moravec brings up the idea in 'Robot'. I've also read a short story using that as the main plot device, but I can't recall who wrote it or what it was called.
<MitchH> Jlaveux: It could be. The Singularity ought to offer opportunity for us to become post humans with some say over our emotional states.
<MitchH> So if Mitch 2112 is bored, it may well be his own fault.
<Randolfe> You could argue that life is boring, that life itself is a disease. It certainly is for the chronically depressed.
<MitchH> The psychology of happiness is an interesting question for futurism. Bruce Sterling derides what he thinks is the Singularitarian view of the future as techno-rapture.
<BJKlein> Mitch wrote: "Psychology is in the midst of a fragmented, long overdue civil war."
<BJKlein> http://mitchellhowe....ading-cure.html
<MitchH> But I actually think it might be rather euphoric to live in a time where progress is so rapid that every day seems to offer great new improvements to daily life.
<Lazlo> Fallacy of Forgotten Inertia and the Jetsons could you also elaborate a few more of the common fallaces?
<Randolfe> We need more discussions about psychology and sociology here on the site.
<MitchH> This is usually how happiness is found: thinking you are better off than you were yesterday, and being certain that tomorrow will be even better.
<MitchH> Anne Frank had her ups and downs, despite being in a very down situation.
<MitchH> The psychology of wealth is another related issue: If we achieve universal material prosperity, will we be happier for it?
<Randolfe> What worries me about immortality is would we ever be able to retire? Or, wouild we have to work forever? Would they take away my social se curity because I had suddenly achieved immortality? How could I adjust? :)
<MitchH> I think that wealthy people, contrary to what the salt of the earth would like to think, are actually happier as a rule than the rest of us. But I think it's largely a comparative issue. They're happier that they're not us.
<Lazlo> Deos the psychology of wealth equal maximal security or a drive for power?
<Randolfe> Researchshows that wealth is not related to being happier. Having many friends and loving family members are what matter most.
<MitchH> Randolfe: I think the era of humans slaving away is close to ending. Some paleontology suggests that the life of work we've known since agriculture is an aberration in the normal state of human affairs.
<Lazlo> I thiink most people only see wealth as security but for some it is invested as a struggle for power
*** Joins: kzzch (~chatzilla@c68.191.164.109.stp.wi.charter.com)
<Randolfe> The only church I ever really worshipped at was the Church of Mammon :)
*** Joins: RareAir (~RareAir@pcp09191093pcs.jersyc01.nj.comcast.net)
<MitchH> My research into the psychology of wealth took the form of a foray into massively multiplayer online gaming. I love MMORPGs, and think they're great psych labs for this kind of thing.
<MitchH> It was interesting to see how my priorities evolved as I became fabulously wealthy (compared to most everyone else.)
<Randolfe> How did your priorities evolve??
<MitchH> As a wealthy person, I found myself hobnobbing with other wealthy people, and much more concerned with my reputation and legacy than with my continued income, which was continuing to climb in ways that made it psychologically difficult to retire from my trade.
<MitchH> THis seems to fit my impression of wealthy people today.
<Randolfe> I nevdesr understood the desire to be super rich. Money and time figure in an equation. At some point, you have more money than time and it is time to put the empasis on good use of time.
<MitchH> So I think a society with strong nanotech or total automation would become more concerned with legacy as well.
<BJKlein> social gratification is another basic human need
<MitchH> People will always play status games as long as they are recognizably human.
<BJKlein> yep, and creativity may become the new currency
<Lazlo> Does *legacy* translate into the common perspective of *vision* for the future?
<MitchH> Lazlo: I'm not sure what you mean.
<Lazlo> When extremely wealthy folks are interested in their *lagacy* part of that is all about dynasty but a part is how they will shape the future
<Lazlo> legacy*
<MitchH> But I do think that creativity and achievement will definitely be coinage of the future. JUst take a look at wealthy folks who try to break world records or fund an institute to cure cancer.
<Jlaveux> MitchH this is my web site: www.nanoaging.com
<BJKlein> is morality tied to intelligence?
<ddhewitt> Serial killers often have high IQ's.
<MitchH> I doubt that there is an objective morality that all life in the universe could agreeably point to and say, "there it is." So, yes, I thin morality is tied to intelligence. Not because being smarter will make us more moral, but because being smarter may fundamentally change our natures in ways that change our morals.
<MitchH> I'm not a moral relativist. I think that those morals that allow humans to prosper and be happy are good morals for humans to follow.
<Randolfe> Hitler thought the Germans were a superior people and that gave them the right to exterminate "inferiors".
<MitchH> Naturally, there are variations on good human morals I'd rather not fight about...
<MitchH> ...but humans are more alike than we think.
<Randolfe> Mich, would you like to have a later-born twin if it could be done safely? Would you like to raise "you"?
<MitchH> Randolfe: All the more reason to make sure that we've shaped a Singularity such that those minds proceeding to new heights -- whether our own or AI -- evolve in ways that keep their morality in at least partial harmony to our own.
<MitchH> So that it doesn't seem 'right' to exterminate us or leave us to our own ends.
<MitchH> Randolfe: I've never thought about that. I have an 18 month old who is said to be a practical clone of me already. I call him mini-me.
<MitchH> But I'm not sure a copy of me would want to be brought into existence at all, let alone raised by me.
<Randolfe> With cloning you copuld have a "perfect" mini-me.
<MitchH> Randolfe: Not with any of the cloning methods used now.
<MitchH> You would have to make a full on molecular scan of me now and duplicate it precisely to get a true copy.
<Randolfe> I said safely. Why wouldn't your later born twin not want to born. He would ahve a father that understood him perfectly, with whom he shared a great many tastes and interests.
<MitchH> My father often had insights into what I was thinking and feeling that made feel downright violated. An understanding parent means the absence of privacy, because they know you without having to ask.
<Randolfe> No needs for "molecular" scans. Mother nature has it all down pat in your DNA. The formula that is you goes into a new lifetime when your later-born twin is born.
<RareAir> Sometimes I get this sense that Singularitarians feel the Singularity is the be all end all. Do you not think Mitch, that there is high probability of nano arriving prior to a Singular event, and further, that this technological advance will force a "do or die" moment upon humanity and its morality?
<MitchH> Randolfe: This simply isn't true. THere is mitochondrial DNA and a vast chaotic process by which the developing brain is grown and pared.
<MitchH> Identitical twins are not really identical, even if they have the same DNA.
<BJKlein> ddhewitt-pm
<MitchH> RareAir: Nanotechnology and AI go hand in hand. Nanotechnology, among many other things, will mean ludicrously fast computers that will make it relatively easy to "brute-force" an AI using genetic algorithms and such.
<MitchH> Likewise, an AI would be indispensible in developing nanotech.
<Randolfe> The only successful cloning of a human embryo was of a woman's cell into one of her own eggs. They got good embryos in Korea, very successful and apparently healthy. So this would be a perfect copy. The mitochondria only contributes 25 genes out of 30,000. Admittedly, we don't know how significant these genes may be.
<MitchH> But I don't think that Singularitarians should stick their heads in the proverbial sand and await the day of their deliverance, either. The curves of progress approaching Singularity imply that most the change will occur right near the end.
<MitchH> So we've got pretty ordinary lives to lead yet.
<Lazlo> Randolf if what you aer saying were confirmed then only women could have perfect clones :))
<RareAir> So I take it then, that you believe nano will be post singular
<MitchH> I think that strong nano and strong AI will occur in close proximity.
<Randolfe> Lazlo, at this time, you are correct.
<MitchH> I don't know which will come first.
<RareAir> thats an honest answer ;))
<MitchH> Randolfe: The scientific study of embryology and early life development strongly suggest that a human's brain make-up has a huge non-genetic component, having more to do with chance connections and die-offs of neural tissue.
<Lazlo> Actually this ignores teh vital importance of fetal development and its relationship to maternal phsyiology. If that is confirmed then only the clone of a woman could have a perfect clone, and that onlyif she repeated teh diet and had the bore teh child under almost exactly the same environmental conditions
<MitchH> 'The Symbolic Species' is a book that talks quite a bit about that.
<Randolfe> Mitch, you will be amazed if you read the studies done on identical twins.
<MitchH> I've read some. Not many.
<Jlaveux> I DONT WANT TO DIE
<Randolfe> No, Lazlo, just as long as both twins had good nutrition and enviornments, they would come out amazingly similar.
<MitchH> But in any case, I think you'll agree that we are, in part, the sum of our experiences. Even if we started out with identical brains, we would eventually become different people unless we had implausibly similar life experiences.
<MitchH> And beyond the normal ingrained parenting drives, I don't see why it would be a good think to raise a perfect copy of myself.
* BJKlein end official chat (feel free to stay longer)
<MitchH> What would it add to the universe, to have another person *exactly* like me?
<Randolfe> The study of identical twins, separated at birth and raised in entirely different environments, finds that they are extremely similar. Basically, most people don't want to accept how much of who we are are determined by our genes.
<Lazlo> Do you suspect an ability to merge the consciousness of the original with the clone Randolf?
<MitchH> Randolfe: I agree with you there. But I'm of the opinion that we are all so similar anyway, that the even closer similarity of identical twins just isn't fascinating.
<Lazlo> And if possible shouldn't this not be done without the consent of both parties?
<Randolfe> No. I don't see the reason to do so. It would be interesting if one had such an opportunity. I don't know what would be gained by merging my later born twin and myself. I think I would rather be merged with someone with great talents that I lacked. However, I would love to have a later-born twin as a social companion.
<ddhewitt> The most recent issue of Nature Genetics has an article about genetic determination of spirituality, a "God gene".
<Randolfe> That is true. There is genetic component to "religiousity". That is just one example of what I am talking about.
<MitchH> Don't be misled: human religiosity has had so many manifestations over the millenia that calling it a "God gene" gives god too much credit.
<Randolfe> Maybe there is a gene causation for "immortalist beliefs"???
<MitchH> The basic state of human religion is animism.
<John_Ventureville> Randolfe, an interesting thought
<MitchH> bearing little resemblance to modern god concepts.
<Randolfe> Atheism is the oldest religion. When they worshipped the Sun, animals, Zeus, etc. there were non-believers and skeptics.
<John_Ventureville> one of the main reasons I have wanted humanity to encounter extraterrestrials, is so that we could "compare notes" when it came to the subject of religion
<Randolfe> Wouldn't it be horrible to discover a religion you could believe in? Or would it be wonderful??
<John_Ventureville> "he who ignores Crom is a fool, but he who tries to count on Crom too much may be an even bigger fool"
<John_Ventureville> *Conan the Barbarian on religion*
<Randolfe> My theology is a bit out of date. Who is "crom"?
<John_Ventureville> lol
<John_Ventureville> : )
<John_Ventureville> it looks like the chat has now run out of steam
<BJKlein> thanks for your time Mitch, great chat!
<Randolfe> Good night everyone. It was a nice session tonight. It was actually an exciting change to have the guest show up and prove to be so stimulating. :)
<BJKlein> it show that you've done research..
<BJKlein> seya Sat Randolfe
<MitchH> Thanks for the invitation, BJ.
<John_Ventureville> good night
<Randolfe> Looking forward to it. Don Spanton is riding up with me.
<BJKlein> ah good
<BJKlein> looks to be around 15 there
<John_Ventureville> I missed the chat to have a pow wow with my employer
<BJKlein> ah, then.. that's ok :)
<Randolfe> Hope they didn't experiment with some new cryonics techniques on you John.
<John_Ventureville> lol
<John_Ventureville> Randolfe, being Alaskan I have great natural immunity to extremely cold temperatures
<John_Ventureville> : )
<John_Ventureville> but I do have my limits
<ddhewitt> Hey that is even better than being Canadian. :)
<John_Ventureville> I love you Canucks
<John_Ventureville> good people
<John_Ventureville> did anyone in the chat play "naysayer" about the idea of a hard-takeoff singularity?
<John_Ventureville> and if so, how did the guest respond?
<BJKlein> anyone know how to get loglady back?
<BJKlein> hm, hardtakeoff didn't some up...
<MitchH> hard takeoff din't come up tonight.

<BJKlein> hm, hardtakeoff didn't some up...
<MitchH> hard takeoff din't come up tonight.
<John_Ventureville> Mitch, so you buy into a "slow takeoff" Singularity as compared to the "hard takeoff?"
<MitchH> I think slow takeoff is likely, but hard takeoff is much too possible to ignore. I agree with Yudkowsky that the responsible, conservative engineering position is to assume hard takeoff.
<John_Ventureville> if I recall correctly, Eliezer Yudkowsky is still a firm believer & proponent of the hard takeoff Singularity
<ddhewitt> Good night everyone, see some of you next week.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users