Philosophy – Page 6

Why not make it free?

I would be nice to make everything free, but some things are defined by their resistance to distribution.

Why I Oppose the “Venus Project”

Still, that being said we can acquire a high degree of ubiquitous material wealth if we do three things:

1. Reform IPL to make all code free as in speech and beer. Privacy could still easily be respected. In fact copyright enforcement and privacy of correspondence are mutually exclusive. (To program the robots.)

2. Deploy nuclear reactors quickly to provide the bottom of an anthropocentric materials economy food chain. (To power the robots.)

3. Develop an open source humanoid robot, recharged by the reactors, and instructed by ever evolving shared open code above, to automate any labor task we need done yet are unwilling to do personally. (To have the robots.)

With those things accomplished, essentially everything would be free. Certainly anything that could qualify as a basic human need.

In the mean time we absolutely could deploy a UBI and give everyone a piece of their human inheritance.

One Possible Solution

Blank People

It was recently asserted to me that multiculturalism is to blame for among other things a dramatic rise in the death rate of my demographic.

Here are my thoughts:

I think it’s more like a contrast thing. Like western culture seems recently eager to respect demographic variations, such as gender, race, income, orientation etc, but the side effect is a rising of the tide that doesn’t include the one group that essentially serves as the default. White men.

In western culture your demographic identity is more or less defined by some deviation from a somewhat arbitrary baseline. That baseline is white straight male. Or “Cis” males in the more hateful corners of the web.

Socially, if I can’t check one of the non-default boxes, I am essentially deemed unworthy of focused help.

Because white men have historically been in the top slot socially, the perception is that the last thing that they need is help. But this is based on old data. Maybe my grandfather didn’t need help, but I might. Even by your definitions.

A culture is by definition people working together to help all members of the culture so long as they play by the rules. While the drive to unbias the rules is certainly a worthy ethical goal, the bigger picture of inclusion is being lost in some places along the way.

In today’s world I feel like a lot of assumptions about my value are made in a hateful way for actions and contexts that simply have never applied to me. I feel like I live in a bunker, waiting for the radiation to dissipate. I feel isolated and cut off because no part of the culture I was born in wants me beyond my family and friends or any pocket money I may have.

Nothing in this culture is welcoming to me except those things which welcome everyone and have a parasitic agenda. (Like the various cults on offer, both secular and spiritual, and of course anywhere my money is good.)

These days all the division lines are about keeping the 99% from uniting vs their real enemies. And while I have no interest in buying into that I must also face the fact that others have bought in, and as such I am going to find myself hated on many fronts for being white, or straight, or male, or whatever.

This makes me afraid to speak to people because I’m always an outsider in some sense. And always I feel silently hated. I can barely interact with minority strangers because I have to worry about everything I say lest it be twisted into some kind of racist remark. Which is extremely ironic when you think about it.

So the problem isn’t that society is reaching out to other groups, the problem is that the only people reaching out to my group are bigots, to the point that if you made any kind of support system for white men exclusively in any context it would be instantly crushed and mocked as being racist, sexist, etc. Or invaded by actual racists.

The only group that gets even a tiny fraction of respect (as well as disproportionate hate) is the men’s rights movement. And really that’s only because they have such glaring points. Male over representation in the homeless population and the work place fatality stats for example. It’s hard to say they don’t have a point when there is audio recording out there of men being mocked by domestic abuse help lines as if having a penis makes one immune to being beaten with a hammer or a brick. Or otherwise abused or intimidated.

I mean really, can you imagine calling 911 essentially only to be mocked? Calling 911 to protect yourself and being arrested because your attacker was female? That happens. And we learn as men of non-color to never complain about anything that applies to just us because of the hateful social response. Hell, the only reason I feel comfy sharing this post is because I assume no one will ever read it.

Essentially we are being left behind, and as men are generally conditioned by both evolution and social training to literally put our lives on the line in an effort to be useful, this lagging behind means that suicide looks more and more like a good idea. Especially when getting psychological help often essentially means being scolded and humiliated.

Many of these suicides are passive. Not wearing your seat belt, taking up smoking, eating all kinds of salt and sugar and processed meats just waiting for something to kill you so your family can get the insurance because Contrary to the popular image a whole lot of white men are Really selfless good people.

I’m not saying I’m one of them, I’m just saying they are out there. About once a day it like occurs to me that I could simply die and avoid a whole lot of potential horror. Nothing dissuades me from this except those same friends and family. TV seems to want me to die for all sorts of things. Especially being jobless. At the very least my death would be culturally invisible.

Again, think about it. When a death happens what’s the first thing the TV tells you to make you care about it? Gender, family status, race. Etc. How many times have you heard the addendum “including women and children” as a way to intensify the impact of a wrong? (Google the phrase in quotes, 434,000 results, virtually all of them attempted outrage multipliers.)

I’m fortunate in that I am articulate enough to explain myself to therapist types, but in all my interactions with them I had to make a clearly and lengthy case for why I don’t just go get some life crushing job.

The solution with those people always seems to be about going away or getting in line.

It’s not pressure from the other groups crushing my demographic, it’s the lack of help at the cultural level making it merely appear hat way by contrast. I am not oppressed by gays or minorities or women or whatever. I am oppressed by the 1% and its machine. I am oppressed by a culture that dismisses my suffering and the very value of my life. I am oppressed by being a blank person.

These groups I am instructed to resent by the TV all have legitimate issues that need urgent attention and I am happy to see them get what they need, and will help when I can, I however also think when you focus it on any race or gender or designation you are by definition perpetuating a prejudice.

The solution is a universal approach and holding everyone to the same rules.

Specifically we most urgently need a UBI. No picking and choosing, no red tape. Living wage for living people. Let greed and ambition and boredom and creativity and curiosity take care of the rest.

One Possible Solution

The great thing about a UBI is it’s self correcting. A ubi check means nothing to a rich person but means salvation to a homeless person. No administration needed.

It’s like the opposite of a flat tax.

The problem is that when it comes time to be helped, I’ve been abandoned essentially because of my lack of a race or a gender or an orientation etc. I don’t have a culture in a sense. There isn’t much that helps me unless I’m a worker or otherwise funded.

It’s just culturally assumed that because I’m a white male I must be a-ok. And I assure everyone, that’s not the case.

I’m ok because I have a family that loves me. Otherwise I’d be homeless or dead right now.

I feel like the only social help I get is like an unintended side effect of support aimed at other groups that just can’t bring themselves to overtly exclude me in vengeance for the actions of the 1% of previous eras who’s race and gender I happen to share.

Liberal Hate

1442146863593

To be fair, I do see a lot wrong with the progressive movement, just ask me about gun control, GMO hate, and nuclear power, but that makes a lot of sense since progressivism is forced to be a single party event in this country.

There are two general approaches to political change, the desire for something new or the desire for something old. Conservatives are by definition regressive. They wish for stasis or regression. Progressives are the other side, they wish for change and progress towards something new.

The problem is that there are many possible futures but we all share a past. It makes sense to have a single conservative party. However, in order to counter that you need a concerted effort to balance it, and that’s a problem because progressives can’t agree as easily as conservatives because there are many possible futures, some of which are mutually exclusive.

For example, I want to see a future with nuclear reactors and the freedom to own weapons. My reasoning isn’t relevant to this comment. The fact is that many progressives do not.

Now conservatives may disagree on which elements of the past to keep and how far back to emulate, but those difference are much easier to reconcile. Progressivism of any stripe is always going to be at a disadvantage in this context all else being equal.

My point is to prove that it isn’t logical to lump “liberals” together like it is to do so with conservatives, because of the shared past, divergent future, dichotomy.

8765786076 That said, if any party is more guilty of ignoring facts it’s the conservative party (or conservative elements within progressive parties) since there are reasons we abandoned elements of the past when we did so.

Granted not all of them were valid and good reasons but for the most part we had good cause, at least at the time.

The right wing (be they overt or covert) in this country is completely fact immune on a whole slew of issues ranging from economics to climatology to sociology. When they aren’t simply lying for power on behalf of their 1% owners or pathological greed.

Basically we need a depth of process reform that simply isn’t going to happen prior to the singularity. And what I am hoping for is internal changes to the one party that overtly stands for change. Since currently the ship of state is headed for a waterfall.

1336153857475 Letting the 1% try to keep ALL the money is just insane. It will destroy the country. Though of course the wealthy can always just fly away. Realizing that they are a pathology at the systemic level is the first step towards finding an ethical cure.

That as opposed to merely executing them, French revolution style, which is perfectly possible given how few people we’re talking about here. And I should also point out that if this ever becomes the position of the government, there’s no where to run as our drone strikes have shown.

The opposite is not true I’m quick to add. They simply couldn’t win a war vs the rest of us.

Bernie Sanders: Email about Pope Francis

“If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.” – Pope Francis addressing Congress today

Brothers and Sisters: I am not a theologian, an expert on the Bible, or a Catholic. I am just a U.S. senator from the small state of Vermont.

But I am emailing you today to discuss Pope Francis in the hope that we can examine the very profound lessons that he is teaching people all over this world and some of the issues for which he is advocating.

Now, there are issues on which the pope and I disagree — like choice and marriage equality — but from the moment he was elected, Pope Francis immediately let it be known that he would be a different kind of pope, a different kind of religious leader. He forces us to address some of the major issues facing humanity: war, income and wealth inequality, poverty, unemployment, greed, the death penalty and other issues that too many prefer to ignore.

He is reaching out not just to the Catholic Church. He’s reaching out to people all over the world with an incredibly strong message of social justice talking about the grotesque levels of wealth and income inequality.

Pope Francis is looking in the eyes of the wealthiest people around the world who make billions of dollars, and he is saying we cannot continue to ignore the needs of the poor, the needs of the sick, the dispossessed, the elderly people who are living alone, the young people who can’t find jobs. He is saying that the accumulation of money, that the worship of money, is not what life should be about. We cannot turn our backs on our fellow human beings.

He is asking us to create a new society where the economy works for all, and not just the wealthy and the powerful. He is asking us to be the kind of people whose happiness and well-being comes from serving others and being part of a human community, not spending our lives accumulating more and more wealth and power while oppressing others. He is saying that as a planet and as a people we have got to do better.

That’s why I was so pleased that in his address to Congress today, Pope Francis spoke of Dorothy Day, who was a tireless advocate for the impoverished and working people in America. I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history.

As the founder of the Catholic Worker newspaper, Dorothy Day organized workers to stand up against the wealthy and powerful. Pope Francis said of her today in Congress:

In these times when social concerns are so important, I cannot fail to mention the Servant of God Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker Movement. Her social activism, her passion for justice and for the cause of the oppressed, were inspired by the Gospel, her faith, and the example of the saints.

How much progress has been made in this area in so many parts of the world! How much has been done in these first years of the third millennium to raise people out of extreme poverty! I know that you share my conviction that much more still needs to be done, and that in times of crisis and economic hardship a spirit of global solidarity must not be lost. At the same time I would encourage you to keep in mind all those people around us who are trapped in a cycle of poverty. They too need to be given hope. The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.

The fact that the pope singled out Dorothy Day — a fierce advocate in the fight for economic justice — as one of the leaders he admires most is quite remarkable. We are living in a nation which worships the acquisition of money and great wealth, but turns its back on those in need. We are admiring people with billions of dollars, while we ignore people who sleep out on the streets. That must end.

Dorothy Day fought this fight, and as Pope Francis says, we must continue it. We need to move toward an economy which works for all, and not just the few.

We have so much poverty in a land of plenty. Together, we can work to make our country more fair for everybody.

I am glad that you are with me in this fight.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

Policy Triage

Basically we need a species threat/opportunity triage system that includes prioritized lists of possible actions/mitigations and their cost benefit ratios.

This is how I arrive at my policy positions. I essentially put myself in the position of global emperor and think about how to do the most good for the most people with the least cost in the shortest amount of time while averting or preparing for situations of threat with a similar but inverted criteria.

Climate change for example is actually an easy problem.

Just roll out mid-scale nuclear power as fast as we can till the carbon curves break.

Another easy solution is a UBI and a wealth cap. By bookending the global economy with those elements you can achieve the best of both worlds of planned and free market economies. Again, that problem’s solution would solve a whole series of other problems.

Those root issues are the best things to focus on, the right things to worry about.

It’s a simple matter really to determine them if we are rational. Of course as baseline humans we never will be. We don’t actually change over time, only our environment and technology does. However, we can make ourselves aware of our emotional limitations, and of the fact that those emotions are stopping us from behaving in this rational way.

At the species level we seem to have a kind of pandemic phobia of facing problems rationally. This 0.2% sanity score tells us something about our own nature that should be factored in to policy choices.

It’s perfectly possible for us to decide to give power to rational goals in the abstract without falling into emotional traps. But we first have to decide that’s a good idea. Mostly people seem to reject that. They obey their emotions consciously, almost on principal. Never realizing that makes them puppets of whoever can best manipulate them.

Who owns your limbic system?

My Position on the 911 Debate

It’s a lost cause.

Not even this essay matters.

By the time average Americans are willing to critically consider the official claims surrounding the most politically important event of the 21st century, the current generation will be either AI hybrid transhuman cyborgs, or littered about the landscape in the form of boxed skeletons and jars of ash.

The terrorists already won. Either set, or both. George Bush could have a press conference with a U-haul truck full of irrefutable physical evidence contradicting the official accounts and it wouldn’t matter to any of these programmable people until the TV tells them it matters.

They will believe literally anything the authorities tell them. Anything. Pandemic fact immunity is the United States education system’s greatest achievement.

My position is that the damage is done and by the time the official story is altered to reflect reality. (Even to admit there is debate.) It will be as late and irrelevant as changes to the plaque on the Hindenburg display. (Which by the way we are still debating.)

Even when we admit we were wrong we never change policy about it. For example, the only person to go to jail for the torture scandal is the guy that reported it to us. Just as possession is nine tenths of the law, what’s done is done.

The very fact that the drones consider the matter closed and therefore no longer worthy of study, to the point of feeling justified in overtly mocking anyone who doesn’t open their discussions with assertions of status quo belief, shows how dogmatic and emotional their position is, as opposed to one based on rational skepticism.

Put this in perspective. We still call relativity a theory. We aren’t even sure about gravity yet. And yet these people consider this matter well and truly settled. That’s not remotely scientific or rational. That’s pure ideology.

They are in blatant contradiction because every other historical event is, even to them, open to and worthy of, constant study on academic grounds alone because the science and tool set is always evolving and we as a species are always literally generating fresh sets of eyes.

Without exception even the most clown suit crazy 9/11 conspiracy theory is more scientific than considering the matter completely decided.

Everything to a real scientist is provisional.

Obviously some things are closer to decided than others. For example we’re pretty sure of Lincoln’s birthday. But that doesn’t mean we’re going to openly mock anyone who presents an alternative.

What this boils down to is the fact that these people were patriotically indoctrinated to accept a very specific and convenient narrative, and to on those same grounds ideologically and vehemently reject any contradiction.

So long as these people make it unsafe to even study this event, this will be an item of nationalist dogma, not actual history. Every bit as arbitrary and sacrosanct as the official North Korean state mythology surrounding the Great Leader’s uncanny golf skills.