Meme Processing

Libertarianism

2008-12-18T07:26:00.004-06:00

"Don't blame Africa's failure on the west or the free market, that is nonsense. Africa has failed because of its lack of ability to produce wealth for itself, its lack of ability to manage itself, its tendency to blame the west for their own personal failure. Just throwing that in there because some people actually do believe Africa has failed because of free trade. They didn't create jack for the 4000+ years without Europeans. If they were biologically equal to Europeans then they would of atleast had something, but no, they had nothing."

-Forum post by a libertarian

Lint

2008-11-19T14:21:00.003-06:00

If you've ever lived in an apartment or dorm that required you to use a shared laundry room, you may have experienced an issue with the lint screen.

You find an open dryer and inspect the lint screen to make sure it's clean. Unfortunately, it's not, so you go ahead and clean it anyway, stuff your clothes in the dryer and push the button.

Dum-dee-doo.

Done! Everyone should only have to clean the lint screen once, and since you cleaned it already (someone else's, no less!), you are not obligated to do it again.

Of course, by not cleaning your lint, you leave it for the next sucker to clean, who will be just as pleased to pass their lint on for the next sucker to clean...

Of course, by cleaning your lint, you leave it clean for the next person, who will be just as pleased to clean their lint for the next person...

Lint for lint makes the whole world dry. -Mahatma Lahndri

Sorry.

Circles

2008-09-27T09:05:00.002-05:00

I met a nice chap Imek on stumbleupon and we had a dizzying exchange...

Imek: It seems they [anarchists/socialists/communists] understand capitalism as the state of affairs today, but what they don't understand is that this isn't capitalism. True capitalism can't exist while nations squabble away while manipulating or disregarding the rights of their own people.

Me: "It seems they understand communism as the state of affairs in China, Cuba, and North Korea today, but what they don't understand is that this isn't communism. True communism can't exist while nations squabble away while manipulating or disregarding the rights of their own people."

Imek: By the way, I tend to use the word communism to refer to applied communism - you know, the kind that's murdered over 100 million people - because that's the definition that most people recognise. I don't have a problem with voluntary collectivism between free individuals; just when it's violently and repressively forced on people.

Me: "By the way, I tend to use the word capitalism to refer to applied capitalism - you know, the kind that's murdered over 100 million people - because that's the definition that most people recognise. I don't have a problem with voluntary exploitation between free individuals; just when it's violently and repressively forced on people."

Imek: I think you'll find all the "capitalism" murders can be attributed to a state - fascist, monarchy, republic, whatever - being given too much power. But killed by the actual economic system? Yeah, I'm not so sure.

The fact is that, overall, collectivism is more conducive to statism and western individualism is more conducive to freedom and prosperity: I'd rather have been born in Finland than Soviet Russia, West Germany than East Germany, South Korea than North Korea, Taiwan or Hong Kong than Mainland China, etc... Or, for death tolls, you could compare the Red Scare in the USA with Stalin's purges. I could go on, but I can never really be bothered with online debates.

Me: I did it again, sorry.

"I think you'll find the "state" can be attributed to capitalism - CEOs, bankers, lobbyists, whatever - taking too much political power. But killed by the actual philosophy? Yeah, I'm not so sure.

The fact is that, overall, greed is more conducive to statism and empathy is more conducive to freedom and prosperity: I'd rather someone view me as a person and not a consumer target; I'd rather be an important and respected member of the community, not another cog in a machine. I'd rather have an economy composed of clean, sustainable industries instead of dominated by dirty, war-mongering, state-creating mega-conglomerates. I could go on, but I can never really be bothered with online debates."

Thanks for typing most of this, Imek!

Icky

2008-05-05T10:42:00.010-05:00

Stick your face in a car exhaust.
That's icky.

Inhale deeply from a smoke stack.
That's icky.

Drink deep from dirty water.
That's icky.

Take a walk in an ozone haze.
That's icky.

Of course, in everyday life we don't interact with such high concentrations of contaminants. But they're still there, and it certainly isn't good for our health. It could mean as little as another cough or sneeze, mild to severe respiratory problems, to a bout with cancer or some other potentially terminal ailment. No doubt about it,

Pollution is icky.

Pollution comes in large part from fossil fuels and icky energy production practices.

Fortunately, there's something that can be done.

*Alternative Energy
The wind can provide us with clean energy.

Newer models have ways to scare birds away and keep them safe.

Small windmills can be installed in many places, providing a measure of energy independence. Large windmills are also available for community production.

The sun always shines on the earth. We can harness this energy.
Like wind power, solar power can be
small- to large-scale, offering both the benefits of independence and centralized distribution.

There are even more effective ways to reduce pollution.

*Energy Reduction
Every dollar spent on energy-saving measures saves $3 to $5 over time.

High efficiency appliances help reduce energy use. Use guides that detail energy consumption of the appliance; go for the more efficient models.

This highlights the importance of consumer choices. The way consumers purchase products - and what kind - helps shape the economy. If we shop locally or regionally, for products both recycled and recyclable, we reduce transportation and extraction costs, a boon to individuals and businesses alike. We also help to support local farmers and environmentally-friendly businesses.
As a consumer, you can engage in recycling, a way of making use of what would otherwise be trash.
The way we get around is up to us. By utilizing mass transit, the consumer saves money on fuel and maintenance costs, and helps everyone breathe a little easier.
Another great way to travel is via bicycle. Getting around is fun, fast, and efficient. A good ride can be equivalent to a workout, a healthy byproduct.
Automobiles are now - amazingly! - available with electric motors, either solely...
... or in conjunction with a combustion engine.
They are usually more fuel efficient than their combustion-only counterparts.

As we have seen, pollution is costly to our health and slowing our economy. It would make sense for us to address it as an issue, and reap the side benefits of energy savings and regional growth. New ways of producing and saving energy can spur the economy, providing ample job opportunities and a host of new consumer products. For these reasons and more, it would behoove us, as consumers, civil servants, and businesses alike, to focus on a more sustainable energy future.
Anything less is just plain icky.

Sincerity

2008-04-12T09:32:00.003-05:00

Honesty is the best policy. Or so the saying goes.

But what if it's brutal? Toss out a little white lie to keep the peace, tell a small fib to preserve the calm. Oh, it works for the inconsequential things, like what she looks like in that dress, or that lame joke he told. For important stuff, like your newfound atheism or your disapproval of how the boss handles things, little white lies don't work. Sure, the receiving party is none the wiser, and their emotional well-being is maintained, but yours may not be.

Sometimes sincerity is required, even if it is painful.

The Coin

2008-03-23T11:10:00.002-05:00

Sometimes in life we run into situations that require us to make decisions based on two possible choices. In some cases, it's easy to choose; in others, it is not.

What to do? Since either one of the options would be satisfying to you, and you really have no preference, flip a fair coin. If you like the outcome, stick with it. If you don't, you learn that maybe you did have a preference.

Emotional Coercion

2007-09-21T11:14:00.000-05:00

Years ago, I read a book called "Why We Buy" by Paco Underhill. He and members of his research team would go to various shops of clients and observe customers. They have sneaky methods of noticing you so that you don't notice them noticing you. These researchers record a plethora of facts about you: what you are wearing, the company you keep, how you move about the store, what you pick up, what you touch, etc. You could almost hear David Attenborough in the background, narrating your activities. The research company then sticks all this data together and comes up with clever ways to get you to do what the store managers want you to do: buy more stuff. As a marketing executive, Underhill knows the tricks because he invented/discovered a lot of them. The "tricks" are making use of the simple things that make us tick, gleaned from this extensive observation of consumer behavior.

Humans are, first and foremost, survival machines. We evolved in the wild to be and act in ways that were conducive to our reproductive success. We're such clever monkeys, though, that we quickly de-wilded the wilderness. Our genes did not get the message, and are still cranking us out to behave as if we were still in the jungle. Of course, we have instinct blindness, that is, we are not aware of what we do or why - we don't need to, we just do it. That was the case for several thousands of years, but now we have folks like Edward Bernays, Underhill, and others that have been able to pinpoint specific instincts and ingrained behavior that we have in response to specific environmental cues. I would like to remind the reader that we are not entirely driven by instincts or predetermined behavior; there is a great variability in our thoughts and actions and our reasons for them. We are not little robots that mindlessly go about our business (well, most of us aren't). I mention this now to make a point later. (that humans ought to be "rational, reasoning, and thoughtful", not mindless animals that react to environmental cues.)

Bringing up Edward Bernays suggests, quite rightly, that government propaganda can and obviously does make use of the same tactics used by advertisers, and vice versa. We should not have expected things to be otherwise.

Our Candidate

From the video, we can see that the way to subvert the good sense of humans, propaganda must appeal to emotions. Fear is, I believe, the most commonly used and effective emotion to elicit the desired response. The reason is fear played such a huge role in our lives in the jungle. Fear meant survival, even if it was irrational. Running from a tiger cub thinking it is a tiger because the fear magnified the threat may indeed seem silly to us, but our monkey ancestors would rather expend a few calories like this and be wrong than be gobbled up for good.

Other emotions and systems come into play as well. For example, humans like faces. We have a natural propensity to notice them. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure most animals with faces have some face recognition pattern). Humans also have built-in attractiveness measuring systems. Symmetry of the body, especially faces, is often a good indication of quality genes. Stick symmetrical, youthful human faces all over advertisements - even if faces have nothing to do with the product:

[at an auto exhibit where a blonde model poses together with a car for a raffle.]

Homer: [looks at model after signing his raffle ticket] Do you come with the car?

Model: Oh you! [laughs childishly]

[Homer leaves. Another man walks up to the car]

Male attendee: [looks at model after signing his raffle ticket] Do you come with the car?

Model: Oh you! [laughs childishly]

- and people will look at it and make associations between the people depicted and the product. Multi-national and -cultural studies have shown that women with a .7 waist to hip ratio are found, on average, to be more desirable than other ratios. This probably has a lot to do with fertility cues. Associating fertility cues with automobiles makes a lot of sense.

Let's not expect advertisers to be the sole users of these facts. The recent republican debates and polls have shown Mitt Romney is a popular candidate. I predicted it was because of his hair, and since we know that national politicians generally don't say anything meaningful, this is probably the case.

The point of all this is to demonstrate the similarity of tactics. Now we must break down the underlying reasons for using them. The simple reason is: they want us to do something. Whether it's handing over money for a good or service or as a donation for a campaign, to having a positive mental attitude towards the company, party, or politician makes no difference.

Wanting something is not inherently bad or undesirable, it's just a matter of how we go about getting it. If I can save some effort by asking someone to pass the pepper, I just politely ask them to do so. I don't have to resort to fear-mongering or excessive charm. The use of emotional and sexual manipulation is what makes the previous cases so detestable. Rather than be addressed as rational, thoughtful, intelligent, responsible people (you know, humans), advertisers and political propagandists appeal to base instincts and survival mechanisms. It is insulting because it suggests that A) we are too stupid to understand the real reasons why we should do something, and B) we are too stupid to even ask. The most insulting thing, though, is C) it works.

Not all the time, nor on everyone, but it does. We are such that we can't help but react a certain way in some cases. I consider it coercion. In an obvious case, a person holds a gun to my head and demands my obedience. Bypassing such crude methods, I am induced as a monkey (not as a human) to obey through cleverly designed media spots. One interesting property of media coercion as compared to violent coercion, is that whereas the latter is good at obtaining direct obedience with direct, individual contact and less so in large groups; the former is rather poor at bending the individual to its will, but quite effective at moving crowds. Everyone has these holes in the armor of their persona, but not everyone has a gun to their head. Most people can overcome emotional or sexual coercion, but not always so with violent coercion. The trouble is that we often don't even notice we are being emotionally manipulated. It is easy to spot the gun and the malevolence behind it. Appeals to emotion - especially those couched in the innocent activity of "merely informing others that such a product exists" - do not have an apparent ill-intent. It may seem just fine and logical to vote for this or that candidate because of this or that emotionally-charged "issue".

This is perhaps the scariest and most dangerous aspect of emotional manipulation: because it is your emotion and your reaction, you feel like you are in control. You are not. At least, not completely. The amount of autonomy you give up depends on how comfortable you feel being driven by your emotions to perform the bidding of another person. Over time I would imagine you would be happy to have others make your decisions. After all, your emotions tell you that what you are doing is desirable, so what you want is what they want, and you don't have to go through the trouble of trying to figure out what it is you want. They do that for you.

So when I rail against consumerism (or political ads not unlike the spoof above) and all it's evils, this is just one aspect of what I mean. If you've ever seen a person zombie-like in front the TV, flashes of light flickering off their glazed eyes, reduced through years of careful conditioning to be an emotionally-driven consumer robot, you will experience the horror...

Horrified yet? Good, now do my bidding...

Authoritarians

2007-09-09T06:53:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading an online book by a psychologist in Canada about authoritarianism. I recommend that you immediately read the book at the link, it is that good.

The ebook is a collection of experiments, surveys, and observations a professor did to determine the roots of authoritarian behaviour. At first, he only used one scale, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism or RWA, to pick out what kind of people are mindless followers (sheeple) and which are a bit more independently-minded. This scale worked for a long time, but didn't quite capture all the understanding in regards to authoritarian leaders. Hence, he introduced the Social Dominance scale, SD, to see who wanted to be the one on top in any situation. Using the two together, four distinct types of personalities emerged, each having unique characteristics, often defined by life experiences, that affirms what we always suspected to be true.

In the chart below, which I spent all of three minutes making, we see 4 squares with a list of (some) attributes and an example of the type of person such attributes would create. This is not to be taken as entirely accurate in 100% of cases. Individual variation certainly allows for overlap and mixing of traits.
The examples by no means apply to all of those who bear the labels. Not all anarchists would score low on these two measures, and one can certainly be an asshole and yet not be authoritarian. But I was hoping the reader would notice that the traits seem to line up, because then it would make it far more convenient to refer to one category as "sheeple" instead of "those who have high RWA and low SD scores". I will try to describe each label so the reader gets a feel for the forces that help shape such behaviour.

Assholes

These happy people score high on RWA and SD both! They have a strong tendency to be religious, and to respect authority they deem higher than them (like God or the Pope). But if they suspect they can gain the upper hand in a situation and overthrow the current archon, they will not hesitate to act. They relish power and thoroughly enjoy controlling other people. Opposing viewpoints are brushed aside and ignored, or, if these interlopers are hindering their plans, assholes will deal with the matter above and beyond the law, as you must be aware they always were.

So what kind of person becomes an asshole? What experiences might have led them to be this way? A highly religious family that stresses obedience to authority is probably a factor. But the difference between sheeple and assholes is that the latter have had experiences that taught them they can bend, distort, or out and out break the rules to get something they want. Imagine Ted Haggard as a boy. He learns that people revere god, and respect people who do, so when he steals cookies from the cookie jar, and someone later finds out, he spouts religious claptrap and manipulates his way out of the situation. He learns that being bad and pious at the same time allows him to win more in life, especially control over other people.

Sheeple

The good ol' boys out there that keep us safe from atheists and socialists. They know who's in charge (God and GWB), what the rules are (insert religious text here), and who's gonna go straight to hell (homosexuals, various opposing religions, etc.). They are small-minded and almost constantly scared. Fear is their primary emotion in reaction to new and strange circumstances. Anyone who is too different than they are deserves narrow-eyed suspicion, at the very least.

We can well imagine the bland and stale life they must have had to keep them in their little shells. The tribe is all they know; foreigners and their customs are not welcome. These are the kind of people who want you and everyone else to be "normal". Growing up as children, these folks experience lots of church-going, lots of happy, patriarchal families, severe punishment for those who get out of line (fire and brimstone, anyone?), and receive lots of fear-mongering on Faux News and Rant Radio.

Libertarians

Some could be atheist, but more because they view god as a threat to their own authority, and religion as a crutch for the weak and stupid, than because they reject the absurdity of it. The world is theirs for the taking, sharing is for losers, and people are poor because they are lazy. In a room of two people, someone has to be on top, and it's gonna be the libertarian. They are obviously highly-competitive, and certainly not above cheating. They're the kind who curse welfare and food stamp recipients for being moochers, and chuckle in approval at corporations who yank money many times more than all the welfare moochers combined out of public coffers. The state that helps the poor is evil and horrible, but the hired goons that protect their property are perfectly acceptable.

This is from an old conversation I had online with a Randroid:

1. Morality is an individual issue, not a social issue.

2. Helping others in need is wrong.

3. Each against all is a moral and practical system.

These statements suggest a "me versus the world" mentality. This person railed against cooperation and equality, charging "the left" with bringing about universal poverty. Of course, this is only because these things challenge his authority and possible success over others. Some other things libertarians have said to me:

"Women shouldn't vote because they always vote for the wrong reasons."

"Slavery is efficient."

"The only legitimate authority is the boss [the one with the money]."

"If I was caught by the police, I would rat out all of my friends to get out."

After I described the effects of pollution on the environmental and human health, a libertarian told me:

"I don't care about these things. They don't affect me."

The prominent indifference to suffering and a desire for money and power overwhelms any agreeable rhetoric libertarians may spout. I've surmised before how and why they end up the way they do. I bring this up to show that when libertarians use words like "freedom" and "opportunity", they almost always mean it for themselves, exclusively. If they oppose power, it is only because they don't have it. Liberty is only useful if it grants them power.

This is not to be a long polemic against libertarians (ok, maybe a little). Their oft-chosen atheist position is commendable, as is their somewhat more open stance on homosexuals and other minority groups. Even their goals seem admirable, which is the reason why libertarians are dangerous: because this makes them so difficult to spot. A power-hungry asshole is obviously out to control and dominate you. A libertarian, on the other hand, will camouflage themselves in "no gummint" rhetoric, but vote for schmucks like Reagan; they say "freedom and liberty", but are not above corporations limiting these rights in others.

Anarchists

Of course, not all people who score low on both the RWA and SD measures call themselves or would be considered anarchists, but we can connect the attributes with the philosophy. These people believe each person has to find their own way in life. They see nothing wrong with someone being a transvestite, homosexual, or the author of a pretentious blog. Rather than fearful, they are curious when encountering something new. They challenge ill-gotten and ill-used authority, even at peril to themselves. Cooperation is preferred over competition, equality over wealth disparity, and diversity over cultural homogeneity.

They probably grew up in cities or places with a wide range of people, differing cultural attitudes and perspectives. The family household may have been eccentric to some extent, maybe a single mother or starving artists for parents. Having seen authority figures abuse power or otherwise be stupid, they have the important understanding that authority is fallible, and that it is often wise to question it.

Authoritarianism and Politics

And, in all things political, it is more about domineering or authoritarian behavior that determines when abuse of power occurs, not necessarily the specific views of the individual. For example, a domineering Randroid is just as likely to become a dictator like Stalin as is an asshole. But we may notice that certain beliefs tend to link with particular stances on authoritarianism. Sheeple prefer simple, emotionally-satisfying, easily repeated drivel that makes sure they are stupid and obedient. Assholes bathe themselves in this drivel, but spice it up with a bit of god-like control. Libertarians, of course, enjoy and identify with Objectivism and other such ideas that excuse exploitation and belittle the fools who share and care - lefties and religious nuts alike.

What do anarchists believe? Strangely, some of the lines libertarians spout. For example

"That government which governs least, governs best."

I agree with this, and indeed many libertarians do - on the surface. Implied in the quote is the understanding that for government to govern less, those who are governed must prevent the need for such governing by solving the problems (even those caused by the gummint) the government was created to solve. That is, to even begin to bring about such a situation, we would require people to be independent, open-minded, curious, cooperative, and empathetic, amongst similar qualities. For the libertarian, it is enough to get rich and break free from the chains of the system - you know, hitting that higher tax bracket and getting all those nice tax breaks - but will leave the other prisoners there to rot. Or, if they do it right, it will be their turn to be the jailer.

"...the proletariat class [will] never band together or overthrow the government ... because [they are] too stupid to understand what was going on"

The anarchist, on the other hand, realizes that his freedom is intrinsically tied to the freedom of others, that opportunity for her means opportunity for others, that if we're all going to the same place, there's no need to scramble over one another. They know that caring for themselves means caring for others. They understand that to be true to form, it is not just a matter of freeing oneself from the chains, but of destroying them altogether. Writers and philosophers that genuinely espouse such things are often agreeable to anarchists. My best illustration, far superior to words is:

Energy Distribution Mechanisms

2007-07-26T13:48:00.001-05:00

The sun bathes the surface of the earth in warm, delicious energy. Structures form to better store and utilize this energy. And so it is that cells came about. New structures form from these smaller structures, smaller components making larger ones. And so it is that these cells arrange themselves in patterns conducive to energy storage and utilization, an organism. One obstacle to the growth of larger patterns is the dispersal of energy throughout them. If too many cells in a large organism go without sustenance, the entire system becomes threatened with collapse. Cells dealing with one another on a one-to-one basis is insufficient to create effective energy distribution mechanisms; capillaries are too thin to carry nutrients across so many cells. Very quickly organisms learned to designate special cells to create energy dispersal conduits, or veins and arteries...

If I want a paintbrush, I go out and buy one. If I want some food, I go out and buy some. If I want to go to a concert, I buy a ticket and go. I pay for the good or service, and the business I patronize provides me with it. It is a simple transaction, involving two free agents engaging in mutually beneficial economic activity undisturbed by coercion. No one else need be involved monetarily. Making the customer behind me in line fork over some money to pay for my food or my paintbrush would be unthinkable.

The same can be said for taxes. Why should I have to pay taxes for roads when I don't drive that often? Why should I pay taxes for public education when I don't have any kids? Why should I dole out my money for some grieving hospital patient? Let them pay their own way. They are the ones making the transactions. It seems horrible and wrong that someone would have me pay for goods and services that benefit them and not me.

But is it for their exclusive benefit? I may not need to drive a car to the shop to buy my paintbrush, but the paintbrush itself required someone to drive it to the shop. Paying taxes on it reflects the cost of the use of the road in moving the product to me. I may not utilize the roads directly, but I do require them to be there. I benefit from roads even though I don't use them.

In such a case, I would be one out of the three grey circles in the diagram below. I am removed from the direct use of the road, but by the path of benefit from the road to the art shop to me, the customer, I benefit by it. Notice the gradient of benefit.
Suppose some teacher gets sick and requires medical attention. Suppose also that their meager salary is not nearly enough to cover the costs of this care. We might just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, sucks to be her". And then the next day the kids come home from school having not learned a thing. The babysitter/substitute teacher was unfamiliar with the children and did not work with them well. Unsatisfied with school, the children run a muck at home, becoming less and less educated as the weeks go buy. The poor teacher is on her last leg, more than ever unable to afford the necessary medical treatment. Suppose that to help keep their kids from being little hooligans, the parents of the children each pitch in a little to help pay for the teacher's medical bills. The cost divided amongst them amounts to very little per family. Each family benefits by having their children calm and knowledgeable. And not just the families, but the businesses and organizations that will be using the fresh monkey minds to (hopefully!) benefit society years from when their teacher got sick. In the diagram below, these benefiters make use of the medical service the teacher received as well as the indoctrination services the latter provided, both of which can be represented by the green square.

These ripples of benefit affect society as a whole. Many such matters do. Simple transactions in the marketplace cannot factor these other benefits into account; it would be a logistical nightmare to calculate how much others separated by degrees benefit from a direct transaction between two agents.

But let's suppose that we were keen on making economic transactions more "fair". Our current situation with taxes paying for roads would have to be abandoned. Instead, we have to introduce some way for those who use the roads - and no one else - to pay for them. One such way would be for motorists to subscribe to some sort of service plan. A service plan may have different restrictions given location, time of day, particular quality of the road, etc. Competing companies would also exist, dividing up roads as turf. How such plans would be derived and enforced is difficult to surmise. It would certainly be unfair for one person to have to pay full price for a service they rarely use, so maybe something more indicative of actual use should be introduced. Toll roads offer the best answer, because the distance and path a motorist travels determines how much they ought to pay. But to ensure a proper assessment of use, tolls would have to be installed at just about every intersection. Of course, hiring people to man hundreds of toll booths is out of the question, and the traffic jams would be dreadful. Something like a little tag system would work, though. A receiver mounted on the stop sign or traffic light that tallies the tagged vehicle passing beneath/beside it. The bill comes in the mail.

What a fair, equitable, and profitable way to manage a road system! The invasion of privacy and the entire bureaucratic apparatus would make these toll companies seem awfully like the taxing state. But, in the end, those who use the road directly are the ones who pay for it directly.

There are certainly cases where engaging in one-on-one transactions is superior to being taxed. The paintbrush and food examples take into account my own personal preference for food and paintbrushes. No way, no how could taxes ever consider these things. Besides, not everyone benefits to a significant degree by what I paint or what I eat (only by the fact that I do - just enough to stay alive!).

But in the process of providing me with a paintbrush or food, several other transactions take place. Any number of beneficial (green square) and detrimental (red square) effects may have rippled across society through the course of my desires coming to me.

There is an important point to make at this juncture that describes our current mode of resource distribution. Americans and other citizens of "first world" countries benefit greatly by having cheap goods manufactured in China or "third world" countries made available to them. Those who make the goods themselves are often not the ones that receive the greatest benefit - often quite the opposite. From our end, things look like a green square, but on their end, it's a red square.

The smoke from these factories is related to that new plastic gadget for sale:

When McDonald's has its 39 cent hamburgers special, this is what it means:

The awful business going on in China and other places is hidden from western consumers behind an attractive price. In the same way that money distorts and hides benefit, it shields us from ever knowing the detriment.

So, some quick rhetorical questions. Do we come out ahead, as a species, as the humanity organism, when we make commodities in this way? Is there another way to fabricate and disperse consumer items, one that maximizes benefit and minimizes detriment? Is our current mode of energy distribution equipped to meet such a goal?

Centralization and Concentration

If we are to include ripples of benefit in determining the price of certain goods and services, what criteria should be used? What specific kinds of goods and services should be provided?

Oddly enough, the structure of national governments in many parts of the world shows us the answer:

1) Communication
2) Transportation
3) Energy
4) Education
5) Health

Several items could be added, but I think the idea is conveyed. What we would like to include is those goods and services that provide an enormous, ubiquitous, and lasting benefit to society. The 5 items listed above can be considered organs. As the humanity organism evolves, it will refine and hone how it deals with its needs, more specifically, how it uses its organs.

Taxes and state services, even if well-meaning, can often create tumors rather than efficient and useful organs. Tasks become mired down in bureaucracy, overhead, and miscommunication. Services must be homogeneous and so become bland, washed-out, and mediocre. This leads to citizen disgruntlement.

We seek a way out, and one that allows us to choose where our money goes. The only other mechanism that we know of is the market. The market, if it was a superior mechanism for distributing these 5 important goods and services, would already be doing it. The reason why it is not is because these things are often not profitable or feasible, as discussed previously.

In the cases where profitable industries develop to meet the needs of the organism, to remain afloat and robust, they must ever seek expansion and market domination.
The organ grows large and unwieldy, developing along lines of control and hierarchy, granting those at the top the greatest benefit, and leaving the detriment for those removed from the decision-making process. Someone at the top shapes the entire operation to be as profitable as possible, regardless of the value output. The organ more and more resembles a tumor. Tasks become mired down in bureaucracy, overhead, and miscommunication. Services must be homogeneous and profitable and so become bland, washed-out, and mediocre.

This problem is present in both tax-based and market-based entities; it has more to do with the size and organizational structure of the operation rather than the method of acquiring funds. Ideally, tax-based services should be small operations, because they can more effectively deal with the customers they serve, just as with small businesses.
The total area of the market is better filled with small circles rather than large circles. (My dinky diagram may not show this). Centralized, hierarchical services would, by their very nature, become bloated and fat-ridden, bringing waste and corruption in their wake.

This would happen because of the nature of hierarchy and control. Power structures are used to gather more power. A radical move away from
centralized power and control without the loss of distributive benefits from taxes would be greater citizen participation, especially in regards to taxes:

Half of the political machinery would be rendered superfluous (as if it weren't already). Citizens, as consumers of not-for-profit services, would get a say in how much of their money went where. This allows the humanity organism to develop along lines useful to it as an entity, not as competing tumors desiring mindless growth.

Once again, this was a jumble of ideas. Much can be filled in to connect the ideas more succinctly, and much more can be said of them in general. In the interest of time and to avoid confusion, I have kept it as is. Suggestions, comments and clarifications are certainly welcome; I just hope it makes sense.

dm11a (ldm.cfm) + Grid (lkm.ccl)

2007-07-26T00:11:00.001-05:00

Capitalismo

2007-07-23T09:50:00.000-05:00

I have a lot of money. I want to make more money. I want to introduce cheap produce and other agricultural goods to an industrialized country and its lucrative market.

So, I go to South America with the backing of the government of my industrialized country, pushing for lax trade laws, environmental laws, and labour laws with the corrupt government of some South American country. I buy up land with my mighty foreign currency and hire a bunch of brown people that I know are obviously beneath me to work crops that have little use to the people there, but turn a nice profit when sold back home.

I introduce the use of powerful chemical fertilizers and pesticides - banned in my country - to ensure healthy growth. The corrupt government supports my economic endeavour because they, not the ones doing the work, get a cut of the action. They are so nice, too, to hire guards to police the area, keeping farm hands in line and pesky protesters (environmental and/or humanitarian) out of sight. Why should I have to install the machinery of oppression when I can just borrow and use that which is already in place?

I'm doing everyone a favour: I'm giving much-needed work to the farmers, much-needed money to government officials in two or more countries, much-needed goods in my home market, and, most importantly, much-needed money for me. So you can imagine my surprise that people would even dare think this whole arrangement is a bad thing.

I just don't understand.

The Socratic Method

2007-07-14T00:28:00.000-05:00

This is a discussion I had with someone on stumbleupon. I forgot to copy and paste the first few messages we traded before they cycled through, so I will have to fill in with gists. I also wanted to write this blog post to more thoroughly address the arguments. Parts that were not in our original discussion, for the sake of fairness, will be in italics.

Me:

Did you know that Vonnegut and Orwell were both socialists, and that their books often reflected this? For example in 1984 when Orwell writes "hope lies with the proles" he was certainly advocating socialism. Do you find it disconcerting? How you respond is dependent on how vigorous your research is.

Pin:

not really. I can like a book yet disagree with it's message. But seriously, wasn't Animal Farm a work dedicated to showing that socialism cannot work? And I am well aware of Vonnegut's love for Eugene Debbs, his socialist idol. But his books are still entertaining to read, and he doesn't advocate socialism in them.

Also, in 1984, there is really big, rights-devouring government, which is a dominant feature of socialistic and communistic governments. And as I see it, this "big brother" could not exist in a country that is not socialistic. I believe this because the state has no incentive to spy on the people if there is no state to take down. The only reason the state would have to spy on the people is to force people to follow stupid rules or prevent people from plotting to overthrow the state. If the state has no power, then it has no power to lose. If it has no power to lose, it has no incentive to spy on the people.

And how does the state get power? It begins providing services for the people, then taxing the people for the money to provide these services. When the government provides services, that is socialism. The only way the state gets power is by taxing, the only way the state gets to tax is by providing services. Therefore, the state only has something to gain by spying on the people if it is a socialist government.

With that in mind, how is 1984 a pro-socialist work?

*
Me:

"How you respond is dependent on how vigorous your research is."

Not very, apparently. :-)

"But seriously, wasn't Animal Farm a work dedicated to showing that socialism cannot work?"

No, actually. Orwell was writing an account of the history of these events, and what went wrong. He was not out to disprove or discredit socialism.

"and he [Vonnegut] doesn't advocate socialism in them."

Are you sure? Socialism meant a lot to him, and the kinds of stories he wrote were most definitely about social commentary, an excellent place to advocate socialism.

"When the government provides services, that is socialism."

The main problem here, of course, is that you are using a definition of socialism that Orwell and Vonnegut do not use. That's right, what the word means to you is very different than what the word means to Orwell, Vonnegut and myself. Once we work out a definition, you'll begin to see how Orwell is consistent and how Vonnegut's books contain ideas reminiscent of socialism.

Pin:

Wow, you are kind of an intellectual snob. You didn't address any of my points, you just implied that I had clearly not done enough research because I disagree with you. Well, friend, that isn't how debates are won.

I mean, it seems like you are asking me to drop some knowledge on you. How can you be an anarcho-socialist? Socialism depends on the coercive taxation of the worker, and taxation is immoral, not to mention impossible in anarchy, unless the anarchist wants to employ violence to carry out this taxation.

Granted, you could be a voluntary socialist, but any commune you lived in would be destined to poverty, as you could not acquire the funds to purchase medicine or much of the things that make life easy.

Seriously, anarchy cannot work without capitalism. Without capitalism, everyone would have to revert to the life of the farmer, or command economies would come up and force some people to farm and others to do other jobs. Either way, violence is initiated to achieve the goal, and that is immoral.

Hey, maybe you should do some more research, or at least some rigorous research.

and what's more, your quote "For example in 1984 when Orwell writes "hope lies with the proles" he was certainly advocating socialism." doesn't make sense. If anything, that quote implies that the proles would have to overthrow the government, not that they would have to overthrow the government and implement another socialistic government.

I mean, seriously Commerican, in 1984, the food was rationed out by the state, and the state was portrayed as horribly evil. How do you get the impression that Orwell thought socialism was a good thing at all? He crushes socialism in 2 novels. He uses the terminology of Marx to present the ideal circumstances for Marxism (Marx called himself a socialist) and then he goes on to say that the proletariat class would never band together or overthrow the government. He was saying Marxism would never come around because the working classes were too stupid to understand what was going on.

not a major point, I was just saying that your analysis made no sense, and logic should have been used to analyze the quote.

**

Me:

"You didn't address any of my points, you just implied that I had clearly not done enough research because I disagree with you."

I didn't address your points because you posited them incorrectly. I did not imply, I outright accused you of not doing enough research, and not because you disagree with me. I would argue that you don't know what my position is, and that you cannot disagree with me until you are actually aware of it and can recite it back to me.

"How can you be an anarcho-socialist?"

Fairly easily. I recognize that:

1) Power structures use their power to maintain and grab more power. This goes for governments as well as economic institutions. It is foolish and a bit naive to believe that the government and the economy are two separate and opposing entities. Big government is a result of big business, and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other.

2) The only way to limit power is to have everyone as equal as possible. Power comes from making decisions, so having people involved in making decisions, to the extent that these decisions affect them, is the way to go.

3) The interests of the individual are best realised when people are working together. A single person cannot build roads or airports or hospitals. I read an article recently about traffic patterns that is somewhat analogous to and debunks this idea that everyone climbing over each other actually makes it better for all. Drivers seeking to get ahead by constantly changing lanes were contributing to traffic jams, because drivers behind them would have to brake and adjust, and so it went all down the line.

4) The sum total of human endeavour ultimately goes to making rich people richer, not to the betterment of society as a whole.

So, when I say I am a libertarian (another word for anarchist), I mean that I understand that power is used to maintain and seek more power, and so therefore must be limited. When I say I am socialist, I mean that if we are to do things, we should do them together, cooperatively, for the betterment of society, not just for a small segment of it, with specific goals and restrictions in mind, which ultimately betters the life of each individual.

"Socialism depends on the coercive taxation of the worker"

You sure?

"Seriously, anarchy cannot work without capitalism."

This is entirely incorrect. The problem arises, again, because we are using different definitions of capitalism. Anarchy was a response to capitalism, it was a response to the loss of decision-making power workers felt as their world was turned upside down. Anarchy is diametrically opposed to capitalism. There is a buzz term going around now, "anarcho-capitalism", that is oxymoronical and may be what you are thinking (see the post below).

"How do you get the impression that Orwell thought socialism was a good thing at all? He crushes socialism in 2 novels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

:-)

"He uses the terminology of Marx to present the ideal circumstances for Marxism (Marx called himself a socialist)..."

Marx did more than call himself a socialist, he described what socialism meant, at least the definition I'm using. He also came up with the definition of capitalism. He wrote a book about it called Das Kapital. I would like to point out here, once again, that the definitions you are taught in American public schools are not the proper definitions. (More on this later.) You'll have to read some of the appropriate literature to find out what these terms mean (that's what I mean by 'research'). Honestly, did you think that US schools would tell you the real definitions and help you understand them?

"...and then he goes on to say that the proletariat class would never band together or overthrow the government. He was saying Marxism would never come around because the working classes were too stupid to understand what was going on."

If the working classes are too stupid to understand what's going on, who is making the decisions? Is this decision-making class making the best decisions for the working class, or for themselves? Could they abuse their power? Would they? Sounds to me like you are making a really good argument for the state - centralized decision-maker that gathers all the people that 'understand what is going' together in a well-meaning governing body. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"and logic should have been used to analyze the quote."

Truly.

Pin:

wow, it's odd how he presents socialism as totally evil in both 1984 and Animal Farm.

But anyway, democracy is still evil. If people vote to ban gay marriage, does that make it right to ban gay marriage, or is marriage just part of the human right to make consensual agreements (assuming these agreements don't violate anyones property)? It has been said that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for lunch", and I don't think that that is far off. The government accumulates all of our money through violent coercion, the act of robbery/taxation. That is absolutely immoral.

Oh, and before you start spouting off your anti-capitalist rhetoric, capitalism occurs only when both parties benefit. In the example of work, the employer values my labor more than the money he pays me, and I value the money more than the time I spend working. Both parties benefit from this transaction, and no violence is needed.

Me:
"is marriage just part of the human right to make consensual agreements (assuming these agreements don't violate anyones property)?" Marriage is a social construct to determine property rights. The reason why gay marriage is not allowed is because in the 4th century the church would inherit the land and property of a widow, because, you know, women can't own property. A male widow (midow?) would get to keep the land, which the church didn't like. Funny how our culture has these silly rules in regards to property. Notice also that property relations need not be just, fair, or even make sense - they just need to facilitate consolidation of wealth and power.

"But anyway, democracy is still evil."

So what other way should we arrive at the choices we make as a group? If democracy is one side of the spectrum, and monarchy (mono-archon) the other, where does the ideal lie? Since the great days of feudalism, there has been a general trend towards more and more citizen participation and, not surprisingly, personal freedom, which is really, really awesome. Mainly because it's not feudalism. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"...capitalism occurs only when both parties benefit"

You sure? Marx had a different perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Marxian_political_economy

"Both parties benefit from this transaction, and no violence is needed."

Well, how much time must pass before wealth acquired through coercion becomes legitimate?

Pin:

it never becomes legitimate. it is always stolen money, taken without consent from the people. It never, ever becomes the legitimate property of the thief. what kind of silly question is that?

Me:

Give it back to the native americans. Give it back to the slaves.

But we can't, because we pretend that the violence and coercion of the past has no bearing on current conditions. Descendants of rich old white men that bought slaves and extorted them are often still receiving the benefits of this slave labour. My ancestors owned slaves, and I'm sure my middle-class status has something to do with that.

Capitalism continues on as if theft is legitimate.

Is a recipient of government money that was collected through taxes a moocher? Is the wealth they create legitimate?

Pin:

by the homesteading theory, property is unowned until a human infuses it with his labor. If land is undeveloped, and no one has developed the land around it, then it is free for development. The native americans did not develop all of america, and for the parts that they did develop, the colonists had no right to take that land.

Regarding slaves, I have never owned slaves, my ancestors have never owned slaves, and slavery was uneconomical. Granted, it is completely immoral, but the descendants of slaves have every right to sue the families of their ancestors masters for back wages, but that is just because slavery is a violation of rights. Slavery is an anti capitalistic action to begin with, as it claims that some people don't own their body, and capitalism is founded on the belief that one owns their body and their labor.

And current industry benefited in no way from slavery.

but hey, I'll humor you, in the event that I might learn something. What theft does capitalism benefit from, and how does it benefit?

and yeah, the recipient of "government" money is a thief. If I steal $1000 from your wallet and invest it in stocks, and those stocks go up, does that mean I have the right to the profits? Fuck no! I used your resources without permission, therefore I was a thief and have no claim to any benefit from the money. And if the stocks went down, I would still owe you $1000 + interest.

**
Me:

"by the homesteading theory, property is unowned until a human infuses it with his labor... ...The native americans did not develop all of america"

This is the classic tale of two groups of humans with two different methods of acquiring food coming into contact. From your perspective, what you say is true because our culture is agricultural. It makes sense to base property rights on these concepts. To the Native Americans, fencing off land that the herds roam is a silly way to do things. Their concept of property was therefore different. The resolution was violence. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"...the colonists had no right to take that land."

We still benefit from this past theft, and your 'homesteading' theory does not absolve the crime. It does not legitimize the wealth accumulated since. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"Regarding slaves, I have never owned slaves, my ancestors have never owned slaves, and slavery was uneconomical."

Your ancestors owned slaves, or, if they did not, they were slave guards, or, if they were not, they benefited from slavery. America as a nation benefited from slavery. It is still benefiting from it. This does not excuse or legitimize it. And I hope by "uneconomical" you mean "cannot last more than 300 years".

"And current industry benefited in no way from slavery."

There is a long chain of effects and causes that goes back to the days of slavery. If you were to follow them from now until then, you would see that current industry must, by the very linear nature of time in connecting these events, benefit from past slavery. In regards to current slavery, look up the prison-industrial complex. You'll notice a fine mixture of capitalism and slavery. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"capitalism is founded on the belief that one owns their body and their labor."

Remember that in 1984, language itself became a propaganda tool. The state would change the meanings of words to limit understanding, to change the past and make the proles stupid, disorganized and confused. Capitalism, as you are using the word, is a new definition, and was never that which was used in critiques of it. Also, this new definition is very new, and the old definition was around for at least a hundred years. Would it make sense for the USA, a capitalist country, to redefine the word "capitalism" so as to make it easier for adherents to accept and defend, and harder for opponents to disagree? Is this kind of vocabulary-editing reminiscent of Newspeak? Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

The military-industrial complex (MIC) consumes about half of all taxes. This is not just the departmental stuff, but the companies that design, build, and test weapons. They receive money that comes from taxpayers to make weapons for the government.

A law was passed recently that allowed greater consolidation of "defense" companies, because the US gummint wanted to deal with fewer entities:

http://www.brookings.edu/press/review/summer96/korb.htm

"How Did It Happen?

In July 1993, John M. Deutch, then the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, responded to pressure on his boss, William Perry, from the chief executive officers of Martin Marietta, Lockheed, Loral, and Hughes by deciding to allow defense companies to bill the Pentagon for the costs of mergers and acquisitions."

Is their wealth legitimate?

If you had a screen on your wall that depicted people who commanded you to perform certain actions, yelled at you to do things, compelled you with fear and emotional manipulation, all while disturbingly aware of what you were doing, is this coercion? More specifically, of the type present in telescreens in 1984?

Pin:

what is your point? All of these companies are benefiting from the socialistic policies of the US of A. I mean, war is not a capitalistic action, there is no money to be made by killing and destroying things. Only in a socialism does war become profitable, and even then, it's only profitable to the state and defense contractors, suckling on state largess.

In a capitalist society, the capitalist tries to maximize profit by providing the consumer with something they want. the free market discourages all of the manipulations you state, as people are much less productive when they feel manipulated. And what's more, if someone feels manipulated, they can quit and work at a competing firm, or they can start their own business, or they can talk to the person manipulating them.

In a socialism, I cannot talk to the people that manipulate me. I can't talk to the IRS and get them to stop manipulating me. I can't talk to the president and get him to stop trampling my rights. I can't get the government to stop taxing oil, or providing free roads. I can't get the government to stop indoctrinating people with public schooling that leaves people half retarded. In socialism, I have no recourse, as these decisions are forced upon me, backed by the might of a body that claims the right to initiate violence against those that disagree.

Me:

"what is your point? All of these companies are benefiting from the socialistic policies of the US of A"

Yeah, because the USA is a real socialist country. It is a tendency of capital to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Those who wield this power do not confine it to the economic sphere. Top government officials can be very cozy with business interests, often to the detriment of citizens and consumers alike.

"I mean, war is not a capitalistic action, there is no money to be made by killing and destroying things."

Tell that to Dick Cheney. He'll give you a dollar he made by killing and destroying things. But I doubt he even bothers with such small denominations.

"In a capitalist society, the capitalist tries to maximize profit by providing the consumer with something they want."

Pollution prevention measures (like smoke stack scrubbers, water treating and cooling, etc) reduce profits. Do consumers want to suffer the ill effects of industrial pollution? Do both parties benefit? Does the prison-industrial complex profit from obscene federal drug laws? Do all the products listed in ads really reflect the desires of consumers, or are they cleverly designed to make us think we want them? Was there a strong outcry for New Coke? For clear Pepsi? For Jimmy Dean's pancake-wrapped sausage? Are you sure you are not being manipulated to desire these things?

"...the free market discourages all of the manipulations you state, as people are much less productive when they feel manipulated."

You're absolutely right, people are less productive when they feel manipulated. Eric Fromm's idea of 'anonymous' authority comes into play now. Watch a car commercial (on your telescreen - oops! I mean 'television') and listen to what the announcer says: "Get a blah blah... Come on down and buy a blah blah... Drive home with a blah blah..." Did you notice the strong use of the imperative? Rather pompous of him, isn't it? Do you know how much brain power goes to figuring out how to get people to buy things? I mean, real, genuine, this-is-the-way-it-is-because-you-are-a-primate kind of way. You don't stand a chance! I hope I don't need to point out the merging of corporate advertising and government-sponsored propaganda. The point is, what seems like overt and obvious control as depicted in 1984 is actually much more subtle. The idea is to make you think you are in control of your actions and decisions, when really many of your choices are based on previous and continuing conditioning.

"And what's more, if someone feels manipulated, they can quit and work at a competing firm"

That's right, so if someone at Wal-Mart wants to quit and work at _______ (insert one of the many business still in the area after price gouging), they certainly can. The free market does not guarantee there is always another job. Do you not find it ironic that Wal-Mart, a wonderful example of capitalist success, employs the labour of people who do not have the opportunity to seek employment at another firm? Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"or they can start their own business"

The point you are trying to make is that a state-run command economy would not permit someone to start their own business. You would be correct, but that is not socialism. To address this suggestion in real terms, can someone start a business that is profitable? Is the market always amenable to new, profitable businesses? Is everyone capable of managing a business? Be careful how you use these ideals.

"or they can talk to the person manipulating them."

Can Chinese labourers complain to the managers of state-run factories? Does Wal-Mart employ their labour? Is the wealth acquired through coercion legitimate?

Another question:

Isn't it a fair trade to give up self-autonomy for material gain? If some commanding entity, like the state, were to offer you some benefit, whether it be in rank, status, and/or wealth, wouldn't it make sense to surrender your decision-making power to receive it?

***

This is the end of the discussion; I have not heard back from the guy, but do hope he responds.

The discussion was not about arguing for socialism (since the term wasn't clearly defined), but about sticking to dogma and propaganda without critical examination. The paradoxical-seeming support of Orwell and Vonnegut for socialism ought to be a strong indication that the term as they use it is different from the term as we are taught it in public schools. There are misconceptions like this all the time, from people of all political persuasions (and yes, even those who call themselves socialists!), such that an entire discussion can take place in which both parties do nothing but talk past one another, with no true understanding or agreement occurring. It is also disheartening to be subjected to certain "feel good" terms that obfuscate and distort a healthy and useful appraisal of the situation. If we are to concern ourselves with material conditions, we must make observations of material forces, not ideals.

Anarcho-Posers

2007-06-17T10:42:00.000-05:00

Several centuries ago, Thomas Hobbes, one of the first political scientists, posited that governments, that is, monarchies and other arrangements, are necessary because humans would otherwise live a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life in their "battle of each against all". We are bloodthirsty demons that seek to conquer and dominate. Only a strong, stable government like the kind a ruthless tyrant brings allows peace to exist, at least for a short time. With this reasoning, monarchies and other autocratic governments were championed.

For some strange reason, a whole lot of people really feel this is the case, often without actually being aware of Hobbes. One could say that's because it is how we are, but I am of the mind that the meme has so permeated our society, the excuse used so often, that it becomes a "given", of the type not to be questioned.

Humans are not all one way or all another. There is a great capacity in us to do great things for ourselves and others, and an (almost) equal capacity to do just the opposite. We are the products of our environment. Raise a child to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (well, maybe you can't raise it to be short), prepare it for the "battle of each against all" and you'll end up with an adult that lives a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life of fiercely battling each and all.

There is something very wrong with this premise, and it is necessary to dismantle it before another point can be made. Humans evolved in groups. There was not a time when humanity was so scattered and diverse that meeting another human came about by chance or always ended in violence. Villages did not form as a result of the loss of arable land or for protection from marauding solitary savages. We evolved to live and interact and yes, cooperate in groups, and have been in groups since we evolved our way out of the jungles of Africa.

Cooperation is necessary for our survival. Ayn Rand missed this part of it, and had humans (d)evolved to be like what she would have wanted us to be, we would each have scales, claws and a three-chambered heart. Because we evolved to work together, we would have needed some sort of structure to maintain cohesion and perform functions as a large body. Anthropological studies have shown that humans grow their societies around certain biologically-determined size limits, around 150 members. This is also about the same number of people you can get to know and remember. Also around the number of people direct democracy works to any great extent. As I have suggested before, I believe humans are inherently democratic creatures that value the success of themselves and of the group mutually.

As to the structure of this kind of society, government, if it could be called that, was based on input from the group. Sure, there was probably the wise-man or the shaman, and maybe even an executive chieftain of some sort, but I doubt it would have made sense for some brutal tyrant to subjugate 149 people and force them to do things against their will. Common attitudes and concerns would keep the group members focused on pertinent matters. Such a hypothetical setting would allow us to use the term anarchy - without rulers - to describe it.

Notice there is no inclusion of the need for bloodshed, violence, or destruction. The word does not suggest these things, but the actions of previous anarchists do. (I will not address the topic of violence in anarchy in this post because it will take too long.) If we refine that definition: without rulers, to mean: without illegitimate authority and unnecessary (and artificial) hierarchies, we now have a meaning we can use. Notice also that the need for authority is ever-present,

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker. -Mikhail Bakunin

just not illegitimate authority. Scratch religion off the legitimate list. Seniority is also a poor basis. Might does not make right. Artificial positions of authority in unnecessary hierarchies are anathema to democracy, to freedom, and to equal opportunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why anarchy is called "the first cousin of democracy", and why if you are a (true) anarchist, you must favour democracy, but it need not be the case that if you favour democracy, you advocate anarchy.

Anarchy is often the base word of some hyphenated longer word. "Anarcho-syndicalism" (click play below), for example, is a particular branch of anarchist thought.

In recent years, it has become trendy for young, right-libertarians to spice up their usual advocacy of capitalism with opposition to the state, which, in our politically ignorant climate, they have termed "anarchy". (Never mind that anarchy existed in the way we defined it above well before these posers ever came along.) Of course, what they very often mean by "state" is taxes and social services, and what they mean by "anarchy" is not having to pay or support them.

I have previously defined capitalism, so will not do so again here in any detail, only the extent that is necessary to examine it using our new lens of anarchy. Capitalism is the relationship between those who own the means of production and those who don't; the latter must sell their labour to former. I won't go into how this arrangement came about (read the link), but suffice it to say that there is no legitimate reason why one group of people should have exclusive control over a tract of land or a large industrial machine, etc. and the hierarchies that develop along these patterns of arbitrary ownership are indeed unnecessary and artificial.

There is this idea that the "state", as an agent foreign to the "market", needs to step in to fix problems caused by the vagaries of its unruly counterpart. The "market" is where you get to do battle against everyone else, and the "state" is what gives everyone a fighting chance, and ensures that what you earn in battle is not taken by someone else. There is no reason for a rich old white man (yes, he is likely male and white, as there are historical reasons for this) to put a bunch of barrio kids through school. None. So the benevolent nature of humanity creates, through its use of representative democracy, a social machine that redistributes wealth. There is a very good reason the rich old white man would want police forces, and possibly even a large military, because these tools are probably at his disposal, and exist to satisfy his evil purposes.

So it should come as no surprise that "anarchy" and -capitalism were stuck together to sound like a really great idea: anarcho-capitalism. The full potential of humanity is reached by interactions in the marketplace unrestricted by the state. The greed of each mitigates the greed of all. Sure. Instead of advocating something worthwhile, something that makes sense, "anarcho"-capitalists stick two contradictory ideas together.

There are several reasons why the term amounts to a dog chasing its own tail:

1. Capitalism necessarily forms unnecessary hierarchies and allows artificial positions of authority.

2. Capitalism undermines democracy by concentrating wealth (and thus power) into the hands of a few. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

3. Most early anarchist thinkers were decidedly socialist, and all were anti-capitalist, because the whole idea of anarchy came about as a response to capitalism. They are spinning in their graves at the term "anarcho"-capitalism.

There are some variants to the idea that also need to be addressed. One such cultivar would be advocating reducing taxes, dismantling social programs, while maintaining a state-organized military. The military industrial complex (MIC) is presently the recipient of about half of all taxes collected. Social programs, although by no means pinnacles of human endeavor, still offer some benefit to society, and may actually grant some of the less fortunate members a way to pull themselves out of poverty. The MIC sucks resources into costly wars and destructive endeavors. Not only that, but any taxing power of the state is made possible by the threat of violence, made possible by, yup, you guessed it, the MIC. Even if the dog does catch its tail, it will still be going around in circles.

Advocates of "free" market "anarcho"-capitalism suggest that the market would serve as a source of justice and security in a stateless society. I like to call this "neo-feudalism". Private firms that offer police and security services will obviously be bought out by those with the most money. Profitable justice is not blind justice. There are other concerns that I often consider:

Suppose the gummint did not meddle with the market any more, and drugs were legalized (I certainly advocate the decriminalization of marijuana), including crack and meth. In a "free" market, these goods will be as legitimate as any other, so long as those selling and those buying don't use force or coercion in determining price (this whole idea is utter baloney, which I will destroy in a few paragraphs). These substances have a permanent and debilitating effect on humans. They are also highly addictive. I'm not going to address the morality of unrestricted drug sales, what I want to address is the MESS this would make, and how it would be remedied in a society with private police and security, and even rehabilitation services.

It makes a whole lot of sense for someone to sell crack or meth. Highly addictive substances make for a great market. But why oh why would anyone want to rehabilitate addicts? A heavy meth user is burned out, a wasted shell of a human. A crackhead is equally useless. There would be nothing to gain from these poor wretches; all of their money would have gone to drugs already. How would the "free" market solve this problem? It can't. It will have created a problem it could not fix, because the means to fix it are outside its functioning goal: profit. What is more likely to happen is drug cartels will form, hire police and security firms to defend turf, and we'll end up with feudal states ruled by drug lords, media moguls, and CEOs of multinational corporations. No thanks.

(Think this is a hypothetical? We have privatised prisons, and the largest ratio [by far!] of prisoners to citizens compared to other industrialized nations. Addictive, profitable, corporate drugs are legit, whilst relatively harmless and unprofitable drugs like MJ are illegal. A fat talk-radio host can be addicted to pharmaceuticals, employ insurance fraud to get them, and be let off with little more than a slap on the wrist, whilst Marc Emery, Canadian seller of cannabis seeds, is looking at extradition and life in prison.)

There are premises to free market capitalism that I cannot accept. The source of my Y chromosome tells me I just don't understand what it is. This is as much for him as it is for anyone else who wants to know, and for posterity. The most glaring silliness is the stipulation that no force or coercion be used in price determination. When workers are required to sell their labour to someone else, this is the use of force. When consumers are limited to purchasing within their meager means, or, alternatively, when they are induced via commercials (or with the aid of credit) to purchase outside their means, this is coercion. The contradiction is ubiquitous and looming. Arbitrary patterns of ownership undermine an equal stance, and, since we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely (and as power approaches the absolute, so too does corruption approach absolute), the question of force and coercion was never satisfactorily answered by the introduction of the term "free"-market, it was just hidden behind a thin veneer of an ideal.

Another odd premise is the one that the "free"-market is a utility-maximizing and efficiency-optimizing machine, operating in a chaotic sea of market forces. This is often contrasted with planned, top-down economies like the USSR and PRC. The claim is that the invisible hand of the free market makes sense of the chaos out of the chaos better than the deliberate and visible hand of the state (often the erroneous definition of socialism). Two points to address here:

1. The "invisible" hand is quite visible when we consider the basis of value and of price determination in a "free" market economy: profit. We can see the arm of the visible hand and notice that it is attached to the rich old white guy, who is really the CEO of a large corporation, and who helps orchestrate and plan large sectors of the economy. When the "invisible" hand is invoked, it just means we are unwilling to question the matter any deeper. To me, it amounts to god did it. (And yes, I have read Wealth of Nations.)

2. As we saw in number 1, and as I have explained before, because economies are the acts of many individuals, all economies are planned, because we are all making economic decisions. True, no one person can know everything that is going on in an economy, but computers are fast approaching this capability. I have previously mentioned Wal-Mart's massive inventory system that keeps track of sales in different regions and updates prices accordingly. Did you notice that? PLANNING! AHHH! In a "free" market capitalist society! The very epitome of capitalist success is (internally) PLANNED! (And, of course, the main beneficiaries are the ones who installed this system, certainly not the workers, nor the slave-labourers on the other end of the production line.) So, to all those who really, really believe that A) an economy is not planned, and B) that planning cannot be done efficiently and successfully at all: EAT IT.

Since all economies are planned, and it is really a matter of who does the planning and who benefits from it, the only real legitimate stipulation that a hypothetical "free" market has that could be considered worthwhile and actually come about in practice is the idea of "equal footing" in price determination. Of course, the practical side of it is horribly undermined by capitalism, which means "free" market capitalism is also a contradiction. In fact, socialism, an economy planned by society, for society, is the only reasonable way to even begin to bring about the conditions necessary for a free market.

This post was intended to dismantle ridiculous ideas, which, in my mind, are very much like religious dogma. It may also have been offensive, and was partially designed to be so, but know that it is the meme which is under fire, not the host. For them I have utmost pity.

Abstractions

2007-06-16T21:33:00.000-05:00

In dire situations, sometimes it is easier to defer responsibility and control to some external force. Consider, for example, global warming. A religious person, genuinely concerned, reasons:

God with his omniscient benevolence will take care of it.

Someone who has faith in the free market might say:

The market with its invisible hand will take care of it.

A promoter of government intervention would suggest:

The state with its bureaucracy will take care of it.

I hope you noticed the pattern. Instead of actually addressing global warming (or any other pressing concern) by examining the source of it (our behaviour), we have this awful tendency to hoist the problem onto an abstraction. God does not exist, the invisible hand is ethereal, and the state's bureaucracy creates way more waste and mess than it could ever hope to undo. Abstractions have no business solving our problems; we are going to have to accept responsibility for our actions and truly seek a way to remedy the situation.

Change begins with the individual.

Energy

2007-06-07T15:27:00.000-05:00

There is a concept of classical economics that attempts to ascertain the source of value (and thus prices) of commodities. Marx used it in his work, Das Kapital, but he just got it from Ricardo and Smith and developed it. Modern economics, known as "neo-classical", claims it has discovered the TRUE source of value, refuting Marx, Smith, and Ricardo. Classical economics gave us the labour theory of value and neo-classical gave us marginal utility. Each seeks to explain the basis of an economy.

They both make sense - to an extent. This will provide a brief overview of the ideas, their strengths and weaknesses, how they differ, how they are similar and complementary, and the addition of my own mad ramblings.

Marginal Utility (MU)

Let's say I have a hard drive that stores 30 GB. On it, in equal partitions, I have:
But suppose before it dies, I manage to get a new one, 40 GB, and move all my files over. I now have 10 GB of space I didn't have before. I now can use that as server space, and get greater utility out of it, which was dependent (in this case) on how much of it (hard drive space) I have:
In this instance, we can see that a larger hard drive is better because I can do more with it. Using this ordinal ranking, I can determine which hard drive I should buy, which determines how much I am willing to spend, and thus how much it costs.

By itself, MU is dangerous. If we base values on "utility" (based on price), and seek the greatest return for the minimum of outlay, we may begin to alter our standards. Instead of a delicious, enjoyable meal, food becomes something that makes you stop being hungry. So a consumer has a few bucks in his pocket, is hungry, and patrons a fast food restaurant. The value of the stale, congealed meat; starchy bread; wilted veggies and rancid mayonnaise is that it made the hungry fellow not hungry, and all for pocket change! I think this can be attributed to the MU assumption that utility = value = price. Goods on a market have a tendency to drop to the poorest quality standards that consumers are still keen on purchasing. I must also include anti-free will rhetoric, because, once again, "free" will gets in the way of true understanding:

Company A and Company B both make Product X and sell it for the same price. Company A invests in research to make X better, whilst Company B invests in advertising. Company B sells more units of Product X because they convinced more people to buy it than did Company A, which actually created a better product.

This is why even poor quality goods are available and purchased by consumers. If we're all rational, free agents as neo-classical economists would have us take as a prerequisite for MU,
we would expect (hope!) that the quality of goods on a market would begin to increase, not decrease. Advertising would simply be a way for consumers to become aware of the product. (Tactics of media saturation suggest otherwise.) MU hides potential by obscuring value behind an attractive price. The coop grocery where I shop offers goods at slightly higher prices than other retailers. Part of this is the small, local, coop nature of the beast, but it also has to do with the difference in quality of the goods of the goods offered. I have a great habit of reading labels, and have noticed time and again that cheaper, lower-quality goods are actually a worse buy than the higher-priced but also -quality goods, if value (nutrient abundance and variety) has anything to do with price (nutrient to cost ratio).

Another problem with MU is that it doesn't really explain the source of potential value. It is all very well and good to know how much more worthwhile an activity is, but by what universal standards would they be determined?
If we don't have a basis for value determination, we cannot truly appreciate the value of a product of an activity. Emphasis may be placed on tasks that yield values less desired over others. They do, however, yield a profit. Milton Friedman, an important neo-classical economist said:

There is only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

Whew! And here I thought we had to make quality products with love and care for individuals with whom we interact in the community without messing up the environment and indigenous cultures too much. Focusing on profit and assuming it represents real value, I can do anything that makes me a quick buck and feel good about it!

This is a snippet from a discussion I had with someone a while back and expresses their direct, unadulterated sentiments. It needs to be included as an item to be addressed:

Let's say you flip burgers in a nation with a relatively free market. Well, chances are you have no qualification beyond burger flipping. If you do, then there are probably too many people who have the same qualification, so there are no jobs. The cold truth but nonetheless the truth is that burger flipping is unfortunately the best you can do to help society

At this point, you may be wondering who gets to determine which task has more utility. Someone has to determine the value and worth of people as they relate to each other productively. With this in mind,
we see that value potential and value output determination is dependent on profit. McDonald's serves poor quality goods because it's after a profit. Wal-mart sells literally tons of cheap goods made in China, at a most inefficient expenditure of finite fossil fuels, because it seeks profit. Someone determines your worth to society as a measure of how useful (profitable) you are to them.

It should come as no surprise that neo-classical economics places itself in opposition to classical, and thus Marxian, value appraisal methods. While MU has some validity, that is, at times utility does equal price and does equal value, without considering anything else, MU becomes an excuse for the abuses of the existing power structure.

By rejecting LTV, neo-classical economists can ignore the bulk of the critique modern environmental movements have about business practices, and almost all of what Marx had to say about capitalism, even as they adhere to the concept of the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith developed in classical economics.

Labour Theory of Value (LTV) This idea can be abstracted to a great many applications and circumstances, and it is in our distant past that I believe we developed an innate sense for it.

Suppose there are members of a small hunter-gatherer group each engaging in some unique activity. One gathers nuts, another berries, yet another roots, etc. The one with nuts has way too many nuts, the one with berries has far too many, etc. They bring their appropriations to a central location and trade their surplus goods for varied other goods. No money is used; it is all barter. Each gatherer determines the value of other goods in relation to their own, even though they don't want to keep all of what they have. Some exchange rate is decided, like,

3 nuts = 1 berry

or

10 berries = 1 root

Since no money is used, and each member indeed does determine some "value" of the goods available, how is this value reckoned? What does that equal sign equal?

Each and every member of this trading group expended a certain amount of labour to gather and retrieve the goods they brought together to share. As hungry monkeys, they want to recover the energy they used up and get a little extra for their trouble. They trade goods to get some nutritional variety.

This overly simple and crude model demonstrates that trade and exchange need not occur with money, but also that the source for much of our value appraisal takes place in relation to other products and in a social setting. Studies of animals in the wild suggest that organisms can assess energy needs and returns. A cheetah, for example, will chase after an antelope only for so long. Any more, and the cheetah may be expending more energy than she can retrieve, after which time she let's the prey escape. In this way, animals shape their behaviour. It should come as no surprise that humans have this ability as well. It is my humble thought that in the previous example, each member was aware of the energy they themselves expended, and could even roughly gauge how much effort was put forth by the others. These undoubtedly were factors in their decisions.

If we take LTV as the sole source of value, we have trouble assigning relative importance to particular tasks. There is also a degrading effect on humans by thinking of them as merely a source of labour, a means to an end. Inherent to these is waste and hiding of potential:
Merger

A big difference between classical and neo-classical is their mutually exclusive adherence to and acceptance of LTV and MU, respectively. If it is to come to such a stand off, I would have to say that LTV is better than MU, because it actually represents a real, concrete thing: labour. Subjective value judgments, although meaningful, cannot be indicative of value of expenditure or return.

Separate and opposed, they are each dangerous as a method of value determination. But I don't think it has to be this way. I think both make sense together.

An example that I find interesting is art. I like to use old cardboard and other "trash" materials to make art. When I dig something out of the trash and bring it home, it is still just that, a piece of trash. Right before I start to work on it, though, I get nervous. What if I mess up? What if I ruin it?

Ruin it!? It's a piece of trash! How could it be that even before I begin to work on it, something that did not matter to anybody mere moments ago, I value it? This is where marginal utility comes in. After I finish it and hang it up, I enjoy it because I put effort, patience, and concentration into it. I fulfilled some desire by labouring honestly for it; my labour becomes embodied in the object. This is labour theory of value. The two ideas together go a long way in explaining how we value commodities. When someone sees a work of art, they can appreciate the time, skill, and effort that went into the piece, as well as the subjective themes or expression of it. If they were to purchase the piece, both factors would be considered.

From an abstract standpoint, all labour, all effort is value, simply because it is energy expended. Ordinal rankings help determine relative values of activities, because not all labour is valuable. Thus, MU is a layer of value determination.
From previous hypotheticals and examples, it can be seen that this system, even as the combination of two major theories of value, is incapable of addressing all aspects of value. The Wal-Mart example with the waste of fossil fuels cannot be resolved with LTV nor MU. Therefore, I will introduce my

Mad Ramblings (ETV)

Fossil fuels contain energy that we utilize to power our modern economy. As monkeys, we jitter in cubes and factories, adding our own energy. Our special efforts combine knowledge and experience of currently alive individuals as well as those of the past in a unique way - though it is still energy. It is therefore logical and prudent to begin with this as a universal measure.

With this understanding, we can approach the question of value determination from several angles. As mentioned before, we have labour and relative utility, but now, thanks to the energy theory of value, we can measure net energy, comparing initial energy costs to total energy output:
Now we have a system that factors into the cost of production the use of fossil fuels and other energy expenditures. Right away we can see that the costs of pollution on human health alone far outweigh the costs of preventative measures. A recent White House study concluded that a total of $120 billion and $193 billion was detracted from the economy to deal with the effects of pollution (hospitalization, illness, etc). About $23 billion to $26 billion was allotted to reduce such pollution, which is a fair amount below the cost of ignoring it. So, looks like businesses that write off environmental concerns as a threat to their bottom line are actually hurting themselves.

Conveniently, ETV integrates well with our modern information and energy dependent society, providing a standard of value. Energy is analogous to information, so viewing information embodied as energy allows it to become a commodity like anything else.

This understanding becomes really good at making sense of blogs and open source. I was asked in the park once if I felt that our generation was more industrious than previous ones. Affirming this was so, I made the case that work we do is often not economically fruitful labour (monetarily), but labour nonetheless. I certainly don't get paid to blog, but feel it is productive. The entire open source movement relies on people volunteering their labour and time (and thus energy!) to survive. It does more than that, and, in my opinion, a lot better than other methods of software development, because it reflects an appreciation of LTV and MU. Labour is allocated to maximize utility (that is, returns on energy investment), not to maximize profit - which, as we have seen, is by no means a meaningful standard of value.

Considering energy costs and use helps us spot dependencies in terms of energy. We see that Wal-Mart is horribly dependent on fossil fuels, not only in the use of overseas transportation, but also the electricity generated (without environmental concern) by China. We are dependent on each other in terms of energy. From an LTV standpoint, by being aware that the line of dependency flows from the workers to their bosses, and that the line of profit flows the opposite way, by being aware of who directs whom in productive (energetic) activity within a corporate hierarchy, we can dismantle and reshape our interactions to reshape economic structures, hopefully more along democratic, autonomous, and decentralized lines (see: open source movement, wikipedia, libertarian socialism, etc).

Another ancillary idea is the connection between life, energy, and information as value. Concern for the environment is very often a low priority for businesses operating with profit as a goal. They do not factor in nor appreciate the energy stored in bio-systems, and often mutilate them horribly. Wasteful excesses like the planned-obsolescence of Wal-Mart products and the obscene disregard for nutritional value and environmental concerns of fast food places like McDonald's can no longer be written off as being necessary for creating value. By considering our world in terms of energy, appraisal of products becomes more than just a matter of what they cost to us in terms of money. Suppose cars were designed with energy use in mind, as a rule, or new appliances were designed around efficiency. To do these things and be consistent about it, we must have a consistent framework for understanding, judging, and reacting to our need and use of energy. Now we can include other, wider-ranging concerns, many which can also be included seamlessly with energy - like life. Rather than compete with and/or out-and-out destroy nature, perhaps we can learn to mold it (nicely!!!) to our mutual purposes.

Historical Materialism, Energy, and Kondratieff Long Waves

In keeping with a materialist conception of history and economics, it follows that I would accept and defend LTV more than the subjective-value-based MU, and include real, quantifiable energy as another source of value (ETV).

A nice bonus to this framework is a greater understanding of the changes wrought by the industrial revolution(s). Machines become an active participant in the use of energy. Sure, humans have been utilizing power external to themselves for a very long time (camp fires), but never in such cleverly directed and enormous amounts.
No surprise that the inclusion of machine power rocketed a bunch of motley monkeys into a world of material abundance. In the process of using machines as an aid to production, humans use them as a source of profit, often at the expense of those humans of lesser means. The rate of expansion of industry and the world market allowed more and more wealth (energy) total to be developed. But the shares of this energy were increasingly gobbled up by those in a better position to do so, such that of the total energy input, those who participated very intimately with the creation process (the workers), received less and less for their efforts.
Two thoughts to mention here. If the inclusion of machine power increases the total energy output, why did workers end up working longer hours? Secondly, there was a dramatic change in the ownership patterns of society following a revolution in machine technology. An economist by the name of Kondratieff noticed certain patterns of behaviour when it came to the inclusion of new technology and the stagnation and obsolescence of old technology. He also included other events like wars to make a compelling chart showing something called "Kondratieff Long Waves".

A profound warning from several Marxian scholars whom I read is the ability of unscrupulous power-mongers to monopolize or otherwise restrict information, skill training, technology, etc. Very often this is to the great detriment of those who lack these things. Well, if K-Waves are to be believed, there will soon be another shift in technology and energy utilization, and a new opportunity for more equitable energy distribution. It could be that we are being set up for the most horrible of repressive regimes to develop in the wake of awesome technology, or perhaps a new foundation upon which we can finally curtail idiotic and greed-induced destruction.

Biotechnology serves as a great example of this. New and exotic treatments and cures can be developed thanks to more powerful analytical tools and other advances. At the same time, though, a great chance for abuse begins with the creation of a patent system that caters to biological information (which is, as previously established, synonymous with energy) being restricted for profit-based use. I have already shown that value is not the same thing as price, and profit does not necessarily mean a net gain. Such restrictions on use accentuate already existing power distortions, favouring those who have plenty of it already. When crops with self-terminating seeds are the dominant mode of agriculture, society will necessarily be VERY dependent on a VERY small group of people for their very subsistence needs.

Software also has this potential problem. As mentioned before, open source is a much more viable approach to maximising utility because profit does not direct activity. Patenting software for profit reduces the potential for maximising utility. If A.I. is to come about, we must acknowledge that a great potential for abuse lies in the use of it in military technology. I could talk all day about nanotechnology. In a world ever more driven by information technology, funneling more and more control of essential tools into the hands of profit-driven institutions will hinder a free and open information society.

For these reasons, activists need to be aware of technological phenomena so preparations can be made. Some technology can be adapted to become more conducive to equitable and responsible energy distribution, whereas others that only maximise profits (and not value) will need to be replaced or abandoned. We can develop technology around workplace democracy and other inclusive measures to ensure that widely disparate knowledge-based strata do not threaten society. We can see to it that applications are beneficial and maximise energy return while minimizing harm. We can see to it that the pie grows at the same time the shares become more indicative of effort and net gain.

This was a really long post to compose. If any of it makes sense, or, better yet, if it doesn't, please let me know. I feel that I could have elaborated a great deal more, but the general outline needed to come out before I forgot. Any additions or corrections would be most welcome and encouraged. I will likely draw on these ideas as a framework in sorting or categorizing other ideas and posts (see my business plan, which I wrote with many of these ideas in mind).

Secular Society

2007-06-05T20:19:00.000-05:00

A secular society prevents artificial divisions, rigid codes, and dogma hierarchies from harming individuals.

I. Artificial Divisions

Maintaining a cohesive and secure society requires that as few irrational differences exist between its members as possible. By claiming allegiance to a particular faith or creed - often opposed to other faiths and creeds - individuals identify themselves using artificial criteria. Groupings of individuals will be along faith-based associations, reducing interaction and communication between individuals of different and often exclusive faiths. Immaterial concerns pigeon-hole people, decreasing their worth as humans in the eyes of the bigot. The potential for unfair and demeaning interactions is thus increased. By removing artificial labels and inconsequential criteria, we are more able to acquaint ourselves with one other as we are, not as we unnecessarily judge each other to be. We finally can regard each other as being human.

II. Rigid Codes

A society must be flexible and adaptable to match changes in the internal and external environment. Individuals that are open and supple respond faster and more effectively to changing conditions. By defining the role of individuals in a society based on supernatural considerations and divinely-inspired texts, a people will be limited in their ability to alter their behavior should the need arise. It is not only that certain behaviors are explicitly forbidden, but that solutions revolve around "divine" (ultimately human) wisdom, which may not suffice. As conditions change as a result of development or refinement, ideas that were once suitable and adequate will become unwieldy and cumbersome. By focusing on broadly-defined goals and limits to behavior, a society can successfully steer its members away from harm without causing stagnation.

III. Dogma Hierarchies

Patterning individuals within a society along merit- and experience-based concerns serves the needs of that society. By adhering to faith-based hierarchies, a society is developing positions of authority and power in light of immaterial considerations. The authority and power is also often attached to faith or the supernatural, presenting an unassailable and unchallengeable command. Competence and skill are trumped by divine right. Society grows and contorts in an unhealthy manner to accommodate and support this artificial hierarchy. By focusing on material, legitimate concerns - like experience and knowledge - a society can encourage organization along more productive and effective patterns.

A secular society benefits from an honest appraisal of the natural world and the freedom and responsibility granted to each individual.

IV. Honesty

Understanding the world requires that we take in and interpret information. By beginning with internal assumptions as to the nature of our world, we are hindering our efforts to understand it as it is, not as we believe it to be (it takes no effort to do that!). We cloud our minds with tales of supernatural origins and feats, distort facts with myth and legend, and obscure reality with blind faith. We cannot gather a meaningful assessment from this. Instead of reacting to legitimate concerns, our energies will be focused on catering to figments of our imagination. By withholding conclusions until we have accumulated enough information, we are saving ourselves the trouble of redefining our understanding - if we even were so inclined - in order to accept and incorporate these new findings. Quite the contrary with internal assumptions. Time and again, we will find that the more accurate and true our interpretation is, the more use we can get out of it.

V. Freedom

Acknowledging ourselves as the source of our actions grants us as wide a range of freedom as possible. By presupposing that our actions and fates are determined by some force external and unknown to us, we are relinquishing control of ourselves to an abstraction. We deny our freedom to choose as some other force is now wielding this power. Every act of ours becomes the desire of some other entity - not our own. By determining our own course through life, well aware that they are choices we make without supernatural biases, we are free to find our own happiness and fulfill our own desires.

VI. Responsibility

If we accept freedom with secularism, we must accept responsibility, as any less of one undermines the other. When we achieve great success, we would hope to receive credit and due recognition for our efforts. By assigning our acts to the will of an externalized internal abstraction, we deny full responsibility for our successes and triumphs, as well as our failures and wrongdoings. In this setting, we can never be fully satisfied nor can we learn from our mistakes. Justice is difficult when the accused attribute their acts to external factors. By accepting responsibility for our actions, we are affirming our freedom.

Is the Soul Immortal?

2007-05-24T18:02:00.000-05:00

Depending on specific definitions, the soul is not immortal, and could only by nuance be considered so.

If the soul is defined as the sum of our experiences, memories, emotions, consciousness, reason, and other mental capacities of a unique individual, then it is most certainly mortal. Such seemingly intangible processes have a tangible representation in the brain and are sustained continuously only by the body and its systems and nothing else. The electrical impulses that course through our bodies are very much dependent on the matter that composes us. If the cycles of the body cease or are severely disrupted, degradation of the substance of our brains can occur, resulting in the loss or degradation of the “soul”. Upon death, the sustained pattern of the brain stops, as does the functioning of consciousness.

If the specific configuration of neurons and their proper firing order somehow serve as data storage, then the information contained within the soul would need some new structure to represent and act as a vessel for it if it were to continue in its specific condition. No such container has ever been found, and no such transfer of the soul out of a human to some other medium has ever occurred. The soul having supernatural qualities is outside the bounds of evidence and is therefore irrelevant. We cannot presume to know what happens to the soul after we die because it can no longer be detected after death.

However, if our experiences, memories, emotions, and other mental capacities, as the natural intangibles, are what comprise the soul, then by subtle massaging it can be thought of as immortal. Emotions are common to all humans, and though individual humans may die, emotions continue to be felt, regardless of the circumstances. Memories and experiences can be shared with others via verbal and other forms of communication, in effect transmitting one part of a soul from one person to another. Such an act of copying would in some non one-to-one ratio be a continuation of the soul. So long as there are humans and other emotion- and language-capable lifeforms on earth, the soul could, as it has been defined, and only in this loose sense, be considered immortal.

Book Review: Karl Marx, The Essential Writings

2007-05-21T10:04:00.000-05:00

This review will be partly of the book, partly of Marx, and partly of his ideas. I made a lot of marks in the book, which is good, and will stick a few of the better quotes in here.

Biography

The short introduction has a nice section on an interview conducted with Marx in 1865. It is a "self-portrait". I must set this down here first to give the reader a strong sense of how Marx thought.

When asked 'your idea of happiness', he replied: 'to fight'
'your idea of misery', he replied: 'submission'
'maxim': Nihil humani a me alienum puto - "Nothing human is alien to me."
'motto': De omnibus dubitandum - "Everything should be questioned."

Believe it or not, but Marx was a humanist and a freethinker:

The more of himself man attributes to God, the less he has left in himself.

In a discussion of prominent philosophers of his day, Marx compliments Pierre Bayle, a French atheist:

He heralded atheistic society, which was soon to come to existence, by proving that a society consisting only of atheists is possible, that an atheist can be a respectable person and that it is not by atheism but by superstition and idolatry that man debases himself.

In regards to the supernatural:

Since only what is material is perceptible, knowable, nothing is known of the existence of God.

At the time he was writing, the world around him was in the middle of profound social change. Nations across Europe were emerging from feudalism into mercantilism and republicanism, from cottage industry into capitalism, from agrarian society to industrial society. This was messy change. Imperialism, colonialism, etc., basically all the problems we have now were developed around this time. Marx did us the most marvelous of favours by observing, interpreting, and discussing these changes and what they meant in stunning detail.

Alienation

One of Marx' most compelling and moving ideas is the concept of alienation. He began from the personal, subjective, and individual experience in his critique of capitalism. There are several ideas that branch off from this main concept, and many ideas that support it, but a brief, general overview will have to suffice here. Being propertyless in a post-feudal world meant having nothing to contribute to society but your time and labour. Those who were in this unfortunate position were thus dehumanized and debased by others, namely the capitalists. A trend in capitalist production methodology was the augmenting of human labour with machine power. To maximize profits and productivity, the machines were designed around the least amount of input from a human as possible. A quote from Marshal McLuhan is necessary here:

Man makes tool, tool makes man.

A small, jerky movement was a lot quicker when done in rapid repetition than a series of distinct and complex movements. This meant that a worker would not have to move as much, would not have to know as much. Those who designed and implemented the machines, the capitalists, did not care about these things. Those who used them were fast becoming less and less human, and more of a fleshy cog in a machine. The awful and plain truth of this mode of production is that it destroys the human spirit by limiting and crushing it in the most horrible of ways.

To add insult to injury, not only were the workers reduced to the most base and stupid state, they were made, as a result of the dynamics of the market, to be in constant competition for work. Wages plummeted, wage hours soared. So did profit gleaned from labour. The very means by which the worker is devalued is also the very way she is set against her fellows, preventing them from organized action, from personal development, from enjoying work.

Before factories, there was cottage industry. A labourer would often apprentice for many years under a master or a guild, learning a skill that would be beneficial and integral to the community. This is not the most perfect of systems, but from it, we can see what the workers of the industrial revolution lost. They went from being close-knit in the community, and well-trained at their jobs, to being atomized and skill-less.

Alienation and Happiness

I would like to bring up the results of a study on human happiness. Happiness is defined by how we relate to each other:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010212/ai_n14370832

Capitalism is anathema to individual happiness in many ways. As that article suggests,

"Money was mentioned least as a reason for happiness. But
1) behaving in a way true to one's feelings,
2) being competent at activities,
3) having close bonds with other people, and
4) feeling self-respect were top of the list."

Capitalism:
1) Forces wage-earners to compromise on their feelings. Someone may despise being debased in a factory, but financial concerns trump feelings.
2) Induces wage-earners to "work hard enough not to get fired" to quote Office Space. More work does not mean more pay, so it drops to mediocrity.
3) Produces a competitive environment as people within companies vie for positions, they become isolated and detached from each other.
4) Prevents wage-earners from feeling satisfied with their labour. They are dependent on someone else's capital, have very little decision-making power, and are reduced to possessing the most worthless of skills (like pulling a lever).

Another point to bring up in regards to number 2 is the idea of social loafing. This is a very common criticism of "communism" as it existed in the USSR. The understanding is that since there is no profit and no competition, there is no motivation. I've dealt with this before, but think that in light of that damning list above, another damning list will be in order. Through a meta-analysis on social loafing, sources of apathy were identified, as well as specific methods of dealing with them:

Collaboration is a way to get everyone involved in the group by assigning each member special, meaningful tasks. It is a way for the group members to share the knowledge and the tasks to be fulfilled unfailingly.
Content identifies the importance of the individuals' specific tasks within the group. If group members see their role as that involved in completing a worthy task, then they are more likely to fulfill it.
Choice gives the group members the opportunity to choose the task they want to fulfill. Assigning roles in a group causes complaints and frustration. Allowing group members the freedom to choose their role makes social loafing less significant, and encourages the members to work together as a team. (from wikipedia)

Capitalism:
1. Undermines collaboration by fostering and encouraging competition.
2. Reduces the role of each worker into a simple mechanical movement, diminishing the importance of each worker.
3. Gives the worker two choices: sell yourself or starve.

This is all well and good, but what constitutes non-alienated labour?

Suppose we had produced things as human beings: in his production each of us would have twice affirmed himself and the others.

1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality and its particularity, and in the course of the activity I would have enjoyed an individual life; in viewing the object I would have experienced the individual joy of knowing my personality as an objective, sensuously perceptible and indubitable power.

2) In your satisfaction and your use of my product I would have had the direct and conscious satisfaction that my work satisfied a human need, that it objectified human nature, and that it created an object appropriate to the need of another human being.

3) I would have been the mediator between you and the species and you would experienced me as a redintegration of your own nature and a necessary part of your self; I would have been affirmed in your thought as well as your love.

4) In my individual life I would have directly created your life; in my individual activity I would have immediately confirmed and realized my true human and social nature.

Modern economics does not consider these things, and certainly modern criticisms of the works of Marx overlook them. I do hope the reader has made the connection between the happiness study and Marx' list above. Thought question: would someone who wrote these things, and for the reasons he did, advocate or in any way support what happened in the USSR?

I have often asked myself how I can adhere to the ideas of Marx and yet feel immune to charges of believing in the basis for the brutality of the USSR and PRC. I can easily claim that what happened was obviously not what he intended. Straight from the horse's mouth:

Does this mean that after the fall of the old society there will be a new class domination culminating in a new political power? No.
The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class, just as the condition for the liberation of the third estate, of the bourgeois order, was the abolition of all estates and all orders.

Apart from being a researcher and a writer, Marx was a journalist. He published numerous articles, some of which have eerie premonitions. His take on Russia, for example, is that it would not be able to succeed in a proletarian revolution because it is not developed far enough into capitalism.

It could be that the consciousness of the people of the USSR did not foster the necessary behaviour to bring about socialism. (Maybe our generation, with the social-networking, multi-source media, and global-perspective of the internet has what it takes). Whatever the reasons, even a superficial inspection would show that the ideas of Marx were hardly an influence at all.

Historical Materialism

A major idea that Marx rarely receives credit for articulating is historical materialism. To understand history or society or any complex system involving humans, we must examine the physical, concrete things with which they interact (including each other).

This should not be a novel methodology, and indeed, some segments of academia have been well-infused with it (anthropology, sociology - even if they don't know it came from Marx), but strangely, "big-picture" thinking is often superseded by low resolution models. Very complicated systems are reduced to simple ones, so that we can understand them better. And yes, this reductionist approach works very well for lots of applications, even economics; it can give us great slices of reality. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that the models are universal. For example, suppose we want to study a species of flowers in a meadow. If we examine only the flower and nothing else, we can build an impressive picture of the flower. We can see how it works and how it grows and how it does what it does. We can take this information to another meadow and can make some claims about the similar flowers there. Depending on how much information we gathered, our claims will be more or less accurate. But we may have missed very important information. Factors other than the just the internal workings of the flower may have a lot to do with the flower in a particular meadow. Weather patterns, soil pH and composition, local fauna and flora all have their distinct effects. So while we can glean a lot of information from the flower in one meadow, this does not make it applicable to similar flowers of other meadows because we failed to consider other variables.

I believe this is a huge problem in economics. Abstract models like the "free" market may be very good at expressing the movements of goods under particular social relations, given certain conditions and presuppositions, but they miss other, perhaps equally important factors or considerations. And thus using a slice of reality taken from a larger, dynamic system, economists support outrageous policies that they believe fosters and encourages the growth of "free" markets (see: Iraq).

Another example might be with Freud, who described legitimate phenomena (penis-envy, etc), but only as an ethnocentric interpretation. While the themes of his diagnoses are still legitimate, their particular expression is dependent on existing cultural attitudes.

This quote is from wikipedia, but I prefer the one in the book (too lazy to type out):

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

What a powerful idea! If we want to solve real problems, we'll have to look at the real situation. This is about the time I bring in my little reminder: capitalism cannot exist without the state, and the state cannot exist without capitalism, so if you want to get rid of the state, you'll have to get rid of capitalism (there is no baby, it's all bathwater). I won't elaborate here - you'll have to read Marx and Mandel for a more in-depth explanation.

Marx also has some interesting words for those who use social "darwinism" (and other such explanations) to excuse their status compared to others:

The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises... men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.

Slave-owners don't find anything wrong with treating humans as slaves, because that's how their society operates. Their material life depends on and is meshed with the institution of slavery - this does not justify it. We have since disproved the necessity of slavery. In a likewise fashion, I believe - haven't we already? - we will disprove the need for wage labour and hierarchy.

Competition

Competition is a natural human urge. We compete for resources, we compete for mates. The nature of competition does not define the expression of competition. In our society, capital is synonymous with success, which, to choosy females = great nest. In previous societies (and in ours still), other forms of competition take place, like sporting events or debates. Marx did not say that we must abandon competition, just that our particular expression of competition - "free competition"/laissez-faire - reduces humans to outgrowths of capital; we are not competing as humans:

This kind of individual liberty is thus at the same time the most complete suppression of all individual liberty and total subjugation of individuality to social conditions which take the form of material forces - and even of all-powerful objects that are independent of the individuals relating to them.

Honestly, how great is a win in a battle between a shotgun and a sling-shot? The initial conditions render any sense of "achievement" moot; if someone starts out with a bunch of money and manages to drive someone else even further into abject poverty, how is this a victory? And no, I do not believe that competition is the sole force driving innovation or refinement; stress is. I will likely discuss this in a forthcoming post.

Odds and Ends

Marx was a prolific writer - several millions of words in newspapers and magazine articles, as well as thick and imposing books. He researched on these topics for over 40 years. (His favourite pastime was 'book-worming'). It would not do one any good to conclude that Marx' ideas are entirely wrong or false, especially without examining them in some detail. Certainly, some of his ideas are incorrect, but a great many of them are truly gems.

Even during his time, Marx was treated as some sort of messiah. He and Engels made it a point to remove, restrict and downplay this hero-worship from the worker's movements they supported; they did not want their ideas to be blindly followed. Marx even suggested that if people did do so, he would have to refuse to call himself a Marxist. Much the same way I'm sure Jesus (if the Sermon on the Mount is to be believed) would be appalled at modern evangelical xianity, to the point where he would deny he was a xian.

Review

Some parts of this book could be considered tedious, dry, convoluted and boring - but that applies to any philosophical work and will not reduce the wit and linguistic style of his works. My head feels heavier on my neck after reading this stuff. I would encourage anyone willing to take an honest look at Marx' ideas to read this compilation. The editor adds in some wonderful commentary that primes the reader for the material. I have little doubt that you will find some of the memes very compelling.

As the reader may be aware, I am fond of Marx and his ideas. They strike me as being complete and thoughtful, addressing several angles and perspectives, yet ever seeking the nugget of truth, the underlying mechanisms that give rise to the structure of society. Marx as a person is hard to imagine apart from his works, so, based on them and his biography, I would probably find him an agreeable and interesting fellow. He was, after all, a left-leaning atheist blogger of his day. :-D

Diversity

2007-05-15T23:02:00.000-05:00

The lushness and vitality of the rainforests can be seen in the diversity of its species - birds with their colour schemes and mating songs, monkeys with their calls and social structures, plants and trees with their flowers and leaves, etc.

Diversity allows the rainforest as a whole to survive and adapt to internal and external changes. For example, suppose a horrible disease were to wipe out several species of plant and animal in the rainforest. Although a tremendous loss, the great variety of the rainforest will have allowed some species to survive the disease. These would repopulate the rainforest and, over time, re-introduce diversity.

Compare this to the plant and animal life found in the suburbs. Squirrels, eh? Pigeons, never seen those before. Hey look! Similar-sized fields of the same species of green grass! True, the range of life in the 'burbs does depends on a number of factors, but I think it's safe to say that the diversity of life in the area was greater before development, reason being that only certain species are equipped to adapt to the changes wrought by humans.

Compare this also to the architecture found in the suburbs. Whole neighborhoods are sometimes based on the same basic exterior and interior designs. They use the same bricks, the same stones, the same hardware, the same paint, etc. Seen one, seen 'em all.

This lack of species and architectural diversity is often paralleled by the lack of market diversity in suburbs. Chain stores inhabit the thin strip of land right off the highway. They have tall, brightly-lit signs, ample parking in a black tar top treeless parking lot, and similar store layouts no matter where you go.

One of the joys of living in the center of Austin is the varied and unique, locally-owned businesses. Small business owners have something to prove; they're the little guy. But they also offer outstanding quality service (in general, compared to large chains), as well as a style and air all their own. By being so close to their customers, some of whom they call neighbor, they can respond to new trends and community concerns. In a time when flexibility and ingenuity are required more than ever, redundant examples of inefficient and bloated outlets suggests a remarkable inability to adapt.

Compare this to the range of job titles and positions at these chain stores. It's either the bored, punk kids who live in the suburbs or the trucked-in slave classes who work at them. They usually work in one section or department, helping snide customers that look down their noses at them find crap made in China they probably could do without. They follow the corporate guidelines (local behavior patterns may cut into profit margins) and sometimes are made to wear uniforms and company logos and such, to display their wonderful diversity of clothing and individuality. By being limited to one section, to one outfit, and one set code of instructions, the workers lose the opportunity to grow and improve their skills and themselves. But that's perfectly alright, because the fewer skills a worker has, the more expendable she is; and a crushed and diminished spirit is submissive and subservient.

And if we were to peek inside the brain of one of these workers, we would see that the lack of diversity in the workplace, in architecture and store layout, in clothing and interactive behaviors caused it to atrophy. The ubiquity and blandness of their surroundings failed to stimulate them adequately. Our brains need new and unique sights and sounds if we expect them to stay sharp. Like the stores where they work, like the economy these stores compose, and like the suburb that supports this economy, the minds of its inhabitants and workers begin to look awfully similar, especially in the way they stagnate. In a time when flexibility and ingenuity are required more than ever, why would anyone want to live in the suburbs?

Peanut Butter

2007-05-08T11:32:00.000-05:00

I regret to inform you, my very few readers, that after crunchy deliberation, I am no longer an adherent of evolution.

I have discovered a most amazing truth I just had to spread around...

Peanut butter disproves evolution

Before you roast me, understand that it took me a while to believe it, and I even conducted my own survey. I went to three different grocery stores and opened several jars of peanut butter. At the last two stores I didn't pay for them because I ran out of money at the first one - talk about a sticky situation!. For all of my trouble, I did not find any new life.

So, in one smooth swoop, I have become a creationist. I don't see any other way that life could have come into being; we know it certainly did not evolve.

This may come as a disappointment to some, but knowing that some ethereal being - that formerly was merely sandwiched between my ears - cared so much about me that he would bother to design and make me as I am, rather than have me emerge out of peanut butter, is unbelievably emotionally-satisfying.

Seriously, anyone who believes in evolution is downright nutty.

Is the Contemplation of the Essence of Beauty the Best or Only Way to Live?

2007-05-01T12:40:00.000-05:00

Contemplating the essence of beauty is the best way to live. The essence of beauty coincides with the meaning of extropy – defined as: the extent of a living or organizational system's functional order, vitality, energy, life, experience, and capacity and drive for improvement and growth; or the opposite of entropy – because our mate selection standards and survival mechanisms require it, and our brains are stimulated by such patterns.

Finding the qualities listed above in a mate would greatly increased the odds of species continuation. Therefore, having pattern-recognition systems that can judge beauty in this way was selected. Males store images of many of the females with whom they interact, which, in some internal database, become averaged and serve as a reference point for beauty. Average faces show a healthy mix of genes, indicating that the potential child will have a reduced chance of adverse effects due to inbreeding.

Putricine and cadaverine are smells our noses are specifically equipped to detect. These are chemicals released from rotting biomass, an excellent source of disease and illness. By recognizing these smells and associating them with death and decay (entropy) and the intense desire to no longer experience them, we know to avoid them. Likewise, smelling or viewing a flower allows us to determine its life and energy. Flowers and many other constructs of nature exhibit patterns that humans find pleasing, and have been described mathematically using certain ratios and constants. Nature uses these ratios because they confer some bonus to the organism. We can recognize and appreciate the beauty of the flower because we appreciate its extropy. It would also benefit us to notice particularly healthy and nutritious foods over those less worth our effort.

Whether we have such pattern-recognition systems for these advantages, or if we just utilize them to such ends does not obscure the fact that we use our brains to enjoy art and patterns in nature. Rats living in enriched (elaborate and detailed) and social environments show healthy and robust brains over rats that are isolated and have little stimulation. By giving our brains something to process, we are stimulating and invigorating them, furthering their extropy.

Can Art and/or Poetry Be Harmful?

2007-04-25T22:54:00.000-05:00

Art and poetry can most definitely have harmful effects on humans. From slanderous caricatures to mind-numbing propaganda, art and poetry can contain concepts and ideas that are maladaptive and disruptive.

Anti-Semitism was rampant well before Hitler and the Nazis came to power in Germany. These sentiments were created and spread using caricatures and fallacious histories. Jews were blamed for all manner of ills, and were described as being evil, scheming, conniving, disreputable, etc. Racism in the US was spread in a similar manner. African slaves were commonly depicted as inferior than white landowners, and Native Americans as ignoble savages. These perceptions persisted in no small part because of their prominent depiction in cultural outlets.

Art that compels people to violence, such as propaganda, is also detrimental. Compelling videos of brave soldiers battling for the safety and well being of the home country, stark war posters suggesting a grim but unavoidable task, and portraits of the great leader that brings victory can be deployed together to change the outlook of an entire nation, stirring millions of people to violence. It glorifies death and destruction (of the enemy); behaviour we would normally strongly discourage in our nation now becomes sanctioned and organized. Television advertisements (including shows) operate in a way similar to propaganda. They motivate us, as a nation, to purchase goods in obscene quantities, well beyond any reasonable or responsible need.

In these examples, the underlying point to be made is the connection between forms of expression and what ideas they actually express. Racism makes for harmful art because it is a harmful and divisive idea. Blatant and nationalistic propaganda connotes obedience to authority and to the group (no matter how corrupt), appeals to drives of domination, and stresses sacrifice and the glory attained from it. Television trains humans to perform a disconnected act of exchange.

This is not to say that all art is harmful. A medium cannot be inherently adaptive or maladaptive, moral or immoral; as with fire, it is more how we use art as a tool than art itself that is harmful.

"Free" Market

2007-04-17T17:20:00.000-05:00

I planned to post a conversation I had with someone on StumbleUpon, but was told I did not have permission. This is not to comply with such a silly request, but rather to reduce the debate to something more streamlined.

Given: The free market produces the awful conditions in sweatshops, etc. (Agreed)

Claim: The free market maintains and is analogous to democracy.

Verdict: False.

***

Given: Mutual consent requires an even standing. (Agreed)

Claim: A free market is a market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers (From Wikipedia)

Verdict: An even standing is rarely achieved, which undermines mutual consent, therefore the concept is more ideal than reality.

***

Claim: The war in Iraq is worthwhile because it represents the aims of the market.

Verdict: Fascism.

Note: These claims are not caricatures. I'm not allowed to show them, though.

Is A Creator God Responsible for Evil?

2007-04-16T11:37:00.000-05:00

A creator god is not responsible for evil, a human concept, because evil is not inherent to the universe.

Humans define evil rather arbitrarily. Most if not all cultures have the concept of evil, but what specific actions constitute evil is entirely relative. That we should experience or understand evil is no surprise, as avoiding or regulating this behavior is very important to our survival. It is also no surprise that we react to the world as if it has human properties, as the bulk of our activities involve conversing and interacting with others. These two tendencies combine to fool us into believing that the universe conducts itself with some preconceived notion of morality. A flood that claims the lives of innocent children seems to the bereft parents the cruel act of a ruthless god; the same storm that caused the flooding might also have provided much-needed water for farmers to grow crops, which to them would make the occurrence a non-evil act.

Actions perpetrated by humans are only evil to the extent someone labels them evil. As an abstract concept, evil often has the connotation of free will, suggesting the agent of evil is aware of the morality of an act. In many scenarios this is certainly the case, but in situations where the perpetrator has no understanding of morality, or does not view an act as being evil, either the victim or some third party must judge the act evil.

The universe cannot have morality inherent to it because it would need a basis for its morality (and a way for us to know it!) and a way of determining and executing courses of action. Recent theoretical models suggest that the universe may have existed in some measurable capacity before the event we call the big bang. If this were the case, it would be presumptuous to suppose that the universe contains some innate morality that was formulated well before its present configuration. Moreover, the universe as a giant computer could not know anything beyond that which it was immediately computing, rendering questions of prepared or on-the-fly morality moot. Finally, applying some standard of ethics to the universe would require a non-subjective approach; otherwise its relative nature would make any particular ethical code just as acceptable as any other. Instead, humans use their own internal sense of morality as well as some higher reasoning to formulate a moral code by which agreeing members of a society may function. Implying that the universe behaves according to such a code requires it to have a neutral and objective basis that - assuming one even existed - we have yet to discover.

Can Virtue Be Taught?

2007-04-02T20:20:00.001-05:00

Virtue is both inherent to humans and a matter of learning. Where built-in virtue ends, social conditioning begins.

Social primates require the benefits of a group to survive. Certain rules of conduct that aid in the continuation of the group become preferred. The chief advantage of social groups is mutual aid and reciprocity. By combining their efforts and cooperating, the group members achieve far more than they would alone. Behavior that facilitates this is to some extent built-in. Facial expressions convey emotional states, allowing other members of the group the opportunity to empathize. Being able to tell if someone is in pain or scared helps bind the group together; a person could rush to the aid of a sick friend or dispel the source of fear. Seeing these traits in others and recognizing them as noble or virtuous acts may also be part of our biology, an inherent morality.

Virtue can also be taught. Empathy and human emotions serve as the biological standard, but they have limits. Tribalism involves suspending empathy. Exclusively employing empathy to their own group but denying other groups the same luxury may be a biological boundary. Empathy need not have evolved to be used on the many multitudes of humans, just one small group.

Undermining empathy and emotions by teaching is also possible. Molding a mind to be even less receptive to ostracized groups, as in nationalism or racism, means the person does not factor in the feelings of others in their actions. Fortunately, a group could raise its children to accept all humans as sources of emotion. A child could learn to associate with others by using empathy. Explaining to children that the way they feel is the way other people feel, no reservations, no exceptions, makes it possible for a human to empathize with any other human - be they friend or foe, hated or loathed - simply by reading their emotions and imagining themselves in their place. The exact degree to which virtue is inherent or learned is unknown, yet the ability of humans to train their young beyond the scope of their instincts remains impressive.

Data

2007-03-24T13:23:00.000-05:00

Data is my favourite character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. He's the science officer, an android - super strong and super smart - and the objective observer of humanity. He's like Spock on steroids. Data is the ideal human: analytical, rational, open-minded, and about as unbiased as anyone can get.

He knows how to solve problems, learns from them, applies this information to novel situations - just like we would hope to do. From putting two and two together to conducting breakthrough experiments in physics, robotics, biology, or even cat food design, Data is a renaissance man of science.

Emotions don't get in the way of his calculations. They don't make him stupid or unreasonable or make him lose focus. Without these cumbersome feelings, he can jump straight to the heart of the matter and resolve problems with ease.

More than all these impressive feats, it is his approach to life that is his most compelling quality. Data's silly quest to become human (why? he's way better than we are already!), of "learning, changing, growing, and trying to become than what I am", means we, as real humans, have no excuse to simply allow ourselves to stagnate.

Wedding Pictures

2007-03-23T18:11:00.001-05:00

A friend of mine is a really good photographer and a contributor to the UT newspaper, The Daily Texan.

Commerican1917 (6:09:07 PM): http://photoleftovers.blogspot.com/2007/03/congrats.html
Commerican1917 (6:09:11 PM): joe's pics
My Mother (6:09:16 PM): i saw that 2 days ago

She's quick.

Is It Better to Receive or Dispense Injustice?

2007-03-22T09:23:00.000-05:00

It is better to receive injustice than it is to perpetrate injustice. This can be explained using abstract models, as well as cultural and historical references.

Game theory simulations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma using computer programs over many iterations suggest that the tendency to forgive and refrain from retaliating or initiating harm may be advantageous. Of all the particular strategies, the most adaptive and successful algorithm was known as “Tit for Tat”. The program would abstain from the betrayal option until it had become a victim. It would retaliate in the next iteration, and, if the opponent did not betray that turn, would forgive. This approach was very successful against the other ones, including the completely ruthless and completely altruistic algorithms.

Many cultures endorse a policy of pacifism. Christ supposedly stated in the Sermon on the Mount, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also;” and: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Metta and Ahimsa, non-violence, are core tenets of Buddhism and Jainism, respectively. As social creatures, it may be an evolutionary trait to forgive or abstain from (retaliatory) violence because doing so contributes to the cohesion and thus survival of the group.

Past instances of this situation can be found throughout history. Recent and egregious cases might be the concentration and death camps of Nazi Germany or the gulags of the U.S.S.R. Although Stalin and Hitler approved of the killing, they personally did not commit each act of violence. Somewhere between the desires of these dictators and their realization, several people were offered this simple choice: perform some violent act on someone else, or have violence visited upon you. Every higher-ranking person threatens the lower ranks, and, perhaps in fear of their lives, goons and lackeys all down the chain of command obey orders to harm other people. Thus miserable acts are committed. Were each underling to make the choice to refrain from violence, the cycle would stop entirely, as every higher rank (save the very top, i.e., Hitler, Stalin) would no longer threaten the lower ranks. Unfortunately, this ideal is not always practical or achievable. Self-preservation and a groupthink mentality undermine otherwise forgiving and pacific behavior. Relying on situational ethics to determine a suitable course of action would therefore be preferred.

What Is Knowledge?

2007-03-08T22:15:00.000-06:00

Knowledge is analogous to language. Both undergo translations, experience loss of data, and rely on the relation between particles to impart meaning.

A lavish concert in an opulent theater contains plenty of information. The vaulted and molded ceilings, the gilded walls, plush seats, soft carpets, the gently stirring crowd, and of course, the music, all comprise the entire experience. There are subjective elements to it as well, like the elation at the soaring notes, the allure of light perfume, or the annoyance at the coughing person a few seats down. This complete concert can be captured or stored in some other medium, like digital film or music. Doing so is a matter of converting the information present in the setting (the language of it) into another language (the 1s and 0s of electronic media). A camera can record the lights emanating from the stage that silhouette the conductor. A digital recorder can piece together the many vibrations of the strings and horns, making them bits in circuitry.

Much of the information present in the setting would be lost when it is converted from one language into another. Digital media cannot represent the elation or the annoyance. It can’t feel the plush seats and the soft carpet. No camera can view all angles at once, or represent depth. These sensations are necessarily lost, as this new data format does not recognize them. The whole theater is not reproduced in its entirety.

The human mind, too, could be considered a recording device, with its own language or data format. Knowledge can be represented in the brain by connections between neurons. The connections between these neurons are important as they relate to each other. Simultaneous understanding of several words is a prerequisite for understanding a new word found in the dictionary. A word is only meaningful if it has a context and can be linked in some way to other words. A word without a definition is meaningless. Likewise, a bit of knowledge can only be meaningful if it can relate to other bits of knowledge. A pre-existing network of associated neurons is necessary for the acquisition of new information in the brain, just as a previously constructed set of linguistic building blocks is necessary to comprehend a new word.

Made In China

2007-03-04T17:39:00.000-06:00

Humans must produce. Our labor must be applied to something that can be used by someone else. It is not just that we are dependent on the labor of others (we are), but also that we would be horribly dissatisfied with ourselves if we did not. Unfortunately, some of the things we make for each other are a bit more permanent than we are. Items and buildings can be passed down, generation to generation. If everyone has everything they could ever need, there is no need for anyone to make anything. When this happens, the economy stagnates. People become willing to sell their labor for ridiculously low wages, a race to the bottom which only the employers win.

China is our best trading partner for this very reason. China is an old country, a highly populated country, a highly refined country. Sure, many areas are without indoor plumbing and electricity, and there is a massive gap between wealth and poverty, but with all those people, all that untapped potential, China can mobilize itself very quickly. It has reserves of energy ready to be utilized. Rather than offer their labor to the benefit of their countrymen, many Chinese citizens work in dank factories for meager wages to make cheap plastic goods for unappreciative and wasteful Americans.

A few questions arise then. Let's assume that the workmanship of a Chinese laborer is just as good as that of an American laborer; that the manufacturing process is essentially the same. Why is the labor of a Chinese worker worth less than that of an American worker? Why would Americans need to go all the way to China to get the goods that could just as easily and effectively be made here? Doesn't this take more energy, total, to make the goods in a far away place and then have them shipped to their ultimate destination? Who stands to gain from this arrangement?

America has safety standards, minimum wage laws, schools, roads, hospitals, all the great civil services and legal systems that protect us from undue harm and exploitation. America is still a fresh country, lacking the thousands of years of development China has had. We had more black slaves than white people (as if there is a difference) in the southern US for over a hundred years, stealing their labor. Companies that sell goods want to buy them for the cheapest price. Because of the disparity in wages, the goods made in China are so cheap that even after the transportations costs have been applied, the company still makes a handsome profit. (I could quickly go on a tangent and explain how the relative monetary values of goods in relation to the amount of non-renewable fossil fuel that went into making them is inaccurate because the price does not reflect the limited nature of the supply and negative consequences of their utilization. [Second aside: Did you know that China jump-started its economy with the gratuitous and uncaring wholesale mining and burning of its enormous coal reserves? The goods we buy from factories powered by coal help to "fuel" this process.]) In short, the people who benefit most from this arrangement are the ones who get the profit, and it should come as no surprise that they are responsible for the hypocritical trade agreement we have with China.

We protest the abuse of humans that we know happens in China. We lament how little freedom they have, how oppressed and mistreated they are. We would hope that everyone can have it as good as we do (do we, really?). We do not fully realize that our purchases of the goods they make goes to maintain this system of oppression which we loathe. We enjoy the cheap goods, but can't stand to have such working conditions within our sight. So we get someone else to do it.

I like to think of it as outsourced slavery.

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

2007-02-23T11:04:00.000-06:00

Pondering why there is something rather than nothing begins when we use language to make assumptions. This line of reasoning assumes there is such a concept as “nothing” and that this can apply to reality external to the mind. “Why” denotes a purpose, and purpose is often a result of conscious thought. “Why” is a human question that has limited application beyond earthly affairs.

Everything in the universe can be represented as information. These bits of information react with each other, forming complex patterns of matter and energy. Taken as a whole, the universe can be thought of as a giant computer (beware the analogy). The brain as a computer is vastly inferior to the processing capacity of the entire universe, which means that while the universe can be known by us, not all of it can be known at once. Likewise, this universal computer cannot know all of itself. What it processes we are discovering now, even as we are elements of it. To know what it processes is to know how it processes is to know why it processes.

We are fond of manipulating and controlling our surroundings and assume that if we run our lives in such a way, then perhaps there is a great conductor who in turn operates everything. We look to higher and more complex entities as being possible explanations or sources of action for what occurs around us. Very rarely do we consider that there is no great conductor, or even supposing there were, that it would not know anything beyond what it was immediately doing (as in the giant computer analogy). To seek answers in more complex forms may be overlooking the simpler forms as the source of complexity.

String theory suggests the four dimensions of the universe we experience are complimented by a sixth dimensional universe (amongst perhaps more dimensions – depending on who you ask, anywhere from 11 to 26). What we know of this (our) universe tells us very little about how these higher dimensions operate. Our concepts of beginning and end, cause and effect, existence and non-existence may not apply in these dimensions. How the information in these alternate dimensions is processed may explain how (and thus why) this four-dimensional universe operates. If the universe (all dimensions of it) operates in a perpetual cycle, or is infinite and eternal, then the something/nothing question may be invalid the way it was phrased. Existence cannot be compared to non-existence because the latter may only ‘exist’ as a concept in the minds of humans.

An-Archons

2007-02-17T14:56:00.000-06:00

Mad as a Fish and I have been conversing in the comments section of "Socialism Defined". Fish has offered a few questions that the very few readers that visit this blog may like to help answer. He starts with a little story: [Note: Most of the formating is my doing.]

An 'anarchist' friend and me were having a drink (about a year ago, when I was still working the 9-5) and we moved on to the inevitable 'why do we bother with work?' convo.

"It's all in the mind you know." He said, as if I hadn't heard it before. "The State. You don't have to go to work tomorrow - we could all just up sticks and stop - and that would be the end of that. People don't realise their own power."
To which I responded, "Yes, but I am, unfortunately, living under a capitalist system of labour organisation - which means that in order to achieve my goals I have to engage with it - Would you suggest that I simply stop the pursuit of what I desire?"
"Ah!" He said, as if pulling off some particular coup. "But then most of what you desire is measured by the private property you can purchase with your earnings! Property is theft, man."
So I reach for his glass, "You won't mind if I take your pint then."
"Get off - that's mine!"

He continues:

Property is theft - moron. It's not that I condone private property as an institution - it's just that it is UTTERLY pervasive as an idea, and has been since it was begun by enclosure acts in the 1600's. Removing such a deeply entrenched idea takes time - this is why I think Anarchism - at least in practice (if not theory) - is a little juvenile.

And then asks:

Would like to hear your thoughts on Anarchism - as it's actually quite a new idea to me. I know 'without state' does not nessecarily mean 'without order' - it's just that,

given the six billion people we have on this merry little dirtball, can there be any other means of realistic mass cooperation than the state?
Would you advocate the 'small social units' approach instead?
And wouldn't that in turn lead to cultural and technological stagnation?
Is that a bad thing?

My responses:

1) Yes. Of course, this has to start from some common definitions. "State" can have a good or bad connotation. I like to separate the "good" state from the "bad" state by denoting the former as the "public trust" (schools, transportation, hospitals, fire and accountable police DP, etc) and the bad state as "The State" or "Big Brother" (corporate welfare, military- and prison- industrial complexes, goon police). The public trust serves any and all - all benefit from it, and all must pay for it. We each have a stake in the education of our children; the health and well-being of our neighbours, family, and coworkers; the movement of goods and raw materials, etc. Whereas with "The State", very few benefit from corporate welfare and the creation of mechanisms of oppression like prisons and detention centers. I cannot accept that we must allow "The State" to exist alongside the public trust. They both feed from the same teat.

2) Yes, I would advocate such an approach. Herbert Simon talks a bit about this and other economic topics. A good article can be found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Simon Also, if we look at biology, we see that in many cases this is how organisms do it. Our cells organise themselves into productive units that perform some specific task. They don't require the brain to perform every little operation. Humans in large groups are less efficient than humans in smaller groups. There is a part of the brain that largely dictates how many people we can have in our "I remember/know you!" storage. Tribal and hunter-gatherer cultures are known to split when they grow beyond that number. Military units are also organised into 150 or less men. I almost talked about this kind of stuff in a previous post: http://mentat-mookie.blogspot.com/2006/10/centralized-versus-decentralized.html

3) Not necessarily. Computers, books, the internet, etc will break down borders and boundaries. The fact that we can come together on blogs and discuss these things, being half a world away from each other, suggests we have a wonderful opportunity to stitch the world together.

4) Cultural and technological stagnation are not to be desired. Culture is as much a means of expression as it is a way to adapt to changing conditions. Technology will become increasingly necessary as our society grows and becomes more complex. I couldn't imagine our modern economy operating without digital computers. The extra paper waste and time less well spent crunching numbers and charts out by hand would make it nearly impossible.

Does Ignorance Lead to Immoral Acts?

2007-02-13T11:26:00.000-06:00

(This question is a paraphrasing of the one posited in Plato's Protagoras dialogue.)

Ignorance of pleasure and pain (particularly that of others) is often the root cause of wrong or immoral deeds.

Pleasure and pain can be combined to mean consequences, as those consequences which yield either of these are those that concern us. Humans base most of their actions on how well that action avoids pain and finds pleasure. Very often it is not the ignorance of the well being of the person, but of the need to apply it to others. That is, we are acutely aware of how we enjoy pleasure and abhor pain; when it comes to how we treat others, however, we very often do not employ empathy to adequately judge the morality of our actions.

Simulations like the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Stag Hunt suggest that focusing only on our own benefit may be less effective than cooperating with others. Humans are social animals, and require empathy to work together. By using empathy and applying the lessons of game theory, evolution has built tools into our brains that help us see actions that can be done for both individual benefit and group benefit. These two outcomes need not be mutually exclusive. Powerful tools like these are most likely the source of such ideas as “karma” and “reward in the afterlife”. Cooperating in the wild and then in civilization has allowed humans to advance. Ignoring this behavioral utility very often reduces pleasurable outcomes and may be detrimental to society.

Concrete examples of harmful ignorance include a lack of understanding of cumulative effects. If one person dumps their trash into the river, it probably won’t do too much harm. If a whole city dumps its trash in the river, it probably will do some harm. Drops in a bucket do add up. Each person feels that the consequences of their actions don’t amount to any great harm. Each can easily ignore the miniscule effect they have individually. The responsibility of the sum total of the effects is spread thinly amongst the people. Another example is excluding the ripple effects of an action. When a factory in the US moves oversees, the workers are often given the pink slip and left to fend for themselves. The community as a whole feels the loss, but not those who have a stake in the moving of the factory. In this case, only one side of the equation was considered, intentionally or not. This ignorance of the harmful effects our actions have on others, willful or not, is frequently the cause of immoral deeds.

Premises

2007-02-07T17:13:00.001-06:00

Individualism champions the freedom of personal choice and the personal responsibility that entails. One must make decisions and be responsible for the consequences, good or bad.

Collectivism is the lack of personal choice. The group decides what should be done, thus spreading responsibility around. No single person can be blamed, but neither can any one person be recognized.

Managerialism is based on the understanding that humans are inherently lazy and irresponsible. Therefore, they need someone else to tell them what to do and to be responsible for them.

Workplace democracy is the recognition that humans prefer to make their own choices, and are more satisfied and work harder when given the opportunity to be responsible.

Disobeying Unjust Laws*

2007-02-02T11:24:00.000-06:00

Question: Which sorts of laws, if any, may one justly disobey? If one does disobey a law, must one do so openly?

A law may be justly disobeyed, even publicly, under certain warranting circumstances.

Only those laws that prevent harm to society should be invoked to violate the rights of the individual. It may also be considered that self-inflicted harm, to the extent that it would be detrimental to society if an individual hurt himself or herself, is a valid reason to suspend rights. Such curbing of rights serves to increase our happiness and liberty by guiding society away from destructive ends. On the other hand, a law that violates another’s rights which does not have such permission and is not for this stated purpose can be broken justly, and, if it pertains to the expression or manifestation of freedom, it may be as much a matter of justice as it is preservation of liberty to do so in public display. However, it is entirely possible to make a point by intentionally and knowingly breaking the law privately, and merely admitting as much in public.

Deviant behaviour can be defined as that which goes against accepted social mores. It is as much the role of society as it is the individual in determining the limits of behaviour of the individual. Social mores are relevant only in the time period and common cultural attitudes of the society and therefore can be ignored (publicly or privately).

Our rights as humans grant us authority over a wider range of activity, including deviant behaviour, than our accepted social mores. Individual choices and actions take precedent over social mores and laws but not over the rights of others. When the expression of freedom curtails that of another individual, it is no longer a right. Some social mores and laws can certainly violate the rights of humans and in such cases disobeying them would be a demonstration of liberty more so than a show of defiance. It should not be treated as if the law is false and deserves to be broken, but that it simply did not exist and apply at all in the first place.

*I will probably be filling this blog with these Plato essays as I write them.

Antiwar Rally

2007-01-28T10:19:00.000-06:00

The day was beautiful, 60 degrees, nice wind, lots of sunshine and small puffy white clouds. We took the bus to Austin City Hall and met the large group of people right before the march was to begin. We caught the tail end of the bolstering speech there that got everyone fired up and ready to march.

We milled around the crowd, gathering the energy of it. We overheard one veteran from Iraq say "Been there two times already, don't wanna go back." The march was under way!

We marched into downtown, where the tall buildings obscured the sun.

Fellow citizens that were not participating showed their support. We had several people honk or wave peace signs at us:

The goons were pretty benign, only coming into play to corral and keep us safe from traffic. They didn't look like they were in strong opposition like the last protest.

At the start of the march there were about 500 people. During the course of it it seemed we picked up more people along the way. Look how far down the street the crowd stretches:

The approach to the capitol building. There were some "protest warriors" wielding signs claiming Bush is protecting us from "terrorists". I got the feeling that people aren't buying this lie any more. The incompetence of this administration speaks for itself.

The bottleneck caused by the protest-protesters actually served to intimidate them, as a sea of people swarmed around them and enveloped them.

More teeming masses:

There were easily 1000 people by the time we made it to the capitol building, either they were there waiting or joined us along the way. Imagine scenes like this in cities all over the country and imagine a burgeoning consciousness not seen since Vietnam.

The protesters pushed through, spilling onto the capitol grounds and gathering at its steps.

Some more speakers gave a few speeches. One speech by an activist was about how they would go to high schools and try to dismantle the ROTC programs there, and inform students about the lies the military tells them about enlisting. Their logic was "stop their suplly line." And the reward at the end, music:

All in all, I would say it was a much more successful protest than the last one, both in terms of how many people participated and how much of an impact we had on bystanders. I don't particularly care for the whole groupthink thing, but chanting "Peace...Now!" and having the words reverberate through the chasm of buildings was undeniably powerful. Bush and his cronies will face increasing resistance from the public for his disastrous policies, thanks in no small part to large public displays of disapproval like this.

Is the Unexamined Life Worth Living?

2007-01-25T14:50:00.000-06:00

This is an essay I wrote for a Plato class.

Socrates suggests that the unexamined life is not worth living. It is the opinion of this essayist that this statement is valid, for several reasons.

There are many practical reasons to know and understand the world around us. Our arboreal ancestors certainly benefited from having knowledge of food and trees and predators, and undoubtedly extended their lives using predictive power. In modern times, it is still valuable (perhaps more so) for a human to have knowledge of the world. Knowing how a car or television function may allow the individual to repair them, or at least diagnose the problem accurately. Being aware of trends in weather or human behaviour helps to make these seemingly chaotic systems more predictable and manageable.

Experience and memory allow refinement of many facets of the individual. Examining ourselves can be entertaining and fulfilling. Noticing patterns in the way we operate grants us the opportunity to better ourselves, a powerful tool for self-improvement. To merely exist and react is not enough; we must know and discover the universe and ourselves in order to thrive.

There is a deeper satisfaction that goes beyond practical reasons. The famous cosmologist Carl Sagan said, “We are a way for the universe to know itself.” Knowledge of the universe helps us describe ourselves like never before. We can understand where we have come from, and where we might go. New advances in neuroscience explain how our brains represent and interpret reality. The spine-tingling epiphany that the brain as an organ is used to study itself does not fade quickly. By Sagan’s quote, when we learn more about the universe, more of it is represented in us, a hologram of sorts, ballooning itself into our consciousness - an amazing accomplishment to be honoured by both.

Each generation inevitably reveals more and more of the workings of the universe, adding to the impressive body of knowledge gleaned from it by previous generations. Through a painstaking process of examination, experimentation, and double-checking, the world goes from being an unfathomable expanse to a more convenient package. This constantly updated, challenged and tested body of knowledge is an artifact of all of humanity, a gift shared amongst all. As a species-wide endeavour, seeking understanding also becomes a shared task in which we can engage, bringing us together in a common, endless quest.

For practical and personal reasons to common group binding activities, examining life certainly makes it more worth living.

Socialism Defined

2007-01-15T13:05:00.000-06:00

Socialism and communism are bad words. They instill a mind-numbing fear in people who hear them uttered without the necessary contempt. They stand for violence and oppression and death. They represent the exact opposite of freedom and democracy and all those wonderful nebulously-defined terms we love. They are also sorely misunderstood and often not clearly defined.

Let's look at another word that is often used without full understanding: evolution. To many religious people, xians especially, evolution is the opposite of god. It is evil, it is destructive, it is an unnatural and corrupting idea that makes humans no more than monkeys and apes and attempts to remove and deny the holy spirit that resides in each of us. Evolution has been (unconvincingly) linked with teenage pregnancy, violent crime, abortions, moral decay, and yes, even communism. To those who claim these things about evolution, the word itself is not clearly defined and understood THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE. Charles Darwin did not explicitly say: "Because humans are merely soulless animals, it is perfectly acceptable if they behaved in violent and destructive ways, without care and concern for others." What he was talking about was the way and mechanism by which organisms change and adapt over time.

Fortunately, long ago humans invented writing, which allows information to be stored for long periods of time and passed to many people with very little loss of content or meaning. Writing allows us to view the lives and accomplishments of pharaohs and kings of the ancient world, it allows us to peer into the minds of the early Greeks as they desperately tried to understand the world around them. Very little of what they meant to convey is lost because the writing doesn't change meaning from person to person as it must do with verbal communication. This property allows what we call "static definitions". The Rosetta Stone does not mean anything different now than it did when Napoleon's troops found it, nor when it was written in Greek, nor when it was originally carved in hieroglyphs. (Side note: I will admit our understanding of this artifact may change with new or better interpretations of the ancient languages, but this has no bearing on this discussion and does not nullify my point.)

Using this new understanding of "static definitions", we can interpret the words of Marx more along the lines of what he originally intended them to mean. Let's examine perhaps the most misunderstood concept of the last century:

"Socialism is based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and exchange... so that humanity, at last freed from economic exploitation, from oppression, from any form of coercion by a state machine, can devote itself to its fullest intellectual and cultural development. Much can perhaps be added to this definition, but anything less you can call whatever you wish, but it will not be socialism."

This definition is from a great debate from 1950 between someone who understands what socialism is and someone who supported the USSR.

When discussing socialism with others, I often get the "human nature" argument, delivered with a smug tone, arms crossed over chest to denote a sense of finality, as if I had been given something I could not refute. I don't quite understand it myself, but what I think they mean when they say "human nature" is that humans are not "altruistic." They say human beings are not ants, and so cannot live in such a society. I have three counter-arguments that I must set down here, because I'm tired of having to explain these things over and over again.

Firstly, as the altruism link suggests, there is no such thing as altruism as it is commonly defined. Humans are inherently selfish because we are the units of survival. My collection of cells must get food for itself, it must find shelter for itself, it must interact with other collection of cells to mate. Does that mean we can't work together, as independent and fully realised survival units, towards our mutual survival and aid and thrive together?

Secondly, ants are not "altruistic", they regard themselves (to the extent possible in ants), as their own individual survival units. It is the job of the queen to guide the colony with scents and to oppress the other ants by dictating what kind of ant they will become (worker, warrior, etc) as they are forming in the larva stage. If we compare this practice with the current operations of human society, we would see that this is actually very much like what we do. Before birth, someone's role in society is determined by the amount of money, skills, and training their parents and caretakers have available to them. Those who dominate the means of production also dominate the state apparatus, and determine the fates of those who do not by dictating what kind of schooling they receive, what kind of job opportunities are made available, and by controlling mass media to influence their perceptions and outlook on life.

Third and last, Marx and subsequent *socialist* thinkers (i.e., NOT Stalin, Mao, etc) did not use the terms selfless, sacrifice, or altruism, and certainly did not base their ideas on them. If you don't believe me, you yourself can access the largest collection of Marxist works on the internet and do a search for these terms. I am fairly confident you will not find blatant references to these terms, nor will you find any strong link between them and the ideas of Marx. If you happen to find them, and if they are stated explicitly and with this connotation, show them to me, and if I was too hasty or incorrect in my assessment, I will acquiesce and apologise.
Have fun!

Some people think that socialism is when control of the means of production is in the hands of the state. What this does is make society one big dominance hierarchy,

as opposed to an interconnected and overlapping web of control over the means of production and decision-making.

From the static definition of socialism, we see that this is very much against the main idea. If the means of production are owned and operated by the state (more exactly, the individuals who comprise the state: managers, etc), and not democratically by the workers who use them, then this is more like capitalism than socialism. The power of this managing class is legitimized by the power of the state, just as the power of the nobles of previous eras was legitimized by god. The latter is known as divine right, and the former is what we call "state capitalism".

Some people think that socialism means having a planned economy, one determined by the state and not that most magic of words: the market. This market myth will be destroyed here and now. Any and all decisions undertaken within an economy are necessarily formulated by humans. To put it simply: EVERY ECONOMY IS PLANNED. The forces of supply and demand are the actions of multitudes people making countless individual decisions writ large. There is no invisible hand, there is no awe-inspiring final-decision-making force, there is no equation inherent to the universe that dictates supply and demand. NONE. ("Free" market freaks, please get over this. It only makes you look like theists.) Now that we have dispelled this unplanned magical nonsense, we can view how an economy REALLY works.

In the Soviet Union, the economy was planned (rather poorly) by state managers, factory foremen, and other bureaucrats. How did this happen? Incentives were promised to these decision-makers if they could meet or beat quotas determined by some over-arching state entity. What ended up happening is that to meet these quotas, the managers ordered up to almost a third more of the raw materials they needed to ensure they had enough in reserve, and also intentionally under-estimated how productive their factories could be so they reap the bonus of exceeding the quota. I would like to point out an ironic twist. It is often claimed that socialism necessarily means abolishing individual self-interest and reducing incentives for productive economic activity, and that this is what caused the Soviet economy to stagnate. As I have just shown, there most certainly was a measure of self-interest on the part of the managers when they intentionally lied about the productive capabilities of their factories to receive the incentive bonus. The irony, of course, has to do with the main theme of this paragraph: it is not that there were no incentives, that there was no self-interest, it is that those making the decisions were far removed from those most affected by them; what to do with the means of production and how was not determined by the main users of this equipment, the workers, nor by the main benefactors of the use of this equipment, the consumers. Notice how very much like our economy this arrangement is. Meaning that both economies (as all economies) are planned. By and for whom and for what purpose should really be the questions we ask, and, by that static definition, are exactly what socialism means to address.

Now we turn to hypocrisy, both of those who call themselves socialists/communists and those who profess to believe in the compatibility of capitalism and democracy.

Personally, I do not believe that violent revolutions are the way to spread democracy and share control of the means of production amongst the people, for several reasons:

1) Violence does not work. Memes are ingrained and have built-in safety mechanisms that resist attempts to change them. Violence is clumsy at best, and more galvanising than eroding.

2) Someone has to perpetrate this violence. I do not think someone is refining themselves as an individual by hurting others.

3) Someone has to produce the tools of violence. Again, I think this is counter to personal development and the welfare of others. It is productive power stolen from society to help destroy society.

4) Dead people can't vote. If the point of socialism is to create a highly motivated and democratic society, it seems very counterproductive to kill people.

5) Sudden change in society is often more damaging than it is helpful, especially when violence is used. Humans need time to adjust to drastic changes in their environment.

I do not advocate violence as a means to bring about positive social change. I believe past attempts to bring about socialism on a national scale have failed because these movements used violence. Pointing to hideous deeds committed in the name of socialism can be matched, point-for-point, with hideous and vicious deeds committed in the name of freedom, democracy, security, profits, etc. I no more consider slavery in the United States to be any more a result of the desire for freedom and democracy than gulags and forced labour were of the desire for socialism.

Using violence to stop the spread of communism is just as bad as using it to help spread communism. The Vietnam War (and Cold War in general) made a few people that work for arms manufacturers really, really rich. Any despicable and vicious act perpetrated in the name of preserving freedom and democracy that undermines the true meaning of these terms does not deserve such associations. The only thing that flows from the barrel of a gun is pain, suffering, and death.

As to you free-market capitalists, I have some issues to raise. First, you erroneously assume that the market is an entity unto itself, making decisions out of thin air, with no respect or regard to the input of humans. Then you oxymoronically claim to champion individual liberty and the attendant responsibility that entails. Instead of promoting them, you undermine them. According to this magical free-market view, our conscious choices as individual consumers do not dictate what occurs in the market, because the market, as an entity unto itself, does this for us, removing us from the equation. We no longer need to concern ourselves with being responsible, because by assuming the market is an entity, and by arbitrarily declaring it "free" and outside our conscious control, you excuse any and all behaviour of it. This is in essence delegating responsibility to some inhuman "other", instead of owning up to the consequences of your actions (i.e., global warming, rampant consumerism, etc). Third, you see the state as an entity in competition with the free-market, and assume again that the former is all evil while the latter is all good. What we have left is a runaway non-entity competing with another runaway non-entity vying for the destiny of humanity. Sorry to break it to you, but capitalism, as it was defined by Marx, is incompatible with democracy. Take a close look at the current Bush administration and draw some lines between these officials and large corporations, and you'll see why.

Those who own the means of production will inevitably use their power to shape public policy. This should be plain as day and undeniable. Either directly such as with blatant campaign contributions or indirectly through insidious pre-made propaganda media spots, corporations and wealthy individuals dictate and determine policy. Our political system and economy both are planned, to the great benefit of the planners. Socialism, as we have defined it thus far, is planning done by society, for society. It is therefore in contradiction with capitalism, which is planning done mainly by those who own the means of production, and mainly for those who own the means of production, and very often at the expense and detriment of those who merely operate them.

Socialism most definitely works, even as it was described above, and is being practiced right now as you read this. It is not on a national scale, nor even a significant proportion of the global economy, but there are workplaces in America and around the world that operate according to the democratic control and decision-making principles defined above. If socialism is to come about, it ought to come about gradually and organically, evolving its way towards the ideal with mutual understanding and consent.

This was another long post that took several days to compose. If you feel I missed something, or got something wrong, feel free to inform or ask me about it. Some readers will be angry and argumentative, and I understand that. I can imagine them disagreeing with the way things were run in the USSR, and I would second these opinions, much to their confusion and frustration. I do not accept the USSR nor PRC nor any other totalitarian state as being socialist nor communist, no matter how profusely they use the terms to describe themselves. I go by the static definition and that should be the end of it. Some readers will be genuinely lost or confused, as much due to my disjointed writing as to the foreignness of the material. If such is the case, please ask for clarifications, and I would be happy to oblige.

Dominance Hierarchies

2007-01-14T17:49:00.000-06:00

Dominance Hierarchy

Egalitarian Democratic

Capitalism Defined

2007-01-07T14:16:00.000-06:00

As promised in an earlier post, I will in this post describe what Marx meant by capitalism when he used the word. Discussing socialism with others involves clearly defining what is meant by the term, and how it relates to capitalism.

My first task is to dispel some misconceptions about capitalism that were created to make it more appealing, even worth defending. "Capitalism" to the US is "everything good that we do". "Capitalism" is the ability to own your own toothbrush. "Capitalism" is when you can go to a store and buy products. "Capitalism" is freedom to do what you want. "Capitalism" is what makes possible all the nifty products and services we have available. "Capitalism" is the laws of supply and demand. There are all sorts of things capitalism is and does. Rub some on a wound, and it heals miraculously. Put some in your gas tank, and your car goes super fast. Throw it at a country ruled by a despotic leader, and they will suddenly be made free. Amazing!

As Marx defined it, capitalism is the relationship between those who "own" the means of production and those who don't. The latter must sell their labour to former. *Yawn* Talk about bland and boring; what does it mean, anyway?

Let's start off with a hypothetical. There are five people roaming around the jungle. One of them sees a fruit tree and thinks: "If I could just get the other four to pick fruit for me, I would have an easy life of luxury and sweetness." To this end, the person "claims" the fruit tree, and tells the other four that the only way they can have any fruit from it is if they pick it, give him the bulk of it, and then keep the rest. This is basically what capitalism is. If you don't understand this, or think it is something otherwise, you are wrong. Marx wrote the book on capitalism, and while admittedly he may have been wrong on some things, this concept, as he defined it, is right and undeniable. This is the relationship between those who own the means of production and those who don't.

How did Marx come to this definition? By exploring other cultures and other economic systems, he was able to piece together this almost eternal struggle between these two distinct classes of people. Stage by stage humans progress through different modes of production, in all but one the means of economic production are arbitrarily owned by some ruling class.

**Stage 1: Primitive communism - This stage was way, way, way in the past, and probably the longest-running economic system. It was during a time when humans were not that plentiful, numbering in the mere thousands, scattered across the globe in little bands of hunter-gatherers. We can return to the world of the previously created hypothetical to take a closer look. Those other four that were given the terms of their slavery would probably have laughed at the one who sought to tell them what to do. When the treemaster is asleep, the four will pick fruit and eat it as they see fit. They will go to another tree, or eat something else. The one has very little control over the others. Using force to dominate the others would be impractical for several reasons. Firstly, the survival of each is dependent on the survival of the others. This is not to say that if treemaster died, the others would starve, but they would certainly be worse off without an extra set of hands. Second, those trying to use force would have been shunned, perhaps even kicked out of the group, for the very reason listed previously. It is also highly unlikely that the four would have put up with treemaster's crap for very long. They could band together and remove him from the tree, or thwart his efforts to use force against them. It was in these conditions that, I believe, our understanding of freedom and democracy developed. In such a setting, each person is a vital member of the group, and the benefits of a social network would have been readily apparent. The concerns of each are genuine and related to the concerns of the others. While it was necessary to cater to the well-being of the group, this was not freedom-stifling in principle, because supporting the group was, in effect, supporting each individual person. (Why this is so hard for people to understand is beyond me. Randroids, eat your hearts out... if you have them.) Thus human society formed and many of the truths and rights we feel we have created recently were actually formulated well before our time.

**Stage 2: Ancient/Classical society - fast forward a few thousand years from our original hypothetical to a new time, when humans are much more prevalent and congregate in much larger groups, resources have become less abundant, and farming and the domestication of labour beasts has begun. Something new and different has also occurred: a descendent of treemaster has managed to convince people that he "owns" something, that is, he has unlimited claim to it, and anyone desiring the products of this something must either give him something in return for it or sell their labour to him in exchange. How this came about, we can only guess. I have used my feeble imagination to come up with one possible way:

Suppose a group of humans was getting a bit large, and food more scarce. Early farming was probably just leaving a patch of seeds to grow when the group was away, chasing the herd or migrating to warmer climes. In this large group, farming and other important food-related tasks may have been assigned to particular people, AKA specialisation. Suppose the one who did the farming became an expert at it, knowing all sorts of useful things about the soil and rain and how far apart to plant, etc. This person was indispensable to the rest of the group. They could now lay claim to the field of crops which they tended and demand that the others do work for them on it in order to get the products of it. I want to clarify this point a bit. Specialisation in a society, by its very nature, means that one person somehow provides the product of their labour to someone else, who also has something to offer the original giver. In this case, the person farming can make the threat to not farm any more. The group is dependent on this one person, and compliance means survival. Over several generations, farmmaster's descendants have milked their status for all it was worth. The idea of their superiority as compared to the others has become a built-in understanding for the whole group. At this point, farmmaster no longer needs to work on the farm, but can instead become "master" of the group, and have them do the farming for him.

This stage is also when such horrible institutions like slavery (of workers and women) became prevalent. Farmmaster can have his subordinates (goons) go out and conquer other groups, bringing home their children and women. He can then impregnate the women and use the children as slaves. If they haven't yet learned that he is better than they are simply because everyone around him believes him when he says he "owns" farmland, they will soon learn, either from his brutality or the drone-like insistence of the others. Fortunately, human society is still rather scattered, so even very poor people could still "own" something of value, like land or a herd. Little pockets of resistance lasted only as long as they could repel the expanding influence of the major civilizations. The freedom of the previous stage is all but lost, and don't even try to bring democracy into it. Yes, the Greeks had representative government, as did the Romans, but not for very long. And always undermining this most noble of systems was the false truth of ownership. Those who owned or laid claim to the most resources have more power and influence than others. Thus so long as one person can tell others what to do by means of a social construct and violent goons, there can not be genuine freedom nor democracy. Bear in mind that all this stuff happened way in the past, but it still happened, meaning that if the Romans conquered other lands and laid claim to it, the descendants and subsequent kingdoms would have been dealing with the changes and constructs wrought during Roman times. This point will be brought up later.

**Stage 3: Feudalism -

The peasants had their own land, sort of, in that they had to give the lord a percentage of the yield of their crops in exchange for his "protection". Mob-like in its underpinnings. The social construct of ownership is further refined and buttressed by powerful religious institutions. Divine Right, original sin, and other freedom-crushing memes and practices poisoned society. All sorts of wars between kingdoms were fought because one monarch of one kingdom believed he had a claim to the land of another kingdom (Hundred Years War). Land and wealth changed hands often during this stage as in the previous, often a result of violence and force. The Catholic church, one of the most corrupt institutions ever conceived by humans, gains power and influence and itself lays claim to morality and heaven and souls. These false intangibles are used as leverage to glean wealth from people and to demand obedience. Please notice how there is no difference between the idea of "owning" a tangible thing, like land, and of "owning" the true path to heaven. "I own it, you have to bow to me in order to get it." The domineering attitude is present in both.

**Stage 4: Mercantilism - In this stage, language and culture become very refined. Printing allows standardisation of language and mass media, even in this crude form. Propaganda and other social control mechanisms are used to great effect during this time. Whereas previous kingdoms and empires were tenuous at best, in this stage, their existence was made stable and secure by means of a common and standard language.

The lords kicked the peasants off their land and claimed it for their own. The peasants were left with few options: go to the cities to find work in manufactories (more on these later), or turn to crime. A higher population density than the previous stage has a few important repercussions. First, relatively few people were necessary for farming, and the peasants were often idle, doing little work, because there was very little for each of them to do. Second, as a result of a flooded labour market, labour was cheap - people were desperate for work. (This describes the stagnation of China around this time, and with this in mind, we can see how rickshaws came about. It also explains the current situation in China with its abundance of cheap labour.) Lastly, all these extra people milling about and being thrown in jail compelled the kingdoms to explore and expand, seeking new lands to form markets and empty prisons. When resources are scarce, it is a habit of humans to seek to migrate, and is probably built-in from our evolutionary history. This may explain the age of discovery and subsequent expansion of European powers.

(I often wonder if China had less ocean between it and north america, would it have colonised it first? The most I can get out of this is that China did send out explorers, but was so paranoid and isolationist that no expansion phase was implemented to alleviate the overcrowding and cheap labour. The government destroyed the maps of the explorers for fear that China's unique and exalted place in the world would be undermined.)

The aforementioned manufactories were early assembly lines. One skilled shoemaker, working diligently and carefully on each part of a shoe, could not make as many shoes as twenty people each doing a distinct and simpler task on each shoe made. This is specialisation taken to the logical extreme. Whereas the shoemaker might have been an apprentice for several years before becoming a skilled shoemaker, a person working in a manufactory does not need a full set of shoe-making skills. All they would need is knowledge of the simple, repetitive task they are to perform. They don't even have to know how to make a whole shoe, from beginning to end. Workless and penniless peasants would work in these industries, selling their labour because they had nothing else to offer. This will come up again later.

One last thing to mention about this stage: This was when America was formed. The end of this stage and the emergence of the new was the creation of the USA. Many children in the US learn that the US was created because it wanted independence from an oppressive Britain. This is just false. Citizens in London paid 40 shillings a year in taxes, on average, whilst American colonists paid a paltry 1 to 1.5 shillings. Britain at the time had the best navy, the best army, the best merchant fleet, and the most markets. Ah, the exclusive markets I should say, since this was the age when wealth was deemed finite, colonial powers formed exclusive markets to keep money in their empire. The one great break with this was the USA. The American colonists, especially the merchants, wanted to open their markets to other nations, violating the understood rules of mercantilism. This was the main difference between England and America, and part of the stunning success of the latter.

Stage 4: Capitalism - This stage is marked by rapid industrial growth as a result of machine-aided automation. The manufactories became just factories when an outside source of power (electricity or steam, etc) was introduced. Now the monkeys could make even more units of a good in even less time. Productivity was improved even more when Taylor and other efficiency experts made careful observations of factory workers. Some suggestions, like breaks, are certainly commendable. Others, like dividing up an overarching task into tasks that require the least amount of movement, make monkeys into extensions of the machines they use to make goods. This is very important.

Huge machines that are used to make finished goods cost enormous amounts of money, only affordable to those who have wads of cash lying around. The wealth and power disparity in this stage is greater than it ever was before. The owners of the manufactories of the previous stage now manage the labour of hundreds of people, affect thousands in the market, and influence millions in politics. Wealth concentrates more and more in the hands of a few. Fewer and fewer people own the means of production, and cottage industry as it was known in the previous stages is all but obsolete and vanished. The economy that Adam Smith described is now very different, and his prescient warnings about power consolidation and the hijacking of the political machinery by greedy capitalists are ignored.

Later in this stage, roughly starting shortly before WWII, comes state capitalism, which was the dominant political feature of the 20th century, and existed both in the US and in the USSR (no, for the last time, the USSR was NOT communist). State capitalism is the unabashed use of state machinery to expand the control of capitalists, especially with the help of the military-industrial complex. Half of federal tax money goes to military spending, and much of that to "defense" contractors. (If you wanna see who gets how much, check out this website: http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/companies.asp )

The main thing to look for between stages is who owns the means of production, how these social relations are enforced, and how these relations link to political power.

I often point out a racist element to present-day capitalism, that being that those with lower melanin levels tend to do better than those with higher melanin levels. Such a distinction is also present in genders. Black people were slaves in the US, "owned" by rich white men. Two-hundred years later, and the descendents of these wealthy plantation owners are probably still rolling in the dough. Thus, much of the current wealth-distribution has to do with violent and vicious deeds committed in the past. Our acceptance of this reality is also a mild acceptance of the cruelty and grotesqueness perpetrated. I could write a whole other post on the subjugation and mistreatment of women.

If we accept this definition of capitalism, and are honest with ourselves, we realize that previously defined concepts of freedom and democracy do not jive well with these kinds of social relations. At the heart of our economic system lies the dirty truth of manipulation and control of millions of people for the almost exclusive benefit of a select few. For roughly a third of your life, where you live, where and what you eat, when you wake up, when you go to the bathroom, who you marry, what kind of schools you have available for your children will be largely determined by someone else. Yes, you do have choices, but only those within your monetary means are genuinely considered. You have no voice in how much of a product is to be made, how much of a role you play in it, how much you make for it, how often and for how long you are to work on it, how much it costs, how it is transported, advertised and sold, how and when you are fired/laid-off. Your input on these matters is of no concern to those who decide all these things for you. Even simple matters like these, some which affect you greatly, are outside of your control. The main activity of your life is dictated by someone else.

At this point, you might say that of course humans have these kinds of social relations, we are primates, and primates have dominance hierarchies as part of their social makeup. This is true. But, again, if we accept this as being true and ignore any possibility of it being otherwise, then our concepts of freedom and democracy are incompatible with our very nature. Male chimps in the wild are known to rape female chimps in a desperate act to have their genes passed on. Some claim there is a similar tendency in humans. I would agree to an extent, as I have met people that behaved much more like chimps than like humans, but this raises some serious issues. Is rape to go unpunished, because it is simply biological behaviour? Do we accept this as being the way we are, and do nothing about it? Is it wrong to try to alter our behaviour to make life more amenable to all?

A short example here involves democracy. The US claims it was founded as a democracy. If only rich, white, land-owning people are considered human, then yes, the US was a democracy. Black slaves, of course, were considered 3/5 of a person, and couldn't vote any way other than that of their owner. They weren't considered whole people until 1863. Women were ignored until the early 20th century, and minorities were STILL not considered real PEOPLE until the 1960s. You can see a general trend toward democracy, towards more and more citizen participation (or, rather, the right of citizens to participate). Fortunately, democracy and freedom are static definitions, so we can always tell if we are moving closer or further away from them. We would view the move towards them as being desirable.

I have actually met someone who didn't care that they were living in a giant dominance hierarchy, their fate determined by people far away in distance, wealth and power. It struck me as odd, but then I realized this may be one of these chimphumans. They had this sense that so long as they were allowed cable TV and big SUVs, they didn't care that their lives were almost entirely decided well before they were born by pre-existing social relations. There is this sense that if they have a chance at being at the top of the dominance hierarchy (not bloody likely), they will exchange a chance at a world less restricted by dominance hierarchy (and one, I believe, more in line with our concepts of freedom and democracy) for it.

So, now that we have defined capitalism and demonstrated why it is very much against our concepts of freedom and democracy, what would we call an alternative system, one in which dominance hierarchies are not the basis for social relations and the means of production are not arbitrarily controlled by a few domineering jerks? I was gonna save it for another post, but this succinct definition will suffice for now:

"Socialism is based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and exchange, upon production for use as against production for profit, upon the abolition of all classes, all class divisions, class privilege, class rule, upon the production of such abundance that the struggle for material needs is completely eliminated, so that humanity, at last freed from economic exploitation, from oppression, from any form of coercion by a state machine, can devote itself to its fullest intellectual and cultural development. Much can perhaps be added to this definition, but anything less you can call whatever you wish, but it will not be socialism."

Straight from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1950/03/russia.htm

Make of this what you will, recognizing that, like concepts such as freedom and democracy, this is an ideal, perhaps one that will never be attained, but one which we feel is worthy of pursuing. It is also static, so claiming that socialism is what happened in the USSR and China is just flat-out wrong. Something like socially appropriate behaviour, fashion, or the status quo is dynamic, and subject to the whims of public opinion and popular beliefs.

This post took far longer to write than I thought it would, and is a bit rambling and loose in places, so please forgive me for that. If you feel I missed something, or could explain something in greater detail or clarity, please let me know. I am planning on defining anarchy and/or socialism in the coming posts, but since he has been reading a lot on it as of late, perhaps delta of freethought weekly can define the former term.

Bloggers Unite!

2007-01-05T00:46:00.000-06:00

I had the great pleasure of meeting delta of Freethought Weekly and his brother of Rationality. I was really only expecting to see delta, but as became an over-used joke, I thought: I got two bloggers for the price of one! It was a rainy day when we met, and their visit was short and hectic. I got the impression we would get along fine had we more time to socialise. Alas, the holidays are inherently hectic, and when away from home, it's often hard to stay in one place for long. I wish them well in their respective cities.

I wonder when a blogging convention will take place. Show up in booths labeled with blog names, and the monkey who writes it is there in all its glory. Various activities to occupy them for a while, like workshops on blogging and using HMTL, etc. If such a thing were to occur, I bet a lot of people would blog about it.

Easy

2006-12-18T10:00:00.000-06:00

Once you understand what makes humans tick, it's easy to figure out why they do the things that they do.

I'm a vegetarian. It was not easy to become one, and it's not easy being one - not because I miss meat (I don't), but because I have to design a healthy diet, read labels, ask questions of the contents of whatever I'm eating, and put up with people giving me shit about it. It requires more input and more concern on my part.

But why should not being a vegetarian be easier? Humans evolved to live on the plains of Africa, in small bands of hunters and gatherers. Our noses and brains therefore evolved to concern themselves with the things we would have needed to eat to survive. Rotting meat emits two chemicals: putricine and cadaverine. Great smell if you're a fly, bad smell if you want fresh meat. And humans do, but only if it's cooked. Mmmm, charred animal flesh, doesn't that just excite your nose and make you salivate? It does? Like a dog even? Yes, because, like dogs, humans are hard-wired to crave certain foods, and to salivate in preparation for eating them. Eating (cooked!) meat was a tasty treat every now and again, certainly not as frequent as most Americans eat meat, and certainly not in such proportions. Meat contains a lot of protein, and having such a rich source of it available was a prize indeed. You had to get a little hunting group and go out and chase the animal and bring the carcass back to camp. It involved some time, effort, and planning. A well-earned meaty morsel. Today, in this age of high-density feedlots and fast food burger joints, it's real easy to get meat. It's practically coming out of people's ears (or clogged arteries). Someone like me who doesn't eat meat gets funny looks. "Where do you get your protein?" they lament. I doubt that many of them are genuinely concerned with my protein intake (it's fine, thank you); what they are really saying is "is there something wrong with you that you don't eat what you were hard-wired to like?"

After several years of being a vegetarian and reading labels, I started to notice how much of what nutrient was in each item of food I consumed. I started to notice a pattern: the crap food had a bunch of crap in it, and offered very little in the way of good nutrients. The good food, though slightly more expensive, contained far more of the nutrients I needed, and a lot less of the bad stuff that I didn't. Partially hydrogenated oils are horrible. Don't eat them. They have no place within our diets and are essentially plastic oils. Food manufacturers (!) love it because it can be altered in any way to make it different consistencies. They can put some in snack cakes to make them soft and plush for months, or in sports drinks to make sure the salt and sugar bits mix thoroughly in the water. Oh so many options, and so simple an ingredient. Such a high profit margin for these companies that are selling people waxy plastic for so damn cheap.

High fructose corn syrup, aka diabetes syrup, can also be found in many manufactured (!) foods. Back in the days of gathering, finding some tasty fruit on a tree was a great way to imbibe vitamins and nutrients. Our brains evolved to taste the fruit as sweet, because it contained something called sucrose. Sucrose is two kinds of sugars: glucose and fructose. Glucose is great stuff. Good for the brain (and thus for studying), good for making all sorts of materials your body can use. Unfortunately, glucose is not really all that sweet to our taste buds. When we taste the sucrose in fruit, we are tasting the fructose, not so much the glucose. So, it turns out that high FRUCTOSE corn syrup activates our taste buds and makes us think we need to eat the treat to get nutrients. Food manufacturers will process corn, separating the fructose from the rest of it. Fructose is dirt cheap to make in this way, and because it is relatively rare in fruits in nature, we have a great sensitivity to it. What a cruel joke that most of the crap that contains high fructose corn syrup is practically worthless besides, and offers us very little other than a higher risk of diabetes. Read some labels and you'll see the dynamic duo of partially hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup in many processed food. Why do we eat these things? Several reasons. First off, snack cakes are tasty (or so we are led to believe), and having all this junk in them makes them so cheap it makes it hard for us to resist. The fructose convinces us that we've just consumed something healthy, like a fruit, and so we feel satisfied. Eating real fruit after that, which does not contain such high concentrations of fructose, pales in comparison. We'd rather have the snack cake because we are hard-wired to want what it contains. It's easy because we evolved to like some of the things in it. It's easy because we are trained growing up to spend the least amount of money to satisfy our hunger. An unhealthy tasty treat for cheap; or a more expensive, healthy-looking meal that may require some preparation. Doesn't really matter, because if you eat meat, everything else is just filler anyway.

If you don't know what memes are and how they work, don't bother reading this anymore and go look up the word on wikipedia. I need you to know what they are for this next section.

Memes of any kind can be incorporated into our minds and become part of our understanding of reality. The ones that are the most successful, though, are the ones that get the strongest emotional response. When I rant this to people in real life, I use two examples: xianity and historical materialism. Ah, religion. So comforting, so lovely, so fulfilling. Historical what? Materialism? Isn't that that atheist non-emotional tripe that explains much of how our society operates but has very little appeal to me? Pick an emotion, and you can find some story, fable, or facet of religion (especially xianity) that activates it. Love: Jesus loves me! Anger: How dare those dirty Jews/Romans kill Jesus!? Happiness: Isn't it wonderful that god is our friend and we get to be with him forever and ever when we die? You get the idea. Very little comes out of historical materialism. It is dry and boring (not to me), doesn't activate or excite our emotions. I've been reading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World finally, and some disturbing statistics indicate that far more people believe in silly things (aliens, Atlantis, etc) than real things (quantum mechanics, DNA, etc). Knowing what we do of humans and memes, why is this so? Because it is easy.

Two-thirds of our speech is gossip, that is, talking shit about other people. I have seen it used for its intended purpose in coops. Sitting in my friend's room at the coop, a fly on the wall (I'm normally very talkative), observing two splendid uses of gossip. A group of coopers were first talking about someone they didn't like, someone who didn't do their labour. They were ragging on him, making fun of him, dissin' him, all of it. He was lazy, smelly, dirty, messy, a moocher, a liar, etc. The group opinion of this person was definitely pushed down a notch. Another person was then discussed. This person was hard-working, friendly, shared copious amounts of marijuana (might as well be coop currency), and was generally well-liked. He did his labour and helped others do theirs. He was praised and admired and adored, even though he wasn't there. His social standing definitely went up a notch. We evolved to use gossip as a means to keep the group together and members working. If your survival was dependent on other people (it was back in the day, and still is today, despite what some "individualists" will claim), you didn't want some slack off jerk to mooch off everyone's hard labour. You'd want some way to let him know what you think of him. "Oh, boo-hoo, someone is making fun of me! Big deal." Except that may mean you don't get food, which means your ass is going to get really skinny and then die. Better cooperate and garner the trust and admiration of your peers. This was also the way to become a leader, unlike today when all you need is rich and influential parents, a C average at a pretentious university, and a teleprompter. So gossip is a useful mechanism. Except when you have print media and grocery check-out aisles. Then gossip is about people that you know, but who certainly don't know you. Famous TV and movie actors are plastered on tabloids and other silly magazines. "Did you see what she wore to the Emmies?!" Who gives a shit? Well, lots of people. We like talking about familiar people, people whom everyone knows. Everyone knows Tom Cruise, everyone knows Brittney Spears. It's EASY to talk about these people with others, even though we don't really know them personally. In fact, it's so EASY to talk about them, that we really don't need to talk about anything else. Certainly not anything useful or stimulating.

When social groups get complex, that is, when there are more and more members, it becomes increasingly difficult to make decisions democratically. An amoeba that wants to go in three hundred different directions is likely to dissociate. To keep groups of monkeys together, sometimes the captain element is needed, a strong executive that can make decisions that count for the rest of the group. We evolved to have two distinct behaviour patterns: we crave democracy, and yet long for someone to tell us what to do. As a young child, we have no clue what is going on, no grasp on reality and the world and how it all works. We must rely on older, more established adults to teach and guide us. It would not be evolutionarily advantageous to question the authority or wisdom of our elders constantly. Sure, a well-meaning "why?" or "what's that?" are welcome, but if the kid just insisted on playing with that sharp flint knife, they were likely going to get hurt. Roaming too far from camp was likely to make the little explorer a little meal for some hungry predator. At the same time, and not just as we get older, we develop the understanding that we are a vital part of the group, with our own unique desires and feelings. We feel that our experience is valuable and worthwhile. What we have to say is important, too. Small groups operate better with these two contradictory tendencies because leaders have much less control and power. The voices of the members of the group are stronger because they come into direct contact with the leader. GWB wouldn't have lasted five minutes as a leader of a hunter-gatherer group. But today, with mass communications and media, with well-established culture and language (thanks to writing), our framework for understanding our place in society is developed along the "worship the leader" lines, instead of the "voice your opinion" track. We hardly get to voice our concerns in school, very little at home or in public. Children rarely experience democracy for themselves firsthand. Instead, we get washed-down examples of it with well-meaning definitions, directed and controlled by adults who themselves probably never experienced democracy for themselves either. Almost our entire economy is composed of little units that are run like a pyramid scheme, with very little input coming from the wider base sections. But why should the tendency be towards authoritarian methods of control, as opposed to more democratic methods? Because power that is unquestioned is wielded better (more effectively) than power that is. It is easier for us to live under someone else's control than to have to make decisions on our own or as a group. Making decisions and compromises as a group, with each member participating and contributing, is very difficult. It involves learning how to operate in a group differently than we do now. Of course, the main reason is that the groups we consider units are much too big to be run effectively democratically. But this in and of itself is difficult to undo. Once a tyrant gains control, he/she is very unlikely to give it up, and using their position of power, they can wrestle and grab for more power, that is, control over more people. It is a tendency of all institutions of any kind. Given any idea or cause, over time and with enough people, a group committed to this cause will mutate and morph into something that is almost completely counter to its original tenants. The Catholic church was supposedly founded on the teachings of Jesus, which, if the Sermon on the Mount is to be believed, were somewhat agreeable. Help the poor is a worthy idea. Go to the gold-encrusted Vatican to see how far along this aspect of the mission is. Blessed are the meek, isn't that right, Mr. Pope? "Communists" in the USSR had this happen. The aggrandizing of the state to follow through with the ideas of Marx to dissolve the state. Like that makes sense. Or what about the Libertarian Party? Talk about oxymorons.

It appears at first glance that if most of this behaviour is done because it is easy or ingrained, then any other behaviour, or even just changing it, must be hard. Really, it isn't. It is no more difficult than learning a new skill or taking a class. Some time and honest effort are involved, but once we get the hang of it, it really isn't that hard. Not to mention that once we DO change our easy behaviours to become more of what we really desire, the rewards of behaving differently only spur us on. A friend of mine recently quit smoking. He says he doesn't miss feeling like shit in the morning hacking up his lungs. When I became a vegetarian, I enjoyed having regular stools and not feeling logy and cholesterol-ridden from eating meat. I am thin, fit, and active. I save money because I don't watch TV and feel the need to buy shit I don't need. I don't concern myself with the idiotic goings-on of flaky and shallow movie stars. Removing authoritarian people from my life has made me happier than ever. I've become involved with coops and am enjoying having a say in what goes on in the world around me. I'm learning how to win favour and earn respect from others, and how to gather people together to form functioning groups. I've removed a lot of the unnecessary aspects of my life and replaced them with things I find much more supporting and satisfying. Ironically, by doing these things, I've made my life simple and easy. :-)

Clarifications

2006-12-08T08:46:00.000-06:00

Language is amazing in that it can be used to represent reality. Simple sounds or symbols can come to mean concepts that are far more complex than their representation. Some words we use have no tangible analogue, like love, or democracy. One consequence of this is that people will often be able to use a word, but may be almost entirely clueless as to what it means. What replaces understanding is an emotional response. We know this is how "god" works. The very specific idea of humans having a say in their lives in relation to each other is replaced by the low-res word "democracy". GWB, Tony Blair, etc, use words like these to get an emotional response out of you. When you are listening to one of their speeches, the words "freedom" and "democracy" are tossed around, almost glibly, in the understanding that people don't have standard definitions of these words. Rather than replace the words with their entire meaning, the audience associates a nebulous emotion to the simple sound or symbol. These are the "feel good" words that people like to hear, but, if you actually bothered to look them up, really have nothing to do with their agendas, unless, of course, if it was to stifle or undermine them.

I'm not here to define these terms, I just want to point out what happens when we get lazy and sloppy with our words by replacing them with emotions. There are a few terms people have thrown at me that they believe betters their position in an argument (political arguments especially). These I will define.

altruism -
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Definition 1 is just false. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN WHICH ARE SELFLESS. None. An act which benefits the group may not immediately return to the initial giver, but later on it will. In the case of actions which bring about the demise of the giver, they gain respect and prestige in the community. "Oh that brave man who was killed in Iraq defending freedom and democracy." The person may not be around to enjoy it, but the point is that it was not a total "loss", nor was it without recompense. The second definition is closer to what the word means, but still does not accurately represent reality. The term "detrimental" suggests that altruism involves a loss to the giver, and a gain to society. A happy xian family goes to the old folks home to sing to and entertain the residents. Seems like they are giving up their oh-so-precious time to perform some thankless job. Well, in xian terms, they would be doing it to be viewed favourably by god. In primate relations terms, their brains would be excreting rewarding happy chemicals that makes them feel good for helping other members of their species. Imagine a selfish person wants to feel good about themselves, and so does some "selfless", kind act for someone else to elicit these happy chemicals. The "selfish" person gets what they want, and the recipients come out ahead. Both parties win. Win-win.

I want to compare this to the idea of profits. Profits (in terms of money) involve a gain for the seller, and a loss for the buyer. Win-lose. (Yes, I understand that often the purchaser gets something they wanted that would benefit them, but it would still be at a price higher than what the seller bought it.) When people think of altruism (or socialism), they think of it as being the opposite outcome of profit. Altruism is when you lose, and the other person gains. Lose-win. In the course of discussing socialism, I have to demonstrate that altruism doesn't exist as we have defined it, or I use a term which makes their nebulous emotions gush: enlightened self-interest. Capitalism is not (just) defined by profits, and socialism is not altruism (or the reverse outcome of profit). Claiming this is making a false dichotomy, and is completely ignoring the decades of research and writing Marx did to describe capitalism. But this is for another post.

Capitalism vs. socialism is often analogous to realism vs. idealism. I have argued with people that have claimed I am too "idealistic" and have labeled themselves "realists". How do you like that for nebulous terms? There is no such thing as a "realist" when discussing these things (I'm not talking about art here). A "realist" living in the 1850s may have said "you can't stop slavery, it's natural and has been here for over a hundred years." They were not basing this solely on the situation at hand as the term "realist" suggests. There were underlying assumptions regarding slavery, among them maybe: black people are inferior to Europeans, a different species; the current situation (slavery) is a good thing, slavery is justified; making people change the way they run plantations would be immoral; etc. Someone living in the early 1900s may have claimed that women would never gain the same rights and status as men, so it would not even be worth it to try. Ideals: women are inferior to men; women are only good for cooking, cleaning, and making babies, and not for much else; changing the way people relate to women is an impossible task. Henry Kissinger is described as a "realist". His underlying assumptions include: violence is a great way to solve problems, it is the only way to solve problems; anyone claiming to be communist is worthy of death; it's okay to bomb countries that happen to border a current enemy of the US; Agent Orange and its tactical use is justified; etc. The point is all of these assumption are ideals. They may not be the most noble or ones we would care to have, but they are ideals. They may or may not align themselves with reality. Some ideals, like democracy, are desirable, but not necessarily attained. (Note: despite Bush's rhetoric, the US is not a democracy.) Ideals can be good (like democracy) or bad (like racism). They could line up with reality (like the redefined "altruism"), or they could be way off the mark (like racism).

From the Deep End

2006-12-06T17:23:00.000-06:00

Don't know if anyone has seen this, but I thought it was pretty cool:

Also, I found this on a dumpster in the Mexican barrio of Houston. I've never seen this graphic before, so I'm guessing it is original. Sometimes you don't even have dive to find something awesome in the dumpster.
(For the monolingual among us, "huelga" = "strike".)

Dragon2 + iteration power

2006-12-05T12:13:00.003-06:00

Business Plan

2006-12-01T11:24:00.000-06:00

This is a business plan I wrote for my small business management class.

Business Plan

I. Executive Summary

Technology

Machines that fabricate small plastic and metal parts for universities and engineering firms can be made highly adaptable, that is, with a wide range of tools for cutting, scoring, marking, routing, bending, melting, etc. Such machines could also be used for the private sector, providing a range of consumer products and industrial semi-products for retail and manufacturing firms alike.

Organic

Locally-made goods are cheaper to transport than those that must come from overseas. Packaging, logistics, overhead all add to the costs of transportation. Reducing them is possible by creating needed goods locally out of universal materials. Cheap and easy to store and ship, these sheets of varied thickness and composition will provide the raw materials for the parts needed. They can be used for all sorts of products, which can be made on demand, or in reserve supply – as the market dictates. With this ability, prices and production can increase and decrease in response to market fluctuations more readily than can other firms. The local nature of the firms will also allow them to be more integrated with the local community, increasing awareness and sales by encouraging employees to volunteer and become involved with it.

Library

An open library of design specifications allows unique and individual parts to be made for special projects. As long as it is viable, feasible, and cost-effective, a design can be submitted for mass production, perhaps with royalties or incentives to encourage others to participate.

II. Vision and Mission Statement

Strategy

Currently, goods are manufactured the world over, to be shipped the world over. Industrial output is concentrated in a few key areas that provide a large proportion of the goods consumed. How much energy is used to transport raw materials to some factory (likely in China), have them processed, and then have the final product shipped around the world? To prepare for a self-sustaining economy, a paradigm shift in the way goods are manufactured and transported is necessary. Centralized manufacturing makes consumers dependent on a single, distant source. Decentralized manufacturing would allow goods to be made and shipped locally, reducing dependence and the need for wasteful transportation measures.

Business Philosophy

Efficiency follows form and function. Refinement is only possible with iterated processes. Every round of finished goods yields an opportunity to make adjustments. A company that refines its workings benefits in terms of output and profit. In an ever-changing economy, the company that ever seeks to better itself is the one that survives and thrives.

III. Company Overview

Name and Location

The Robotic Manufacturing Company can have its first location be in a small town outside a large city. These places often serve as a low-rent area to store goods in outlets and warehouses that supply the department stores throughout the area, particularly in the cities. The chief concerns for location are dealing with noise levels and ease of loading/unloading.

Objectives

It is a waste of human potential to have someone sit in a factory for several hours every day, repeating the same small movement over and over again. Robots can perform these actions without tiring, without complaint, without sleep or rest, without striking, getting sick, or pension plans. Modern robotics can also make superior products to those made by hand. Having robots manufacture and provide goods for a population means reduced cost, more efficient use of time and resources, and the potential for high growth and profits.

Nature

Engineering firms and universities use large Computer Aided Design labs with specialized robots to fabricate custom-designed tools and objects. Utilizing this technique for consumer and industrial goods allows a wide range of goods to be made for a fraction of the cost it would take to specifically set up a shop for a small range of products.

Status

This business could use an empty pre-existing warehouse, but would be a startup otherwise.

History

Such a machine and its use was depicted on Scientific American Frontiers on PBS. On the show, the host, Alan Alda, designed a piece of plastic that allowed one to adjust the angle of flash on a camera using mirrors and notched plastic, thereby reducing red eye in photos. The machine read the instructions from the CAD program and cut out the pieces from a sheet of clear plastic, to be assembled by hand to make the item. The open nature of the apparatus allowed virtually any and all designs to be tested.

Organization

After the initial startup, as business begins to grow, the employees will be given the option of buying into the company. Hierarchical command structures are cumbersome and in many cases, inefficient. The potential for abuse of leadership positions also makes it outdated and obsolete. Employees will be more motivated and take pride in their work if they understand that the success of the company depends on their vigorous labor.

IV. Products Plan

Features –

· Products intended for retailers would be made of quality plastic, wood, metal, and possibly glass and consist of common, high necessity, high use consumer items. Storage containers, furniture/cabinetry, windows, and other simple products can all be made on the same robotic apparatus, some assembly required.

· Products intended for manufacturers would be made of quality plastic, wood, metal, and possibly glass and consist of components and parts for other items. Casings for electronics like microwaves, TVs, computers, etc; small parts for complicated products like cameras and lock mechanisms, as well as parts and tools for industrial/commercial use washers, flanges, pipes, etc, are all possible with this technology.

· Products intended for individuals would be made of quality plastic, wood, metal, and possibly glass and consist of customized or pre-ordered items. Some items will be specially made for specific purposes for specific entities. Individuals and firms alike will often need a unique item made in a small quantity. The customizability of the CAD grants this capability without the need for refit.

Legal protection

The robotics technology exists, as does the CAD design and integration, but each single item will be uniquely designed and patented

V. Marketing Plan

Target Customers –

· Retailers of common household consumer products, especially simple single-material objects. Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and such retailers could serve as outlets for these goods.

· Individuals desiring specifically designed - sometimes custom made – items. Perhaps for a greater fee, the robot could be used to manufacture custom and unique items, so long as they were pre-designed and likely to assemble appropriately. People from near and far could send in the digital recipe for the part they want and have it shipped to them.

· Firms needing semi-products and other parts. Companies needing certain parts for their unfinished goods will be supplied. The more complex the final product, the greater the chance it will need something that can be made using this technology.

VI. Management Plan

Team input

Workers will be given ample opportunities to make suggestions and participate in decisions, as much to the extent these decisions affect them. Neural networks function more effectively because they have redundancy and connectivity. A democracy functions in a similar way. By tapping into the hidden potential of the employees (each location to have less than 120 or so people), the company can take into account a myriad of concerns and facts, making well-informed decisions that will affect everyone in the company and in the surrounding community.

Managers

Workers will take turns being managers, to change the routine and to keep the workplace egalitarian. Elected managers will provide the captain element in the workplace. The elected and temporary nature of the position is to ensure that no abuse occurs, and that others can have an opportunity to manage. Recalls and other power checks can be put into place to keep the situation stable. By encouraging worker participation, the firm can harvest the full potential of each employee, to the benefit of all.

Specialization

Workers will have a wide range of skills when dealing with the tools, specializing only to the extent that is needed. Specialization diminishes the potential of the employee by limiting their actions and responsibilities. Nothing discourages someone faster than making them perform mind-numbing and repetitive tasks. Some employees will end up being better at some duties than others, but when this occurs, they will be encouraged to teach others how they refined their technique, such that the firm as a whole increases efficiency as the workers better their skills. Job rotations will facilitate this, bringing a fresh perspective on old tasks. Having several different people perform the same task allows refinement to take place much more rapidly.

VII. Operating Plan

Manufacturing

Versatile robot arms with interchangeable tools cut, score, drill and bend plastic, wood, metal and possibly glass sheets using pre-designed instructions. The robotic arm reads the CAD data and arches over a sheet, performing actions specified in the design, cutting out shapes and manipulating them to the extent possible by the machine.

Facilities

A large warehouse could house the robotic apparatus and the control stations, as well as a temporary storage and shipping area.

Quality Control

For individual sales, frequent inspections will be conducted; for mass-made products, statistical analyses will be conducted.

Inventory

A computer database will keep track of labeled parts and designs, and other logistics.

Supply

Firms that produce sheets of plastic, wood, metal and possibly glass will provide most of the raw materials.

Purchasing

Will consist of procuring sheets of various kinds of plastic, wood, metal, and possibly glass, of varied size and thickness, to be determined by demand figures.

VIII. Financial Plan

Financing

Capital to invest in the proper machinery, personnel, tools and other materiel will come from small business loans, banks, investment firms – any entity that will supply funds.

Pricing

Cost per item will be calculated by factoring in the total surface area of the item, the composition (including what type of wood or plastic) of the item, the amount of time necessary to complete the part, the number of times tools need to be changed on the machine, and how much waste material is produced. For stored items, there is an added inventory/processing fee. Rates for all factors will depend on the market, and will adjust to it accordingly.

Election Questions

2006-11-10T00:04:00.000-06:00

Withdrawing from Iraq is the top priority, as this will give the dems the political capital they need for the presidential elections. So, a few questions:

1) How should the US withdraw from Iraq?
2) Will the dems seek the most pragmatic, or the most popular strategy?
3) Will the repugs fight back to keep the war going?
4) Should Congress start an investigation as to who did what and why in regards to the war?
5) Should members of this administration be tried for war crimes?

VOTE(D)

2006-11-07T16:09:00.000-06:00

I voted this morning. It was pretty painless*, and I got a sticker that read "I Voted"! How exciting.

One strange thing happened. My significant other was voting in the booth next to mine, almost ready to finalize the choices when the machine reset. It returned to the start-up screen, which details how to operate the voting machine. An election official (who was a mere two yards away) was immediately informed , who tried to solve the problem with genuine resolve. He admitted that they had been having trouble with that machine earlier, when they first opened shop. The official called the main office, and the guy that answered was not very helpful.

"He hung up on me!" our local official cried. Dialing again, the same person spoke with him for a while, and then asked to speak to my significant other.

"There is no way that voting machine could have shut off." was all he said. The local officials were not helped in any way by the man upstairs. In fact, they only got denials of reality and snide commands.

It was up to the local election officials to allow this disenfranchised voter another opportunity to vote. They eventually succeeded, 15 minutes later, and my significant other emerged with a happy sticker just like mine: "I Voted".

* It took me a total of 2 hours to gather research materials, review them, select candidates, and then vote for them. That's it. 2 hours out of 35040 hours (4 years). How many people throughout history have hoped, wished, and dreamed of a day when everybody can participate in government? What is 2 hours out of 4 years? Such a noble desire, doesn't take but 2 hours, and yet millions of Americans did not go out and vote. Our ancient idealists must be spinning in their graves.

Andransky (asz.cfm) + ferdia (ifb.ccl) outside III

2006-11-05T15:06:00.000-06:00

A change of pace from the elections and recent scandals. Please don't watch these if you are prone to seizures.

They may be short videos, but they take a relatively long time to render. Enjoy!

Hypocrite

2006-11-04T00:53:00.000-06:00

It's not so much that he had sex with another male, or a prostitute, or even that he did meth; it's that he is one of the biggest proponents for banning same-sex unions in Colorado. I have to wonder, is this guy homosexual and just hiding it, and thus it comes out in these unseemly ways? Or is he just such a control freak that he has to fuck another guy to show just how dominant he is?

Both possibilities lead to more questions. If his righteousness is a front for his homosexuality, how many other xians are suppressing their sexuality? If this is about power, what does it say about the people who attend his services? So we have closet homosexual xians and submissive pack animals as worshipers under an alpha male. Both sound plausible. Both sound disturbing.

Personal Responsibility

2006-11-01T01:59:00.000-06:00

Should non-smokers have to pay for the medical bills of smokers in a publicly-funded healthcare system, or should the smokers have to cough up the dough?

Euphemisms

2006-10-27T18:34:00.000-05:00

Extropy/syntropy/negentropy are three terms that mean essentially the same thing: the opposite of entropy. Entropy is the running down of systems due to loss of heat and other energy. Spin a coin on a table top and watch how it goes slower and slower until it finally falls flat. Release a weight on a string tied to a fixed point, and watch as over time the pendulum motion ceases. Light a candle and wait until it has burned off all the wax and fizzles out. In all of these cases, energy is lost from the system and the system itself finally breaks down. A sad state of affairs, and one of those tendencies of matter and energy. The universe itself is supposedly not immune to this.

Fortunately for us, there are some spots of the universe where energy is being added into a system. When that coin is spinning on the table, see if you can't deftly give it a little push and make it stay up longer. Nudge that weight on the string and keep the oscillating motion going. Add more wax to the candle to keep it lit. The Earth as a system receives more energy than it emits. It is a little pocket of negentropy.

Syntropy and entropy are words we use to describe what happens. They do not change reality in any way. But the concepts themselves are very compelling. I have often wondered if there was some universal morality that would apply in almost all cases. Good and evil, heaven and hell, right or wrong don't amount to much in terms of dualities. They are subjective and artificial. Entropy and syntropy are not. They are real phenomenon with measureable effects. In a strange way, they can also function as morality.

When I was younger, I thought it was fun to break extra bricks and path stones we had lying around in the backyard. My father got mad at me and asked me "Why do you feel the need to destroy things?" It was then that I realized it is easier to destroy something than it is to create. That is, it would take far less energy to destroy something compared to what it took to make it. Destruction is easy. Creation is hard. We hate war and violence because it is destruction; we enjoy art because it is creation. We attach many positive connotations with building and growing and improving, and many negative connotations with decay and instability and fatigue. It seems there is something built into us that makes us see creation as beautiful and desireable, and destruction as being ugly and repulsive.

In our actions and deeds, entropy and syntropy can be moral compasses. An act which leads to death and destruction is to be avoided; a deed which leads to expansion and development is to be preferred. I realize these are broad concepts, and some of them can be counter to the premise, or contradictory to nature. Constructing a large parkinglot over what was once old growth forest is not necessarily a desired outcome (although, one could argue that more energy went into making those trees than into cutting them down and laying pavement, so this act was a net loss of energy). Also, if we did not engage in some sort of destruction of other organisms, we would starve and fizzle out much like that candle. This can be viewed differently: we need to survive at the expense of other systems, but the kind of systems we consume can mean the difference between net gain and net loss of energy (see: Vegetarianism). The point is that, in a broad sense, what we do can be judged by how much we contribute compared to how much we take. Give more than you take. If you don't like giving, take less until what you are giving is adding energy to the system.

Extropy has a slightly different meaning than the other two, more synonymous terms. It is defined as the extent of a living or organizational system's intelligence, functional order, vitality, energy, life, experience, and capacity and drive for improvement and growth. That last item in that definition offers us something that no other duality morality could ever provide: a goal. Right and good are certainly considered goals, but they are not defined, and we have no objective way to measure our progress. Heaven as a concept is almost entirely meaningless. With extropy we have a fixed star, a set point, a destination, a purpose - to increase extropy. We can measure it, we can see it unfolding before our eyes. We can apply to ourselves as individuals, or to society, or any other system.

Rose AvgMandelv1KECv1 (kec.cfm)

2006-10-26T10:25:00.000-05:00

Centralized Versus Decentralized

2006-10-17T12:45:00.000-05:00

Distributive systems can be either centralized or decentralized. I will list some examples:

1. Birds don't have lungs, they have hollow tubes running throughout their frames. Decentralized oxygen distribution.

vs.

Land-based creatures, mammals included, have lungs, which their bodies use to extract the oxygen needed, which is then distributed by the heart.

2. Mass transit moves many monkeys in one large metal box.

vs.

Personal metal boxes that move only a few monkeys.

3. Mating migrations bring many animals of a species together to trade genes.

vs.

Individual animals form pairs to trade genes.

4. One central main supercomputer processes information.

vs.

Several not-quite-so-powerful computers linked together process information. (distributive computing)

5. Monarchy, concentration of executive power in the hands of a single person.

vs.

Anarchy, power in the hands of a great many people.

What are the advantages and disadvantages to each in each example? That depends heavily on the system in question.

1. Birds need to be very light to fly; having hollow tubes satisfies this requirement and grants them oxygen where and when they need it. (Birds bob their heads when they walk so they can breathe.) But being hollow inside makes the birds fragile. Whereas with the land-based, lung-having critters, the need for robust bones far outweighs the benefit of having oxygen coursing throughout our bodies. Also, oxygen can be spread more effectively (though at greater energy cost) through capillaries.

2. Again, this one is a matter of energy usage and convenience. It is convenient to own a car and drive it to where you need to go. The costs involved for this convenience go beyond just what you pay. The roads have to be designed, built, and maintained. This will alter the shape of the city or landscape; will change how we move ourselves and the goods we need. Mass transit works best in close-knit pedestrian-friendly cities. We lose the convenience of deciding when and how we get to our destinations, but we expend far less energy per person doing so, and can keep the air and the city relatively clean and organized.

3. The migratory animals will obviously expend more energy getting to the central location, but they will have a wider selection upon arriving. This method is good for far-ranging species like sea or air creatures, where the chances of two of them meeting in the open is very small.

4. The supercomputer can be a powerhouse of a machine and crunch numbers faster than any of the others. It doesn't have to mess with networks and the latency such things entail. But there is hidden computing power in networks that, though it may not surpass the sheer processing power of the supercomputer, offers benefits unique to such an arrangement, like redundancy.

5. Monarchs can be intelligent, wise, benevolent, progressive, and peaceful. They can also be quite the opposite. They can be decisive and clever leaders or malicious, ineffective creeps. The advantages of a monarchy lies in the executive power. Dissenting opinions are ignored, thus speeding any operation (for better or worse). Of course, the obvious problem with a monarchy is that there are few checks on their power. Things can get out of hand with irresponsible leaders. Placing power in the hands of many people can bog down operations, even to a standstill. Endless committees and bureacratic red tape hinder even the simplest of endeavours. But the idea of democracy is at the very heart of our ideals. We each desire liberty and reject external control over our lives. Hair-pulling in its complexity.

It's clear from the examples and their analyses that there is no single answer that applies to all situations. Every situation is unique and requires a delicate balance of each. Also, suppose the parameters of certain situations change. Suppose automobiles use renewable, non-polluting energy, or that the mob of citizens consists of violent idiots. We would probably change our choices to reflect the new conditions.

There is this idea in economics that suggests that firms get larger and larger because larger firms are more efficient than smaller firms. This is true to extent, in that a larger firm has more backup capital to weather rocky economic fluctuations. A larger firm will command the labour of more people than a smaller firm, churns out a larger profit (usually), and just has more productive capacity. If we took this idea and applied it to this discussion, we could conclude that it is good to have a highly centralized economic system, perhaps whole product lines dominated by a few corporations. Paper Products Firm and Water Related Services and United Food Suppliers, or maybe even something like what supposedly happened in the USSR, state control of industry. So it may be that our desire for and love of democracy is undermined by our desire for efficient economic entities, a not-so-happy medium being the outcome.

My personal take on this, based on what I have seen at living and grocery coops, is that there is a limit to how large an institution can get and still maintain the ideals of democracy and remain efficient. I would surmise that the local foods I buy at the food coop saves a lot of energy in transportation and importation costs. Which suggests that some arrangements are possible where there is a healthy dose of decentralized power management and centralized capital to maintain efficiency and last any downturn in the economy.

I don't really know where I was going with all of this, it's just something I like to think about from time to time. I felt I had to organize my thoughts a bit more on this blog. It's fun to compare different systems using these criteria.

The Pucker

2006-10-11T10:13:00.000-05:00

You probably know someone who has it. They could be a relative or friend of yours. You feel sorry for them, and wish them well, but can't help but feel a little unnerved. It's like that gaping wound or disturbing deformity on someone that piques your curiosity, but you know it would be rude to ask.

Oh, those pursed lips! Like someone taking a drag on a damp cigarette. Face curled in bitterness and mistrust. You have to wonder what kind of life experiences would lead someone to give themselves such wrinkle lines. Maybe if they told you, you could understand and not hold it against them. Very rarely do they do this, though. It's part of the mistrust, see. If they told you, you would turn right around and use it against them. It's happened before.

Sometimes it's religious in nature. God-fearing people love to have the pucker. What a waste of time to suppose that all religions have equal merit. The hard truth of the matter is that there is only one God, he is on your side, all the others are wrong, and you are justified in any and all uses of violence to destroy the unbelievers. Turn on the AM radio and listen to the preacher tell it how it is. Watch the evangelical shows early in the morning to get your holy boost. God knows you're listening and heeding his words when your face is scrunched up like you just ate a bunch of lemons. Curl those lips, raise your head and wiggle it a little for that extra-righteous touch.

Other times it's the selfishness. When you were young, you had a few moments where you actually felt bad for the person you just shoved to the ground. To stifle the remorse and the regret at having hurt them and stolen their toy, you learn to pucker your lips so no other recognizable emotions show. What a disgusting thought you had when you were younger, thinking that you could get along with the other children. After so many years of hiding your (unnatural) concern for others, your face is permanently held in this sour configuration. You're bound to have lots of friends with a perpetual expression like that.

Can't forget the conservative pucker. This happy face is the result of swallowing the vile truth of the establishment. If it wasn't obvious to you before, it should be now: the point of existence is to be in competition with everything and everyone around you. You vs. the mailman, you vs. the trees, you vs. the sky, etc. The only way to win is to destroy the other and be the last one standing. Oh, that grim face of determination! That unpretentious pucker! The pucker of truth and resolve! It's the face of a man on a mission, and that mission is domination. You can't hope to win if you don't have the right face for it.

But why a pucker? Why not just an evil smile?

Because when we develop in the womb, our anus and mouth are one and the same sphincter. We grow like a donut, filling in the space between our input and output puckers with all the processing equipment. It is a common practice amongst humans to hide the output hole with clothing. The Pucker is a clever way to let everyone know what their assholes look like.

Did I mention they all have bugs up their asses?

The World Can't Wait... (to see me!)

2006-10-05T23:59:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen it yet, check out the 10 min video in the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-N8LEPnzEk

So I went to the protest in Austin. The rally was to begin on the capitol grounds and then march down the main street of downtown - Congress Ave.

The crowd started off small.

More and more people trickled in.

Soon the crowd began to thicken. The goons were out and about a little; there was one instance where they had a list and were scanning the crowd, but nothing serious went down. Patchouli is a very popular hippie scent. There were a lot of old people, 50+, that probably marched in the Vietnam protests.

The crowd chanted "One family, one heart, one spirit, one start!" It didn't catch on and I think people were ready for the politically-charged lyrics of the band "Funk Shui". The lyrics were pertinent and well-delivered. If only I had written them down...

The banner to be carried down the street:

Some signs (I hope you can read them):

And the path the march took (I left before the march):

There were some injured vets - one guy had a missing leg - a poignant reminder of the consequences of this illegal war.

I also grabbed some pics of the rest of the capitol. This caused a stir a while back:

I noticed that the woman on top of the capitol building is wielding a sword:

Only in Texas.

You have probably wondered what I look like. Well, here is a picture of me later that day working on an unrelated art project with a friend:

The Stag Hunt

2006-10-02T15:54:00.000-05:00

A long time ago in the plains and forests of Africa, there was a group of hunter-gatherers preparing for an afternoon hunt. Four men were chosen to seek a mighty stag that would feed the entire group. Young-One, the small boy, would not be of much help. Wise-Man was too old and feeble to attend. Sha-ring, Iz, Ca-ring, and Jerk gathered their gear and set out on the plains in search of food.

Hours of walking led them to a grove of trees. Fresh tracks suggested a large stag was in the area. The four men split up and spread out around the trees, hoping to cover more ground. Jerk is carefully avoiding noisily breaking a branch when he notices a hare hidden in some tall grass. His foot is suspended over the ground, in mid-step, as he concludes in a heartbeat that he can catch this hare, sneak away, cook and eat it all before they were all to return to the rest of the group. Jerk does not actively wish anyone ill. He sees only that he can feed himself and thus goes after the hare. Iz, Ca-ring, and Sha-ring, without the aid of Jerk, were not able to kill the stag. They were to return to camp empty-handed (Jerk straggling in), in which case the delicious meal gathered and prepared by those remaining at camp would have to suffice for now.

Ca-ring, Iz, and Sha-ring asked Jerk where he was when they were chasing the stag. They were concerned for him, thinking he hurt himself or got lost. Jerk replied with hare on his breath that his bowstring broke and he had to spend time to repair it. The three realized that Jerk was lying - he was equipped with a spear, not a bow. And despite his best efforts to hide it, Jerk's spear was flecked with fresh blood.

Jerk killed and ate a hare because he could, but Young-One and Wise-Man could not. Ca-ring, Iz, Sha-ring and Jerk were to provide them with sustenance, as Wise-Man had once done for them, and how Young-One would do for them one day. Jerk could not comprehend this. He was incapable of understanding the wider ramifications of his choices.

The next week, the four men were to go hunting again. They really needed the help of Jerk, as Wise-Man had been invaded by evil spirits and needed a hearty meal to drive them out. Ca-ring and Sha-ring split off into a pair and sought an antelope. Jerk and Iz went out in search of herbs and medicine, although Iz' main task was to keep an eye on Jerk. Iz and Jerk walked separate ways around a hill that was covered in the herb they needed. Iz gathered several pouches-full of the leaves. Jerk, out of sight of Iz, gathered only enough for himself and no one else, lest he tire himself with the weight of a few more leaves. The four men returned home with an antelope that Ca-ring and Sha-ring managed to kill.

The days pass and Jerk and a few others catch the evil spirits that had once invaded Wise-Man. Wise-Man, in his clever wiliness, had banished the spirits with chants and potions. Ca-ring, Sha-ring and Iz went hunting and successfully killed a small stag. When they returned to camp, they divvied out the meat to the others in the group. Everyone in the group was grateful and showered the three with high praise. Wise-Man, sated, tended to those with evil spirits by chanting beside them and offering them special potions he prepared with the leaves Iz provided. The delicious, hearty food and careful treatment banished the evil spirits from those who had them.

Jerk, however, did not receive treatment or food. The others ignored him, their eyes passing over where he was, curled up on the ground. Jerk could not understand this. He never once acted acted in violence against his peers. He did not send curses or ill feelings towards others. He hardly ever thought of them at all. When he was hungry, he ate; when he was tired, he slept; when he needed medicine, he gathered it. His was a simple existence, centered only on his (and only his) immediate concerns. In a phlegm-ridden and sorrowful voice, Jerk leaned up weakly and asked, "Why did I not receive a share of the food and medicine?"

Wise-Man replied, "When you do not include others when considering the consequences of your actions, they tend to forget you when they consider the consequences of their actions."

KPK Don Quixley

2006-10-01T23:13:00.000-05:00

Informal Educators

2006-10-01T16:07:00.000-05:00

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm

I just read about Antonio Gramsci and a brief overview of his ideas. They have to do with how people comprehend the relationships between the rulers and the ruled:

"Overcoming popular consensus, however, is not easy. Ideological hegemony meant that the majority of the population accepted what was happening in society as ‘common sense’ or as ‘the only way of running society’. There may have been complaints about the way things were run and people looked for improvements or reforms but the basic beliefs and value system underpinning society were seen as either neutral or of general applicability in relation to the class structure of society. Marxists would have seen people constantly asking for a bigger slice of the cake when the real issue was ownership of the bakery."

The informal educator is someone who spreads the ideas and connotations of Marxism, creating a counter-hegemony to the current ruler-supporting ideological hegemony. The term "slave mentality" wasn't explicitly used, but it does come to mind when we see people happily defer control of their lives to someone else.

It is a short article, and worth a quick read.

Business Tax

2006-09-27T10:37:00.001-05:00

Marx supposed that because supply determines cost, and cost determines profit, it was artificial scarcity that drove the economy. With the creation of a communist society, there would be a superadbundance of goods, bypassing greedy merchants and allowing humans to work on other, perhaps more noble pursuits. The market would be intentionally saturated.

Of course, sound economics resides in making sure consumer goods break down on a regular basis. Take AC delco for example. They ran some ads a few years back suggesting that if you didn't use AC delco parts, you would have to walk away from your stranded vehicle in search of help. That same year, Consumer Reports had an issue comparing car parts. By far the lowest of the batch was AC delco. I thought it was odd at the time that their ads would suggest one thing, but the real-life stats would suggest another. This is about the time I stopped watching commercials, because I was convinced that all they wanted to do was lie to me to get me to buy their products. I also read that AC delco parts are used on most GM vehicles.

If you make lightbulbs that never go out, pretty soon everyone has lightbulbs that don't go out, and would only need to replace the ones that broke. This is not enough revenue to keep a company afloat. If the factory that makes the lightbulbs is less stringent with their production methods, a higher failure rate will result. If the failure rate is high enough, the market will not be so saturated, which will keep demand high enough to turn a profit.

So people are making shoddy merchandise to keep the market stable, so what? If it were just the parts, and the parts could be refurbished/recycled, I probably wouldn't care so much. It's the packaging, the energy of production, of shipping, of all the paper pushing and product advertising in between. Ask the worker if he feels proud at the end of the day making shoddy car parts so his boss can keep paying for that GM SUV. Ask the mechanic who has to replace all these parts all the time. Ask the consumers that have to fork over money to keep these businesses afloat. Businesses excise a "tax" to keep the markets sustainable.

Market Forces

2006-09-24T02:03:00.000-05:00

"There are much more brutal methods of torture you'll find by private militias."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1878099,00.html

Gives whole new meaning to market "forces".

God Did It

2006-09-18T14:33:00.000-05:00

Sometimes you have to have faith. You have to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. You have to believe that there will be enough food for you to buy at the grocery store. You have to believe that when you flush the toilet, it will be processed properly and not just dumped into a stream. But each of these things is based in some way on previously understood and verified facts. The sun will rise tomorrow because it rose today. There will likely be food at the grocery store because there was the last time you went shopping. You can visit the sewage treatment plant and see how it is processed for yourself.

Faith in the supernatural is necessarily a leap of faith. The supernatural has no indication in the natural world. There is no precedent, no previous instance, no tangible evidence of the supernatural. Any idea based on the supernatural must therefore involve the unknown. All that is known about the supernatural is that it is not natural. Other than that, it is an unknown defined by unknowns.

This makes it practically worthless. It tells us nothing about how the real, tangible world operates. It offers us no insight into our current troubles or even what happens when we die. It is all speculation built upon speculation.

So why do people insist on having "faith" in the supernatural? Why do people believe it because it is absurd? I have yet to answer this question the way it was asked. And therein lies the problem; I don't think there is an answer the way the question is framed. This kind of faith is not based on understanding. Explaining the unknown in terms of the known would make the unknown knowable. And that's not the idea behind this kind of faith.

For some people, their whole worldview is built on the idea that there is an ill-defined "something" (a god), that makes reality and everything possible. This is mind-boggling and scary. Someone can have an entire set of memes based on one major and nonsensical meme. They cannot define it, you cannot define it, because, by definition, this kind of faith is undefined. The base meme becomes a sticky ball of possibilities. You can stick anything on it so long as it is couched in the proper terms. Religious and political leaders do this all the time to get people to do what they want them to do. Cleanliness is next to godliness. Every sperm is sacred. God hates fags, etc.

There is a serious problem with this kind of faith - it is unassailable. If I wanted to claim that the holocaust never happened, or that the earth is flat, there is information and evidence available to let me know that I am wrong. I can compare what I know and understand to available evidence. The undefined has no evidence. It has no rightness nor wrongness. It cannot be processed and determined to be true or false. This makes it very, very dangerous. How do you tell someone that their belief in 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven is based on nothing? How do you tell someone that their love of GWB is based on an unknown? They don't ask for evidence and they don't need evidence. All they know is that they have faith in this *something*, and that is good enough for them. If faith were to be held in the same light as all other claims, it would be the linchpin of someone's belief system. Change the base meme, and you can bring their entire worldview crashing down.

When I was younger, I would ask all sorts of questions about everything I experienced around me. Most of the time, I received satisfactory answers. Every once in a while, though, I would ask someone a question and they wouldn't know the answer. Instead of getting "I don't know", they said "god did it". The more people I met in life, the more I came across people willing to use that as a legitimate response. I also met people that were given that as an answer to many of their questions.

Start with a basic, underlying meme like the undefined faith we discussed earlier. Add to it all sorts of other memes that can be made to link to it via some spurious connection. Also include as an understanding of many natural phenomena "god did it", and you will end up with a warped and twisted mind that has very little chance of learning and independent thought. How many inquisitive minds have been snuffed out by those three simple words? Imagine all the potential botanists that asked "why is that tree there?" and received in reply "god did it". Or all the potential physicists that asked "why do things fall?" and heard "god did it".

Why do people believe silly things?

God did it.

If you want to destroy a mind, teach it to accept things without evidence. Teach it to accept only those things that appeal to ill-defined concepts and unknowns. Make the mind resistant to attempts to reshape it by cloaking it in ignorance. When you understand the danger of faith, how restrictive and destructive it can be, you cannot help but conclude that faith is one of the most dangerous forces that language can create.

Faith is the mind-killer.

MyMandelbrot-J (as) + Orbit Traps (dmj.ccl)

2006-09-07T02:02:00.000-05:00

Here's another one:

What Is God?

2006-09-06T19:21:00.000-05:00

I welcome any and all to describe what you mean by the word "god" when you utter it in a sentence. This goes for atheists and theists alike. If there have been multiple definitions in your life, recite each and every one, and why they changed for you. Please be clear and concise with the terms you use to avoid confusion.

Tagged

2006-09-06T14:05:00.000-05:00

# One Book That Changed Your Life

I started looking at my bookshelf and saw many such books. I would like to choose one that has had the most profound or lasting effect. "Understanding Media" by Marshal McLuhan is one that stands out. The book helped dissolve the old ideas I had about each person being his or her own little bubble, only letting stuff into the bubble when they wanted. Humans and their surroundings are intimately tied, no one is an island, in dependency terms and in media terms. You cannot drive down the highway and completely ignore the billboards. You cannot watch TV and say the ads didn't affect you. The tools that humans shape, in turn shape humans. Mass media effects us on more than just the level of its content. This book made me see the puzzle of the world with me included in it, instead of the puzzle with an empty spot where I should be. The latter view is an illusion we often create to our own confusion and detriment.

# One Book That You Have Read More Than Once

The Once and Future King by T.H. White.

# One Book You'd Want On A Desert Island

Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead, because I always wanted to read it, but never had the time or the sheer determination that I know would be needed. Being stuck on a desert island would certainly offer both.

# A Book That Made You Excited

Most good books make me excited. Recently I have been driven half-insane by the Dune books by Frank Herbert.

# One Book That You Wish Had Been Written

"The Universe: A Design Manual" would be kind of cool.

# One Book That Wracked You With Sobs

Wracked? I read "Journy to Ixtlan: The Lessons of Don Juan" by Carlos Casteneda recently, and there was a part where the author was to kill a rabbit he managed to catch in a trap. Don Juan said, "You are the rabbit's Death. Its time is up." Very vivid, and very terrifying if you become the rabbit.

# One Book That You Wish Had Never Been Written

The bible. I think more people have been convinced by this book to do horrible things than by any other.

# One Book That You're Currently Reading

"Eccentrics" by David Weeks and Jamie James. Very amusing book that makes me feel special.

# One Book You've Been Meaning To Read

"Game Theory and the Social Contract" by Ken Binmore. I would like to understand the gap between what game theory tells us about an action and the actual choices humans make.

Should any lurkers drop by and read this post, consider yourself tagged. Be sure to provide me with a link to your post.

Petri Dishes

2006-09-05T09:23:00.000-05:00

Take enough biology courses and eventually you'll get to a lab that requires you to smear some samples on a nutrient-rich plate and watch bacteria colonies grow. Oh wow, how cool is that! Look at them multiply and multiply. See how they expand without planning or forsight. Sometimes when you put two or more kinds of bacteria on the same plate, they grow and grow until they meet and then try to kill each other off in a last desperate grasp for dwindling resources.

Well, what did you expect from a bunch of stupid bacteria? Humans are so much better than such creatures because we actually take time and effort to raise our young, to train them for life in our complex society. We aren't running blindly, headlong into the future. Only simple organisms consume all their resources without a plan for sustainability.

You may have seen those growth charts, the ones that depict a nice exponential curve, steadily rising over time until it reaches a tipping point, whereupon it shoots up to the top, at the limit of its environs. There will probably be a list of "limiting factors", or "outside pressure" to indicate famine, disease, predators, etc, as mechanisms to keep the population in check. After so much time on the chart, though, the organism(s) represented will undergo a "death phase", the sharp decline that could very easily lead to extinction. The fossil record has many such examples.

Humans, being the clever monkeys that we are, have found ways to bypass these environmental pressures and have altered the population curve. We can expand and expand without fear of running out of resources or ever hitting that decline/death phase. Yes, when the population reaches 9 BILLION around 2050, we will have A) plenty of food for all these people, B) plenty of important, meaningful, and fulfilling occupations for all these people, C) plenty of room to prevent overcrowding, D) plenty of hospitals and medical programs to keep horribly infectious diseases from decimating a crowded country, and E) an extensive and effective worldwide recycling program to mitigate the effects of waste and pollution. And other such necessary measures.

It is a good thing we have all these things lined up for the future. What clever, clever monkeys we are. Not like those nasty bacteria. Imagine if we were those bacteria, having to face mass starvation because we over-farmed and over-grazed much of the world, leaving food only for those rich, powerful, or privileged people that happened to be born in a certain geographical area. Boy, what a horrible scrambling for food such a situation would entail. Imagine if we didn't have all diseases under control and had to fight massive epidemics of rapidly mutating diseases in heavily crowded cities that developed too quickly and without sufficient resources to construct proper sewers, treatment plants, hospitals/clinics, and research labs. Gee, that would be a mess. There would be plenty of work for morticians and cremators. Imagine if we had to engage in massive wars to fight over the few sources of fresh water still left. It's a good thing modern industry has all but eliminated pollution that can be introduced to the water table. Or imagine wars for viable land upon which to grow our crops. It's a good thing our current mode of food production doesn't leave too many salt deposits and doesn't require outrageous amounts of energy (imagine an input of 8 calories of energy for every 1 of food). Any less efficient and old Malthus would have turned out to be right after all. Imagine if we didn't have sustainable, renewable energy sources and had to rely on limited sources like fossil fuels just to grow and transport our food. Imagine if governments had to decide who would live and who would die, who would or could be born and who could not, based solely on their genetic viability or skillset. Or mass sterilization: get some crop sprayers and spray a few poor neighbourhoods and all the babies come out dead or deformed. Imagine if all the sanctity we hold for life and human rights now was thrown out the window because the situation would be so desperate we could not afford to have it.

Just imagine all these scenarios and more and remind yourself that it's a good thing we're clever monkeys that know how to keep our population in check, and not a bunch of bacteria overpopulating a petri dish.

The Unified Theory of Personality*

2006-08-30T22:52:00.000-05:00

Because personality is so complex, and predicting behavior in others is extremely difficult, several theorists have posited their own ideas regarding what personality is, how it changes over time, and the forces that shape it. There are many ideas, and very few solid, all-encompassing models that work all the time and in all cases. It is therefore necessary to combine those parts of the models that have some bearing on the growth and development of personality over time.

A child is born with a very basic neural network. This framework is just enough to disseminate the newfound world. The environment etches itself into the child’s mind, dendrites linking simple shapes and ideas. Genes the parents gave the child in some way effects how it develops. The simple network the brain starts with is granted in part by genetics, and determines how effectively the child adds new information, and how well the brain develops to receive this information. This becomes important in later childhood, as language and social norms begin to take hold. After a point, the neural wiring the child was born with has less and less of an effect on its total development. The new neurons are much more plentiful and dense now, downplaying the role of the initial framework. Nature helps create the foundation of personality in such a way, while the surrounding environment and interaction with others does more to shape the personality of an individual in later childhood.

The worn and misused psychobabble term aside, self-actualization refers to an innate desire of all sentient systems to grow, adapt, and operate better over time. Organisms must adapt over time to survive, individually and as a species. Humans are no exception to this; we seek to better ourselves to increase our chances for survival, and to a live a richer, fuller, more comfortable life. A desire to develop is the first step in the path to growth. Some sort of plan to follow is a necessity. This involves outlining a method to reach this goal. Part of this planning process includes being aware of the forces that shape personality. Effective growth must take into account external forces that cause us to react in the ways that we do. We must either change or otherwise control the forces, or invent some way to deal with them in a different manner. If someone were unaware of the outside forces acting upon them, they would be less able to work with or around them. Without adequate feedback regarding progress and the success of this change, one is much like a helmsman steering the ship without a rudder. Generally, with the drive for adaptation comes the willingness to appraise obstacles to adjustment more objectively. Also, another frame of reference certainly helps. Individuals cannot view themselves without their life experiences getting in the way. An outside observer can be useful in helping to reshape the person. Understandably, this whole process is continuous, never-ending, and is usually very subtle. We all change over time, even if we are unaware of or do not desire it.

Of the personality theorists discussed, B. F. Skinner’s approach makes the most sense. His methodology is effective, solid, and true. It is repeatable and measurable. This allows application of the techniques to almost anyone. Much of the aversion to Skinner and behaviorism is an unwillingness to be lumped with animals. It reminds us of our own mortality, how fragile we are. We would like to think that we are somehow above or better than animals. Accepting that we, too, are animals is an important step in applying his ideas; we discover that the way behaviorism works is very effective on humans just the same. Skinner’s ideas regarding a schedule of reinforcement, his approach to correcting errors - as opposed to simply pointing them out - and the premise that punishment never works make this methodology highly useful. Understandably, we prefer a more intimate and warm approach to growth, and to some Skinner’s method seems to be a bit too cold and sterile.

To promote growth and make it more applicable to humans, the ideas of a more personable theorist are used. Roger’s idea that our life experience is an ever-changing form adds a sense of wonder and mystery to life. We seek to become the best person we are capable of becoming. His emphasis on the real and ideal self is worth noting. Throughout our lives, we see ourselves in a certain way, and imagine ourselves to be a certain way. In many cases, the misery we endure is caused by our own reaction to the realization that we are less like our ideal selves than we would like to be. Often times, one of the greatest obstacles to growth is setting reasonable limits. Manufacturing an ideal self that is well beyond our capabilities is unrealistic and can be counter-productive, in that it promotes unattainable goals and unhappiness at never attaining them.

To combat these disparate ideas, we have another theorist who adds much to the arsenal. George Kelly posits that anyone who is in control of their thoughts can alter the way they see the world. Cognitive therapy is an extremely effective tool for personal growth. By choosing the thoughts we have in our minds, we create the mindset we desire for the situation. Negative thoughts beget negative attitudes about activities and events. Focusing on the positive tends to yield a more positive outlook. While it is convenient and desirable to be content in life, it is also unrealistic to believe that all thoughts must be good all the time. Believing that we have more control over our thoughts allows us to overcome negative events that would undermine our positive mindset.

Combining the ideas of Skinner, Rogers and Kelly creates a powerful plan for modifying behavior. Skinner’s ideas permit a schedule of sorts, Rogers sets limits and reasonable goals to accomplish, and Kelly helps us focus on the thoughts and perceptions that we can alter to reach our fullest potential.

Personality growth is not as simple as reading this essay. It takes several great leaps of insight and introspection to be able to approach the self as a malleable, changeable object. Denying the permanence of our beings is one important step in this process. Other hurdles include dismantling culture-bound ideas regarding the self and our unique place within our understood society. Full realization of our place in the universe involves looking beyond our own surroundings. Without a change in perspective, we cannot hope to address issues that we face. In Freud’s view, it is the goal of each person to strengthen the ego, which is to control the id and interact with the superego. The superego is a fiction society creates in the minds of its participants; each meme has value that is not intrinsically linked to its culture of origin. The cultural norms that interfere with the development of an individual should be rejected. Strengthening the ego drives the mind further and further away from other minds, it isolates and poisons. Inflating pride and individuality causes the person to become disconnected; they become caught up in their wants and desires, their particular way of viewing the world. While it is important to keep the ego intact, it is maladaptive to convince oneself that they are perfect. Admitting that we are not ideal is a crucial step in enacting personality change.

Another concept that was not specifically defined by these theorists is memetics, or the study of memes. Like genes, memes endeavor to survive, adapt, and duplicate. Unlike genes, however, successful memes are not necessarily adaptive. Memes act like viruses, in that they can use the host to replicate, and they can often be very maladaptive and malicious. These memes reside in our minds, creating a reality tunnel - a framework of preconceptions and biases that define the way we perceive the world.

Memes can even define our moods. A preconceived notion can be held about an upcoming event, a family reunion, for example. Perhaps the last reunion was a lot of fun, and the participants in the current one bring high hopes for the same. But imagine if a certain relative showed up that diminished the festive air. The mere prospect of this person reappearing may be the downfall of the reunion. If a person (or people) predicts – based on observation or not – that they will not enjoy the reunion for the appearance of the offending relative, this may ruin the potential for merriment. Children often share their dislike for school, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. Regardless of the basis, the way they perceive school determines in some degree how they feel and act at school. A student that enjoys school is probably more apt for learning than one who loathes school and wishes to avoid the experience.

Suppose an individual wished to focus on the way they see the world, so as to learn to view it in an manner that grants them the most enjoyment and fulfillment, while still being well-grounded in reality. A critical examination of their inner workings is necessary. Here the ideas of Jung regarding personality types would come in handy; a thorough look at what makes the person unique. After this initial assessment, a plan is outlined, some aspect of the personality that can be altered to better adapt to situations. Usually it will be a change of a meme. Maladaptive or non-adaptive memes can be replaced with more functional, adaptive memes. Cognizant of the meme in question, the individual toys with the logic of the worldview, tries to explain why the meme is maladaptive. Upon encountering a thought pattern consistent with that meme, the individual recalls the logic of altering the meme, and corrects the faulty line of reasoning. Perhaps the movement towards growth is reward enough, if not, then a simple reinforcement pattern can be employed. Over time, the maladaptive meme is unraveled, replaced by one that is more suitable to the person. Thus, a person has altered their real self to fall in line with their ideal self, a true act of self-actualization.

*This was an essay I wrote in a psych class. Pardon the psychobabble and any run on sentences. I got a 100 on it, so it was good where it needed to be.

Gaia

2006-08-29T14:17:00.000-05:00

"Life is not life, but rock rearranging itself under the Sun." - Dorion Sagan

I believe the Earth is alive. The definition of life includes:

1) Organization: the Earth is composed of smaller units (plants, animals, and other organisms) that, when taken together, make up a larger whole. The human body is likewise composed of trillions of cells, ordered into specific organs that perform specific functions

2) Metabolism: converting non-living matter to energy useable by the organism. The Earth accepts lots of energy from the sun, and even produces some of its own. The moon’s gravity also adds some. The organisms on Earth gather the energy from these sources and store it in fats and proteins in their bodies. They also use it to shape other bits of non-living matter. On a small scale, this is hardly impressive, but taken on the planetary level, with whole rainforests and oceans teeming with life, it becomes incredible.

3) Growth: accepting and using more energy than it expels. Organisms live and die, but on the whole, there are more things growing than dying, more energy being stored than being lost.

4) Adaptation: the Earth has changed atmospheric and soil composition several times since its inception. It has also undergone tectonic shifts and upheavals. Each change has brought about changes in the organisms on the Earth.

5) Response to stimuli: Although this takes place on geological timescales, the organisms on Earth and the Earth itself do “respond” to changes in their environment. In most cases, there is no neural network to design and implement changes. Instead, there are feedback routines, energy traps, release/pressure valves and other homeostasis mechanisms.

6) Reproduction: This one is a bit iffy. It is hard to imagine a planet breaking a piece of itself off to form another spherical body. It would certainly not be like anything we would call “birth”. I am usually ridiculed at this point by the Earth’s inability to reproduce. The Moon sure is pretty, though.

After the Earth was formed and cooled, simple chemical processes gave way to more and more complex processes. Back then the atmosphere was inhospitable to most forms of life. The critters at that stage in the Earth’s development were different from the ones we know now. For millions of years they did their own thing, oblivious to the changes they were causing on the planet. They released oxygen, which forms ozone in the upper atmosphere, forming a protective layer that keeps out UV. They helped form the oceans, helped make them the life-rich seas they are today. Far more examples abound. After about a billion years, life managed to make the Earth more hospitable to new and previously unknown life forms. Everything on Earth now is in some way built upon what came previously, and was ultimately started the moment the Earth was cool enough to support chains of carbon atoms.

This is not to say that I believe the Earth is just like us, conscious of what is going on, responding immediately to stimuli, conversing with others, etc. I don’t claim these things, but people often assume this is what I mean. I don’t. Each of your cells has no idea it is part of a larger whole. Neither do any of the organisms on Earth. They don’t need to understand this to function. They will happily do their own thing, and what they do will happen to benefit or hurt other parts of the larger system. Much like the systems that develop in our bodies to perform specific functions, we can find whole organs of organisms throughout the food chain. Predator/prey relations, bottom-feeders and clean-up crews, and even large-scale organs, like air filtering forests, and CO2 absorbing oceans.

It is necessary here to broaden the scope of skeptics and eye-rollers. Imagine the Earth from a great distance and a long time ago and in geological time scales. It is a rock with a pebble orbiting it, both of which circle a candle flame. The rock bubbles and morphs, melting, writhing, twisting, contorting from the heat of the candle. It changes color, changes size, changes composition, becomes more stable for more complex patterns. Soon it is covered in green patches, like moldy bread. Look closer and you see small bits of matter crawling all over it, swimming in its tiny ponds. One category of critters, almost within the blink of a geological eye, leaves the green patches, and builds advanced structures of rock, metal, and glass that are scattered across the rock face. Mere moments after that, the tiniest of specs fly off the rock and land on the pebble. More specs follow, orbiting the rock from whence they came. Some specs move beyond the rock/pebble system to other rock/pebble systems.

This is dangerous territory, and to avoid stepping out of bounds, some ideas need to be elucidated. What the human body does is not a matter of design from above, but design from below. It is bottom-up, not top-down. There is no over-arching intelligence guiding what goes on the surface of the Earth. Whatever happens, happens, and is more a matter of energy than any preconceived plan. The weather patterns on Earth are caused by the heat and energy from the Sun, the moon whizzing overhead, and surface conditions on the Earth. They are no different than what happens on Venus (sans the satellite), or Jupiter, or any other cloud-capable planet. But then again, life as we know is no different either. Little bits of matter bumping into each other according to particular physical laws that happen to culminate in beautiful and stable patterns. Life on Earth is just far more interesting and far more complex.

Can the analogy go beyond this? Will the Earth ever become a coherent system, a planet that is specifically designed to support some conscious superorganism? To compare the organs of the Earth to the organs of critters living on the Earth is troublesome. The Earth is a different kind of system. Some things will be similar, and others dissimilar. A 1:1 ratio for the analogy is unrealistic and not to be expected. There are, however, some things that may have analogues to what we call life. In some animals, there is a central nervous system, where data from stimuli is gathered, interpreted, responses determined, and responses executed. There are sensory organs that aid in data acquisition. We have seismic meters the world over, detecting every shake and tremor, feeling the ripples of earthquakes from thousands of kilometers away. We have observatories, both planet-based and satellite, and radio telescopes peering like a giant eye into the cosmos. We have radar and sonar, to glean information from the depths of the sky and oceans. We have the internet, a neural network that spans the globe, unites all of this data, and which will soon be able to process it all like never before. We may not understand it, we may not believe it, we may not be able to comprehend it in its entirety, but we are the cause of these developments. What they mean in superorganism terms has yet to be determined.

I don’t believe the Earth is an intentionally coherent system, nor do I believe it has some inherent purpose or function. These concepts are traps of the minds of humans, and are not to be applied to all systems. But seeing the Earth as a single superorganism, Gaia, allows us to see it in a way we probably didn’t before. It gives us a greater sense of responsibility, but also a greater sense of connection with everything else on the Earth. No longer are humans and Gaia disparate or even opposed entities. No longer do our actions exist in a vacuum, stuck only in the time we are alive on Earth. When we die, Gaia lives on, and all the changes we wrought will carry with it far beyond when we return to the soil. It also makes us appreciated what we do to further the complexity of Gaia. Recognizing that what we do has some benefit to human society is well enough, but knowing that it may have some benefit to Gaia, to the entire life-support system, is a powerful idea indeed.

Fractals

2006-08-19T20:51:00.000-05:00

When I get bored and feel the need to create something, I hop on my computer and make movies of fractals. I will try to add a movie every so often so more people can see what I do with my spare time. These will usually take a while to download, so please be patient.

Meme Monopolies and SECAIU

2006-08-15T11:55:00.000-05:00

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

--Thomas Jefferson

Looks like copyright monopolies are unnatural. It is the classic case of someone claiming ownership of something to further their own ends at the expense of society. Wouldn't everyone be better off if cancer medicine were cheap and widely available?

But hey, man, you gotta give people some credit. So what if your granny has cancer? I want my $1000 per pill. I slaved for years in that lab after even more years in school, I want my pay-off.

Fair enough. Italex has a point.

Is there such a thing as an unbiased, selfless, non-violent source of capital? One that could give money to the much-deserving Italex without denying millions a cure for their cancer?

Introducing humanity's first Social Ethical Calculus Artificial Intelligence Unit. Takes a percentage of taxes as source funds, runs through some scenarios/problems, and determines a course of action and what kind of funds can be applied to the endeavor. Human oversight works out the details (perhaps with further aid from the A.I.), but no one party benefits; that's the nature of the game: maximum output for minimum input, greatest happiness for the greatest number.

If only...

A Blog Post to Some Redneck about Global Warming

2006-08-15T11:31:00.000-05:00

I wrote this to someone on a blog who claimed global warming was nothing more than a warming trend as part of the natural heating/cooling cycle, and that pollution had almost no effect on the environment.

****************************

I have yet to address you personally, but felt it necessary considering your lack of knowledge regarding global warming and Richard's Almanac. You sound as if you have never taken a geology, earth science, meteorology, or environmental science course. I have. Throw out anything you think you know about global warming, because the information you have displayed is patently false and misleading.

I know you live in Houston; I was born and raised there. I want to tell you about ozone. Ozone is O3, and forms as a thin layer in the upper atmosphere to reflect harmful UV rays. Ozone is also formed closer to the ground by a slurry of NOx molecules, particulates, and various waste gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. In adequate amounts, this ozone assaults the lungs and has a definite and measurable detrimental effect on the health of humans and other organisms. I would walk to school every day, and on the hotter days I had lungs full of nasty ozone. Ozone increases the ambient temperature of a city/region by several degrees, and Houston is a great urban heat island as a result. The cooling, cleansing rains are diminished when approaching the city due to this effect.

On a small scale, pollution does have an effect on our health and well-being, and that of other plants and animals. What does this have to do with global effects?

The earth is a self-regulating and dynamic system. The organisms on the earth help determine how much oxygen and CO2 are in the air, and thus what the temperature will be like. As we burn fossil fuels, we are re-releasing CO2 which was stored by swamps and bogs thousands of years ago. For those millenia, the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, and was not considered in the global climate. At the same time we burn these fuels, we are destroying huge swaths of rainforest and other dense greenery. The US was covered in magnificent forests for hundreds of years before white settlers arrived. These plants would normally consume and store this CO2, reducing the amount in the air, and release O2, which helps critters like you and me survive. Our efforts are a two-pronged attack on the CO2 cycle of the earth.

That's not all, though. The permafrost of Siberia is beginning to thaw. Some areas are no longer "perma" nor "frost". The permafrost is frozen bogs and swamps. Bogs and swamps contain and produce methane gas (the stuff that cows fart). Methane gas is 10 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. The permafrost is a dominant surface feature of Siberia, a very large land area indeed.

But wait! There's more! When ice melts, it releases energy. As we heat the earth, glaciers and the ice caps melt, which only encourages further melting. A feedback loop, if you are aware of such things, is at work here.

Let's talk about water, weather, and rate of change. The earth's surface is 75% water, 2% of which is fresh water. 1.5% of the total water on earth is in glaciers and the ice caps, leaving only .5% as lakes, rivers, and streams. Oddly enough, many lakes, rivers, and streams are fed by glaciers and melting mountain snow. If temperatures increase even slightly, weather patterns may change and reduce the amount of snow that falls in a winter, or may cause excessive melting (and flooding) of glaciers, which overall reduces the avialability of fresh water. As heat enters the system from the increase in greenhouse gasses, weather becomes more violent, erratic, and unpredictable. Storm surges, strong winds, more destructive hurricanes, etc. - these are the types of changes we are cuasing in the atmosphere right now.

You mentioned "natural" cycles of heating and cooling. If you examine the geological record, you will in fact see that there are warming and cooling trends over the life of the earth. What you may not realise is that the most recent warming trend (ours) is A) caused by our direct actions, and B) is much faster and more out-of-control than all previous climate changes. The planet is not supposed to warm up significantly in less than a hundred years. Read this carefully and never say such ignorant things again: it is not the fact that the temperature changes, it is the rate at which it changes that matters. Organisms have to adapt to changing conditions such as a warming or cooling trend in the atmosphere. The beauty of evolution means over the course of several generations, a plant or animal species may adapt to the changes in temperature and weather. Our rapid destruction of the rainforests, the ozone layer, and the permafrost is causing the earth to heat up far more rapidly than ever before, which means organisms will not have the time their ancestors did to adapt. That includes us.

The changes we are causing have unforeseen consequences, both for ourselves, future generations, other organisms, and the earth as a whole. Let us weigh our actions with the understanding that they do have an impact, and that what we do may go far beyond our lifespans.

Why did I mention Richard's Almanac? It was written by Ben Franklin, an influential figure in American history. Good, now that I got your nationalist pride going, you can pay careful attention. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is a saying from the Almanac. What this means in this context is that we can prevent serious harm by applying comparatively little energy to the solution. The Houston Chronicle had an article years back about a study done by the BUSH administration, this one. The study compared the costs of pollution controls to the health costs associated with pollution. About $100,000,000 could be saved per year in healthcare costs if corresponding pollution controls were applied. You can't argue with the logic of Ben Franklin - your nationalist pride prevents you from doing so, nor can you discount the study done by this administration, because the party does not treat traitors and dissenters well. Oops. Looks like everything you had to say about global warming and pollution was just flat-out wrong. Go do some research and come back when you have some facts under your belt.

Ethical Calculus

2006-08-15T10:30:00.000-05:00

Change begins with the individual. The goal, of course, is to change the group, the social setting. But why?

Humans are social critters. We like being around others of our kind (sometimes with a dog or cat). We are biologically wired to find joy in companionship. Just ask any hermit.

Sometimes doing something for our benefit benefits the group as well. So many millions of dollars are "lost" each year due to sick days. Eating healthy and getting adequate exercise and sleep show positive results in the individual, and, to a certain extent, in society. A healthy, exuberant person who shows up to work well-rested and well-fed is almost always more likely to perform better than a person who stays up all night eating junk food and watching infomercials. This should be fairly obvious, and other examples abound.

Doing something beneficial for the group often benefits the individual. Paying for schools, roads, hospitals, and fire/police protections has noticeable returns. I know some tax-haters will want to argue, so I'll offer another example. No matter how much you hate society and other people, and no matter how righteous you think you are, you are very unlikely to run a red light in the middle of traffic, or not look before you merge on the highway. Abiding by the rules of the road has obvious benefits. Everyone gets to where they need to be quickly and effectively, and, most of all, safely (or so we would hope).

I understand that there are cases where the group stifles the individual, and where the individual screws the group, but let's just focus on the mutual benefits.

I mean, really focus. Are there certain activities we can do that almost always benefit both group and individual? I would like to think so. I have been examining my actions all the time now, seeing if what I'm doing helps both layers.

A healthy, confident, and knowledeable individual has much to offer society; a healthy, stable, and nurturing society has a great chance of creating such an individual. A society of such individuals would indeed be a wonderful thing. I recognize that we cannot expect society to shape us exactly the way we want to be. That might end up being more for the group benefit, and not necessarily for our own. But the same can be said for the reverse - acheiving personal wealth and power at the expense of society hurts the chances of others to rise to their fullest potential.

We don't want extremes here. Is there a fine line? Can we see it, mark it down, make a path so we can get somewhere in a timely fashion?

It could be said that a roadmap is dangerous in its rigidity, offering little wiggle room for adaptation. Holy books come to mind here. But this is not what I mean. Most religious texts have some inner core of really good memes, gems of thought that really grant the adherent something, instead of hot air. Strip away the fluff, and you end up with some basic ideas. These cannot be lawyerly in their convolutedness. Clear, simple, yet mutually supporting and interconnected. The Golden Rule is a good example. A little tidbit from the book of tao reads:

"A tall, stiff, old tree will break in a strong wind.
A supple and flexible tree will bend in the wind.
Therefore, it is better to be flexible than rigid."

Or something to that effect. You get the idea. I think the founding fathers of America had some good memes they injected into the Constitution and DoI.

A criteria for these little memes is the group/individual mutual benefit. I don't know much about game theory, but I can see how it can be used here. If we worked on it really hard, do you think it would be possible to design a guidebook based on all sorts of game theory interactions that would amount to an ethical calculus - equations that determine the optimum course of action in terms of the individual and the group?

I think so. It'll just take some time.

Compromise

2006-08-14T17:33:00.000-05:00

Maybe an A.I. could monitor/guide certain sectors of the economy to benefit humanity without bias or ulterior motives. Would certainly end this capitalism vs. something-other-than-capitalism stuff. Any thoughts?

Monkeys with Car Keys

2006-08-14T13:22:00.000-05:00

I have three brains: lower, middle, and upper. They guide my actions, either singly or in combinations. We would like to think that many of the things we do are the result of deliberate, careful, and rational thinking on our part. Ha! The lower and middle brains take precedence over the upper brain almost all the time. Don't believe me?

Sex sells. Put a pretty face, some nice boobs, and pert a butt near a brand name and its sold. It even works with male physiques. There's an abercrombie & fitch billboard ad in Houston that has a male model posing without a shirt on. No clothing is visible.

Watch (American) football and notice the ads between time-outs. Beer, big trucks, beef, etc. All those masculine manly things. They are targeting guys who like football. They know what else the guy who likes football likes. I wonder if the guys who like football are made to like the stuff in the ads, simply by having them associated with the game, or if it's just that guys who like football are naturally going to like the stuff in the ads. It is because they are naturally going to like those things. Why?

The lower brain. Football is violent and competitive, with big, beefy guys jumping on each other and slapping each others bums. Very masculine, lemme assure you. Guys who like this stuff like big trucks, because it allows them to dominate the road, as their favourite football players like to dominate the field. They eat big, beefy meals to be able to compete with the other big, beefy males. They like seeing commercials for watery beer that have lots of scantily-clad females wiggling and groveling before men. Makes them feel large and in charge.

Notice how the burger on TV is mouth-watering in appearance, but the one in real life is flat, stale, greasy and putrid. What a shock it must be for some people. I wonder if they expected something like what was depicted in the ad. Same goes for the beer commercials.

This is not to say that people are only hungry and horny robots. Most people do have a legitimate thought every now and again. The problem is that the lower brains often override the good sense of the upper brain. That's why the ads work. It also works in political campaigns.

Bush wants us to think he's tough on terror. He's a tough guy who knows right from wrong, enemy from friend. Kerry was labeled a flip-flopper to show he was not a manly man. He was an anti-war protestor who spoke lucidly about a conflict he had experienced firsthand.

The fear-mongering didn't help.

I was involved with an "activist" organisation for a couple of days. We were organised beggars, going door-to-door informing people about some threat to the environment. We were to collect so much a week, and half of that would go to us, the other half to the organisation. Training meant learning how to get an emotional reaction out of people. Every attempt I made was done with facts, figures, and concerns I thought people should know. It didn't work. People wanted to be told that something going into landfills contained chromium, a substance that causes cancer. I walked around a few blocks with a trainer, and I saw him do it, time and time again. It worked. People got the impression that if they gave this stranger some money, they wouldn't get cancer.

I felt that was wrong at the time, but I didn't know why. Now I do. Bush and this activist group were using fear to manipulate people. Fear makes people stupid. There are several studies which prove this. The chemicals that induce fear, or that are the cause of the feeling of fear disrupt higher mental functions. When we get scared or angry, we lose our ability to reason.

Gorillas and chimps can be taught sign-language and can even read and form sentences with the help of computers. But when chimps get to adulthood, they can no longer be studied in that way. They become too unpredictable, too aggressive. Now let's do some evolution here and imagine that we could suddenly make chimps slightly smarter, gave them the ability to speak. They would be like hairy humans, which is kind of what we are - hairless chimps that can talk. We see the chimps doing their violent, aggressive thing and we laugh. Oh those silly monkeys, being all violent for no reason. At least us humans have reasons for violence.

Uh-huh.

The next time you're driving on the highway, and some H2 is going 85 and riding your tail before he manages to pass you with a sneer on his face, just remember that in his angered, beef-brained state, he is much like a chimp. Yes, there are thousands of people driving SUVs that are glorified hairless chimps. This is not to say I'm not. We all are glorified hairless chimps. The only difference between a monkey with car keys and a human is how often one uses the upper brain instead of the lower and middle brains.

Oh yeah, and monkeys look cuter in fezzes.

Cubes

2006-08-10T11:23:00.000-05:00

Several animal studies, particularly with primates, indicate that infants need to be close to friends and family, maintaining a fair amount of closeness and bodily contact. If infants do not receive such affection, in the worst cases, they die; if done in typical American fashion, they end up lacking empathy and a connection to others. Many parents will hug and hold a child, carry it around, speak to it nicely, etc. But even that is not enough. I'm not a pedophile, but I do know that in most countries of the world (due to economic or biological reasons), children sleep with their parents. In industrialised countries, especially the US, it is common for parents to have their children sleep in cribs, alone and isolated. Imagine the millions of people that grew up being left to squirm in loneliness in a crib for several hours each day. I think much of this "me vs. the rest of the world (and to hell with them for not being me)" mentality can be explained by this lack of love and affection in childhood.

And why do people want kids to be in cribs? Because it makes them this way. Individuals make better consumers than do groups. Every person buying a vacuum cleaner is much more profitable than several households sharing a vacuum cleaner. Divide and conquer. And then make them work in cubes.