This week I'm focusing on improving my debating manner and public speaking, by practising in front of the mirror, to the confusion of my flatmates. I've been looking at body launguage videos and debating instruction videos. The best video I've seen so far is persuasion theory, by a proffesor of debating who did a PhD in persuasion theory.
I reccomend this video. It will help with pucblic speaking, which has been correlated with higher income in almost all careers. It will help you socially, improve your arguments, and improve your lying (lying can be a force for good!).
For those interested, a good resource is to learn debating is http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Creationist Bellitle God
Here is an article my flat mate and I wrote for the student magizine. It was published, and our christian freind is writing a rebuttal. We will will write a rebuttal soon too!
Chreation scientists say: Evolutions to blame for social evil[1], T-rex used big teeth to eat coconuts and he frolicked with man[2], Adam and Eve had no belly buttons[3]!
By Ben Graham and Mike Clark
Creationists annoy us, partly because creationism is a silly silly “science”, partly because we resent that we were born with a belly button while those nude hippies Adam and Eve pranced around sharing coconuts with Tyrannosaurus rexes, no doubt.
This creationism stuff has got way out of hand, it really will be the death of religion. The concept of God is only valuable as a whole system of ideas. The concept of a deity creator is indeed a marvelous one, but when broken into ragged pieces by small minded people with obvious (and often selfish) agenda’s it turns into a great big f**king mess (GBFM).
An example we see all too often is the Student Life group on campus. What many don’t realize about them is that they are run by the sinister "Campus Crusade for Christ” which is a multinational group run by the American "New Life Church," previously headed by none other than our favorite meth snorting, homophobic, homosexual know as Ted Haggard! Unfairly he no longer runs the church after being busted by do-gooders for doing lines off a gay hooker's ass[4].
The homophobic, elitist message preached by this group is quite different from the usual message of Christ’s love and forgiveness that we expect from such groups. Student life may not express these views quite as openly but their core doctrines are one and the same. Remember CCC's Jesus loves you as long as you're not gay, black, Jewish, bi, Muslim, Buddhist or an abortion doctor!
Recently we attended a presentation by a Student Life guest speaker on Creationism and evolution. The speaker was an American with a degree in information systems of all things, (what not biology?). This was advertised all over campus as a debate about creation and evolution but from the opening it was clear that it was going to be anything but.
The "debate" opened with what could charitably be described as a skit about evolution put on by the members of student life. In all honesty it was one of the more ridiculous things we have ever seen, memorable quotes include, "I’m a single celled organism, I just randomly assembled" and "I’m an eye, I just appeared."
By this point you could pick out the people who came to debate, they were the ones looking appalled or confused while the regular members laughed along with those vacant looks of someone just trying to get by - until heavens gates open up again, and the endless rapture of naked homoerotic bliss spews over the masses.
The speaker began with a series of misconceptions about evolution. Namely that it is a moral theory directly makes supporters immoral and decadent dangers to society (we think it's because we love sex drugs and rock and roll but we might be wrong), while belief in god leads to a wholesome and glorious society. When we politely pointed out to him that the most religious nations in the world are the worst for both human rights and a number of universal negative social indicators5, while the most secular were the healthiest societies in the world, we were quickly hushed and informed that questions from the audience were not allowed. So much for "debate."
He then proceeded to horribly misrepresent evolution by both ignoring massive sections of the theory and then demand ridiculous things like “why does evolution not explain how the world was created!” He created a huge stack of lies and blatant falsehoods and then proceeded to attack them with what he touted as "scientific creationism”. For those who are fortunate enough to have never encountered it "scientific" creationism is the mechanism created by American anti-evolutionists to attack teaching of science in American schools. It bases itself on a literal reading of the first book of the bible, Genesis. It claims that the universe was created in six days by god six thousand years ago, Adam and Eve were real people without belly buttons, coconut chomping t-rexes walked side by side with humans, and Noah's great flood really happened,. The sheer ridiculousness of these claims should be self evident and yet the majority of the audience lapped it up.
The later part of his speech wandered into the charming American tradition of considering everything a War. You are either religious and agree with creationism or you are one of “the enemy." He also showed an amusing streak of schizoid-paranoia when he claimed that this "enemy" was a massive international conspiracy of scientists. Now we love a good conspiracy but he forgot to credit the Jews, Irish, Catholics, Aliens, Jesuits and of course the US government and their damn black helicopters!
The most disturbing thing about the whole experience was when we spoke to him after his talk was finished, the most important thing about this conversation was that it took place away from an audience of "true believers". During the course of this conversation when pressed he admitted that he knew many of the points he raised were misrepresentations and sometimes outright lies but he seemed to feel it was justified because it was a "war." Everyone knows in a war truth is nobly sacrificed along with freedom and innocents, its acceptable "collateral damage." The problem is that he labors under the sadly darwinian impression that the very survival of his ideology is dependent on destroying evolution and wiping out the dangerous belief in evolution at any cost.
But this is not a war, it is a debate. The theory has no bearing on our morality, the creation of the universe, society, or religion. This should never have become a battle of science and religion, because it is a debate on the merits of a scientific theory which was settled more than a century ago.
Creationism is callous disregard for reality an attack on science, and a perversion of religion, which is an insult to both those who believe it and the generations of scientists who have labored to bring us to this point.
If you really want to pick and choose your science - join the flat earthers, luddites, and Amish. Turn of your electricity, smash your machines, refuse your medicines, and try your best to believe that the earth is flat. These and many other things are the products of science and using them while denouncing any science you don't like is the height of hypocrisy.
[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...
[2] http://www.scientificblogging.com/fi...
[3] http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ted_Haggard#Gay_sex_and_methamphetamine
_scandal
[5] "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Social Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularity in the Prosperous Democracies," Journal of Religion and Society, Vol 7 (2005) -read it! Alternatively contact us and we can forward you a copy.
Chreation scientists say: Evolutions to blame for social evil[1], T-rex used big teeth to eat coconuts and he frolicked with man[2], Adam and Eve had no belly buttons[3]!
By Ben Graham and Mike Clark
Creationists annoy us, partly because creationism is a silly silly “science”, partly because we resent that we were born with a belly button while those nude hippies Adam and Eve pranced around sharing coconuts with Tyrannosaurus rexes, no doubt.
This creationism stuff has got way out of hand, it really will be the death of religion. The concept of God is only valuable as a whole system of ideas. The concept of a deity creator is indeed a marvelous one, but when broken into ragged pieces by small minded people with obvious (and often selfish) agenda’s it turns into a great big f**king mess (GBFM).
An example we see all too often is the Student Life group on campus. What many don’t realize about them is that they are run by the sinister "Campus Crusade for Christ” which is a multinational group run by the American "New Life Church," previously headed by none other than our favorite meth snorting, homophobic, homosexual know as Ted Haggard! Unfairly he no longer runs the church after being busted by do-gooders for doing lines off a gay hooker's ass[4].
The homophobic, elitist message preached by this group is quite different from the usual message of Christ’s love and forgiveness that we expect from such groups. Student life may not express these views quite as openly but their core doctrines are one and the same. Remember CCC's Jesus loves you as long as you're not gay, black, Jewish, bi, Muslim, Buddhist or an abortion doctor!
Recently we attended a presentation by a Student Life guest speaker on Creationism and evolution. The speaker was an American with a degree in information systems of all things, (what not biology?). This was advertised all over campus as a debate about creation and evolution but from the opening it was clear that it was going to be anything but.
The "debate" opened with what could charitably be described as a skit about evolution put on by the members of student life. In all honesty it was one of the more ridiculous things we have ever seen, memorable quotes include, "I’m a single celled organism, I just randomly assembled" and "I’m an eye, I just appeared."
By this point you could pick out the people who came to debate, they were the ones looking appalled or confused while the regular members laughed along with those vacant looks of someone just trying to get by - until heavens gates open up again, and the endless rapture of naked homoerotic bliss spews over the masses.
The speaker began with a series of misconceptions about evolution. Namely that it is a moral theory directly makes supporters immoral and decadent dangers to society (we think it's because we love sex drugs and rock and roll but we might be wrong), while belief in god leads to a wholesome and glorious society. When we politely pointed out to him that the most religious nations in the world are the worst for both human rights and a number of universal negative social indicators5, while the most secular were the healthiest societies in the world, we were quickly hushed and informed that questions from the audience were not allowed. So much for "debate."
He then proceeded to horribly misrepresent evolution by both ignoring massive sections of the theory and then demand ridiculous things like “why does evolution not explain how the world was created!” He created a huge stack of lies and blatant falsehoods and then proceeded to attack them with what he touted as "scientific creationism”. For those who are fortunate enough to have never encountered it "scientific" creationism is the mechanism created by American anti-evolutionists to attack teaching of science in American schools. It bases itself on a literal reading of the first book of the bible, Genesis. It claims that the universe was created in six days by god six thousand years ago, Adam and Eve were real people without belly buttons, coconut chomping t-rexes walked side by side with humans, and Noah's great flood really happened,. The sheer ridiculousness of these claims should be self evident and yet the majority of the audience lapped it up.
The later part of his speech wandered into the charming American tradition of considering everything a War. You are either religious and agree with creationism or you are one of “the enemy." He also showed an amusing streak of schizoid-paranoia when he claimed that this "enemy" was a massive international conspiracy of scientists. Now we love a good conspiracy but he forgot to credit the Jews, Irish, Catholics, Aliens, Jesuits and of course the US government and their damn black helicopters!
The most disturbing thing about the whole experience was when we spoke to him after his talk was finished, the most important thing about this conversation was that it took place away from an audience of "true believers". During the course of this conversation when pressed he admitted that he knew many of the points he raised were misrepresentations and sometimes outright lies but he seemed to feel it was justified because it was a "war." Everyone knows in a war truth is nobly sacrificed along with freedom and innocents, its acceptable "collateral damage." The problem is that he labors under the sadly darwinian impression that the very survival of his ideology is dependent on destroying evolution and wiping out the dangerous belief in evolution at any cost.
But this is not a war, it is a debate. The theory has no bearing on our morality, the creation of the universe, society, or religion. This should never have become a battle of science and religion, because it is a debate on the merits of a scientific theory which was settled more than a century ago.
Creationism is callous disregard for reality an attack on science, and a perversion of religion, which is an insult to both those who believe it and the generations of scientists who have labored to bring us to this point.
If you really want to pick and choose your science - join the flat earthers, luddites, and Amish. Turn of your electricity, smash your machines, refuse your medicines, and try your best to believe that the earth is flat. These and many other things are the products of science and using them while denouncing any science you don't like is the height of hypocrisy.
[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...
[2] http://www.scientificblogging.com/fi...
[3] http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ted_Haggard#Gay_sex_and_methamphetamine
_scandal
[5] "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Social Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularity in the Prosperous Democracies," Journal of Religion and Society, Vol 7 (2005) -read it! Alternatively contact us and we can forward you a copy.
Gene therapy is being used on athletes. It also cures cancer, aids, and makes chickens lay drugs.
Make sure you watch the 2008 Olympics, almost every record will be broken as teams of genetically enhanced athletes compete against each other.
Tomas Springstein has just been sacked for using gene therapy (viruses which change your genes) treatment repoxygen on his athletes (to spectacular effects). This is a treatment which increases the red blood cell count in response to exertion (so you dont get tired, or you can hold your breath for much longer). It makes current steroids look like kiddy toys! Authorities cant detect it, short of cutting a chunk of muscle from the athlete. So the 2008 Olympics will see teams of GM athletes pitted against each other, I'm not big on sports but this will be amazing!
The important thing about this is it marks the start of the era of gene therapy. The era starts with GMathletes and ends either with a super-virus apocalypse, or an age of the improved human. Either way its time to make your move.
Repoxygen treatment was developed by oxford biomedica and uses patented virus vectors lentiviruses(the HIV family). Unlike other viral vectors these don't cause cancer, have little immune response and are effective in almost all cells!
This company has also cured HIV with.. HIV. They made an lenitviral vector with an anti-sense code for protein shell of the HIV virus! So it integrates into the host genome and produces RNA which binds against HIV's RNA making it useless. Then they used the same technology to make chickens lay drugs in their eggs.
Gene therapy has also been used to engineer cancer victims own immune cells against their own cancer. This can be adapted against almost all cancer types, and is essentially a cure for cancer - But it will take 7+ years for each version to get through the approval process sadly.
All this is just the start of the implications, much more will come shortly. This means a host of openings just appeared. Invest, experiment, develop, lobby, and save the world. It's your move.
Tomas Springstein has just been sacked for using gene therapy (viruses which change your genes) treatment repoxygen on his athletes (to spectacular effects). This is a treatment which increases the red blood cell count in response to exertion (so you dont get tired, or you can hold your breath for much longer). It makes current steroids look like kiddy toys! Authorities cant detect it, short of cutting a chunk of muscle from the athlete. So the 2008 Olympics will see teams of GM athletes pitted against each other, I'm not big on sports but this will be amazing!
The important thing about this is it marks the start of the era of gene therapy. The era starts with GMathletes and ends either with a super-virus apocalypse, or an age of the improved human. Either way its time to make your move.
Repoxygen treatment was developed by oxford biomedica and uses patented virus vectors lentiviruses(the HIV family). Unlike other viral vectors these don't cause cancer, have little immune response and are effective in almost all cells!
This company has also cured HIV with.. HIV. They made an lenitviral vector with an anti-sense code for protein shell of the HIV virus! So it integrates into the host genome and produces RNA which binds against HIV's RNA making it useless. Then they used the same technology to make chickens lay drugs in their eggs.
Gene therapy has also been used to engineer cancer victims own immune cells against their own cancer. This can be adapted against almost all cancer types, and is essentially a cure for cancer - But it will take 7+ years for each version to get through the approval process sadly.
All this is just the start of the implications, much more will come shortly. This means a host of openings just appeared. Invest, experiment, develop, lobby, and save the world. It's your move.
Transhumanist Politics
There has been a lot of speculation about a possible transhumanist political ideology. This could be a ideology which achieve something through influencing bigger party's (like the greens have). It could also be a full blown political party one day, lobbying for certain issues.
Here are some possible political ideas for issues that a transhumanist party would be concerned about.
I think some transhumanist issues are:
-Euthanasia in a way that preserves the brain (suitable for cryonics) although this is iffy as cryonics looks freaky enougth as it is.
-Approval for enhancing drugs, streamlining the regulatory process, and subsidising drug development.
-Science funding and positive regulation
-Research direction (science is already politicised...)
-Rights to enhancement, and rights for non-humans .
-Space regulations and investment
-Long-term environmental issues
-New political reform
Lets imagine our objective is to start a appealing political movement which will be beneficial to transhumanism. How would we do it, and what groups would we harness?
As transhumanists who are very future aware of future trends we should anticipate the trends and take advantage of that knowledge.
Here are some trends I think will come about (I have them from the united nations report and other politically orientated future documents - including sci-fi!):
-Increasing automation of work (increasing unemployment and luddite movement, and increasing socialist sentiments -as there have been historically)???
-Aging demographics. Way more old people than young because of fertility rates in western countries. This means health care medicine and research which is our bag! No problem especially if we are taking a socialistish platform to take advantage of growing unemployment and unions.
-Rising gap between the rich and poor, as more "god given" things like genetic quotient and aging become malleable to people with money. historically the poor have always been a more powerful lobby, but with the power and intelligence minimum each human has naturally being less relevant I don't know if this will continue.
-Increasing global instability, more enabled and visible terrorists, climate change, immigration pressure(?), bio tech health dangers. This will cause a trend to a political movement which causes feelings of safety (as will future shock), usually a heavy handed conservative movement (lets hope the luddites don't get all of these people).
any other you can think others?
Is anyone interested in helping me craft a political base? We can invite interested mailing lists, forums and party's to contribute to building a new future proofed movement using a wiki or forum (we will have trouble with political infighting in these mediums though!). A movement which will pass beyond the traditional left right infighting and help shape the future.
P.S a tranhumanst oreintated political party in britain is the consensus. www.theconsensus.org
Here are some possible political ideas for issues that a transhumanist party would be concerned about.
I think some transhumanist issues are:
-Euthanasia in a way that preserves the brain (suitable for cryonics) although this is iffy as cryonics looks freaky enougth as it is.
-Approval for enhancing drugs, streamlining the regulatory process, and subsidising drug development.
-Science funding and positive regulation
-Research direction (science is already politicised...)
-Rights to enhancement, and rights for non-humans .
-Space regulations and investment
-Long-term environmental issues
-New political reform
Lets imagine our objective is to start a appealing political movement which will be beneficial to transhumanism. How would we do it, and what groups would we harness?
As transhumanists who are very future aware of future trends we should anticipate the trends and take advantage of that knowledge.
Here are some trends I think will come about (I have them from the united nations report and other politically orientated future documents - including sci-fi!):
-Increasing automation of work (increasing unemployment and luddite movement, and increasing socialist sentiments -as there have been historically)???
-Aging demographics. Way more old people than young because of fertility rates in western countries. This means health care medicine and research which is our bag! No problem especially if we are taking a socialistish platform to take advantage of growing unemployment and unions.
-Rising gap between the rich and poor, as more "god given" things like genetic quotient and aging become malleable to people with money. historically the poor have always been a more powerful lobby, but with the power and intelligence minimum each human has naturally being less relevant I don't know if this will continue.
-Increasing global instability, more enabled and visible terrorists, climate change, immigration pressure(?), bio tech health dangers. This will cause a trend to a political movement which causes feelings of safety (as will future shock), usually a heavy handed conservative movement (lets hope the luddites don't get all of these people).
any other you can think others?
Is anyone interested in helping me craft a political base? We can invite interested mailing lists, forums and party's to contribute to building a new future proofed movement using a wiki or forum (we will have trouble with political infighting in these mediums though!). A movement which will pass beyond the traditional left right infighting and help shape the future.
P.S a tranhumanst oreintated political party in britain is the consensus. www.theconsensus.org
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Economics, money based value, effeciency, motives
Here's something I think I've worked out the other day with Callum. Economics. Well not all of it. But a part no one really considers.
Q:
Consider this... Why the hell is the profit orientated model so efficient?????
A:
Its because humans(consumerist-whores anyway) spend so much time valuing things in terms of money.
You know those people who have minor super powers in that they can estimate how much something costs(like a stuffed owl mailbox) - even if they should by all that good in the world have no idea. They can do this amazing thing because they SET the value in the first place(along with others like them)!
(Because people value things that means the free market 'breaks down' when the sample of people is too small, like in the elite business community... (that explains their pay, and yeah they also have a wee tiny bias when it comes to valuing other business people in general)
SO:
So your pants... Nah actually this means that if we started valuing things in terms of contribution to humanity, reputation, progress(my favorite) they would become the most efficient business model. Because people would put work into valuing things in these models the models would be accurate and efficient yardsticks.
WTF!!?!? SO:
These other models (eg contribution to humanity) would get rid of some of the failures of the market.
Like pollution and other 'tragedy's of the commons' like ethics (yeah ethics is not taken into account in the market. Its the cost of getting the job done -corruption, and the cost of 'anti-competitive' competition, and fucked up aims. We ignore it and so we have externalities like waste and corruption and immorality etc), and maybe fucked up arbitrary un-justified aims that we have so often.
The markets blindness to ethics
The other thing that we don't seem to understand about the free market is that its definition of 'efficiency' is not universal. in fact its pretty crap. Marx reckoned only man-hours mattered (and if your a woman your screwed) What is consumerist efficiency based on?(we really really really should know as it underlies everything, the answers at the bottom of this essay*). And our define of 'efficiency' changes over time as our desires change. Which brings me to arbitrary-engineered-desires.
Arbitrary-engineered-desires and efficiency
Lets say I did a magic spell and you suddenly really really wanted to have a really huge collection dead mice.
You also happen to rule New Zealand (shut up this is a thought experiment - I can do what I want).
And you change the economy of NZ so that instead of the normal luxuries we spend all our economic power making dead-mice... is this efficient? (well its efficient at making dead mice, and if you wanted them is it ok, kinda like you want random things from advertising...)
Yeah, it is efficient. But its not the kind we should want. We have to look at our desires and say are they justified or are they fucking random? Instead of giving every random desire value (eg the desire for alcohol, a golf course, a SUV, a cruise ship, a holiday).
Altruism, selfishness and game-theory.
Unlike communism (which has bad aims but is fair at changing human nature) capitalism (up until recently) assumes that people are rational and selfish. Not true. (and if it was it wouldn't be helpful)
This is not a useful assumption! It has lead to all kinds of fuck ups. This is depressing me to much to write much more so basically.... It lets irrational valuing sneak under the radar (irrational valuing, which could be fixed by taking into account cognitive biases), and excessive selfishness (expect people to be selfish and they wont surprise you, teach them otherwise and you may convince a few people - and that matters).
The problem is tho, how do we find out true human nature? Well game theory. Is important because it doesn't work and disproves our normal assumptions on human nature (that's what most recent nobel economics prizes have been about). But if applied to evolution (we know the correct game here)... then we get the motivations resulting from the evolutionary stable states(like nash equilibriums). Then we can make justified assumptions about human nature.. and get economics working - fucking a!
*Our 'efficiency' is based on profit. Which is based on money. Which is based on desire. (which is based partly on needs and scarcity - yay! and also on fucked up random desires - dumb!).
So basically it is based on accruing things that people want... or making people want what you have. That's right! another major failure of our system is that instead of being successful by giving us what we want, businesses can succeed by changing what we want.
Q:
Consider this... Why the hell is the profit orientated model so efficient?????
A:
Its because humans(consumerist-whores anyway) spend so much time valuing things in terms of money.
You know those people who have minor super powers in that they can estimate how much something costs(like a stuffed owl mailbox) - even if they should by all that good in the world have no idea. They can do this amazing thing because they SET the value in the first place(along with others like them)!
(Because people value things that means the free market 'breaks down' when the sample of people is too small, like in the elite business community... (that explains their pay, and yeah they also have a wee tiny bias when it comes to valuing other business people in general)
SO:
So your pants... Nah actually this means that if we started valuing things in terms of contribution to humanity, reputation, progress(my favorite) they would become the most efficient business model. Because people would put work into valuing things in these models the models would be accurate and efficient yardsticks.
WTF!!?!? SO:
These other models (eg contribution to humanity) would get rid of some of the failures of the market.
Like pollution and other 'tragedy's of the commons' like ethics (yeah ethics is not taken into account in the market. Its the cost of getting the job done -corruption, and the cost of 'anti-competitive' competition, and fucked up aims. We ignore it and so we have externalities like waste and corruption and immorality etc), and maybe fucked up arbitrary un-justified aims that we have so often.
The markets blindness to ethics
The other thing that we don't seem to understand about the free market is that its definition of 'efficiency' is not universal. in fact its pretty crap. Marx reckoned only man-hours mattered (and if your a woman your screwed) What is consumerist efficiency based on?(we really really really should know as it underlies everything, the answers at the bottom of this essay*). And our define of 'efficiency' changes over time as our desires change. Which brings me to arbitrary-engineered-desires.
Arbitrary-engineered-desires and efficiency
Lets say I did a magic spell and you suddenly really really wanted to have a really huge collection dead mice.
You also happen to rule New Zealand (shut up this is a thought experiment - I can do what I want).
And you change the economy of NZ so that instead of the normal luxuries we spend all our economic power making dead-mice... is this efficient? (well its efficient at making dead mice, and if you wanted them is it ok, kinda like you want random things from advertising...)
Yeah, it is efficient. But its not the kind we should want. We have to look at our desires and say are they justified or are they fucking random? Instead of giving every random desire value (eg the desire for alcohol, a golf course, a SUV, a cruise ship, a holiday).
Altruism, selfishness and game-theory.
Unlike communism (which has bad aims but is fair at changing human nature) capitalism (up until recently) assumes that people are rational and selfish. Not true. (and if it was it wouldn't be helpful)
This is not a useful assumption! It has lead to all kinds of fuck ups. This is depressing me to much to write much more so basically.... It lets irrational valuing sneak under the radar (irrational valuing, which could be fixed by taking into account cognitive biases), and excessive selfishness (expect people to be selfish and they wont surprise you, teach them otherwise and you may convince a few people - and that matters).
The problem is tho, how do we find out true human nature? Well game theory. Is important because it doesn't work and disproves our normal assumptions on human nature (that's what most recent nobel economics prizes have been about). But if applied to evolution (we know the correct game here)... then we get the motivations resulting from the evolutionary stable states(like nash equilibriums). Then we can make justified assumptions about human nature.. and get economics working - fucking a!
*Our 'efficiency' is based on profit. Which is based on money. Which is based on desire. (which is based partly on needs and scarcity - yay! and also on fucked up random desires - dumb!).
So basically it is based on accruing things that people want... or making people want what you have. That's right! another major failure of our system is that instead of being successful by giving us what we want, businesses can succeed by changing what we want.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Limiting human populatation
The human population keeps growing until it is stopped - by starvation, disease(from overcrowding, which is from overpopulation), and war (in overcrowded, circumstances, and ones lacking adequate nutrition people are psychologically more prone to be violent).
This also leads to resources running out (most western populations have stabilised but at a unsustainable level).
Stopping the population growth ourselves, will greatly reduce all symptoms of overpopulation. War, starvation, disease will all be greatly reduced.
With such reasons to do it surely we have a moral imperative. So why hasn't anyone done anything? (plummeting sperm counts suggest they may have!, but anyway)
The problem is, no one wants to get their hand dirty, doing this dirty job. Each individual nation has a incentive to keep a large workforce, so they encourage population growth.
Couple that with the fact that most individuals have the inbuilt instinct to have children, and nations based on individual intrests will have a incredible difficult time resticting their populations.
Population restrictions in china are not feasible in non-totalitarian states, and usually not in individual nations best interests.
So some countries are paralysed by a populace which would not tolerate their individual rights being infringed even if the good outweighs the bad, because they have a shallow understanding of rights.
Population restrictions as in china are not feasible in non-totalitarian states, and usually not in individual nations best interests.
But there is a option. It only waits for someone with $300,000 (this number is decreasing exponentially so every 2 years it can roughly be halved). The world waits for someone with the moral bravery to do something, where no one else will.
Heres how its done:
Scientist have made many viruses which can sterilise species. They are easily adapted to different species. Because the human genome is mapped and available on the internet, and so are virus templates, they can be adapted to humans.
These viruses in effect vaccinate the target against its gametes (eggs, or sperm) based on markers. So the immune system destroys the targets sperm or eggs.
A virus tailored to a specific marker that 30% of the population has would reduce population growth by 30%. In this way the sterilisation can be tailored to reduce population growth to a level which does not cause demographics which are so top heavy they cause economic failure.
The person with the means and the bravery, gets the virus of the internet. Inserts human gamete marker genes into the template. Then they send it to a dna printing company (in parts if neccesary to avoid virus screening), and when they receive the order they duplicate it in their second hand dna duplicator - off ebay. Then they infect themselves and go on holiday around the world.
Or if they want to be extra careful and expensive they can buy all the equipment themselves second hand of ebay.
You have a choice.
War, famine, pestilence, and suffering (not to mention the associated rights violations). Or an infringement on the right to self-determination. Who are you to walk away from this choice?
P.s western society has a shrinking populations, but we can equalise with immagrants. And reverse the sterilisation with our wealth. Also the viruse could be targetted at gamete markers prevelent in overpopulated countries.
This also leads to resources running out (most western populations have stabilised but at a unsustainable level).
Stopping the population growth ourselves, will greatly reduce all symptoms of overpopulation. War, starvation, disease will all be greatly reduced.
With such reasons to do it surely we have a moral imperative. So why hasn't anyone done anything? (plummeting sperm counts suggest they may have!, but anyway)
The problem is, no one wants to get their hand dirty, doing this dirty job. Each individual nation has a incentive to keep a large workforce, so they encourage population growth.
Couple that with the fact that most individuals have the inbuilt instinct to have children, and nations based on individual intrests will have a incredible difficult time resticting their populations.
Population restrictions in china are not feasible in non-totalitarian states, and usually not in individual nations best interests.
So some countries are paralysed by a populace which would not tolerate their individual rights being infringed even if the good outweighs the bad, because they have a shallow understanding of rights.
Population restrictions as in china are not feasible in non-totalitarian states, and usually not in individual nations best interests.
But there is a option. It only waits for someone with $300,000 (this number is decreasing exponentially so every 2 years it can roughly be halved). The world waits for someone with the moral bravery to do something, where no one else will.
Heres how its done:
Scientist have made many viruses which can sterilise species. They are easily adapted to different species. Because the human genome is mapped and available on the internet, and so are virus templates, they can be adapted to humans.
These viruses in effect vaccinate the target against its gametes (eggs, or sperm) based on markers. So the immune system destroys the targets sperm or eggs.
A virus tailored to a specific marker that 30% of the population has would reduce population growth by 30%. In this way the sterilisation can be tailored to reduce population growth to a level which does not cause demographics which are so top heavy they cause economic failure.
The person with the means and the bravery, gets the virus of the internet. Inserts human gamete marker genes into the template. Then they send it to a dna printing company (in parts if neccesary to avoid virus screening), and when they receive the order they duplicate it in their second hand dna duplicator - off ebay. Then they infect themselves and go on holiday around the world.
Or if they want to be extra careful and expensive they can buy all the equipment themselves second hand of ebay.
You have a choice.
War, famine, pestilence, and suffering (not to mention the associated rights violations). Or an infringement on the right to self-determination. Who are you to walk away from this choice?
P.s western society has a shrinking populations, but we can equalise with immagrants. And reverse the sterilisation with our wealth. Also the viruse could be targetted at gamete markers prevelent in overpopulated countries.
The supergoal
The supergoal - the most justified goal that I have found out is;
1)We must assume some kind of meaning to avoid self defeating arguments or arguments that give no information about what actions we should do (as in a justified super goal) ( because of a kind of pascals wager without infinity's or false dichotomy)
2)It seems no-one knows or has enough information even to make a good guess at the meaning, much less convince other people - although many people claim many things.
3)Therefore the only justified interim goal of life is to find the meaning of life - the answer to what should we do, a true philosophical framework to base all other things on.
I think that to get there we should use what has worked in the past for finding things; intelligence (I think superhuman intelligence may be necessary), information, science, and resources, reason and logic
This rest on a few assumtions. The assumtion of :reality, logic, that contradictions are bad, that we dont know the meaning of life, that its better to find it out than guess it, that we can get more information about it etc
But hey if you have a better one, lets hear it?
1)We must assume some kind of meaning to avoid self defeating arguments or arguments that give no information about what actions we should do (as in a justified super goal) ( because of a kind of pascals wager without infinity's or false dichotomy)
2)It seems no-one knows or has enough information even to make a good guess at the meaning, much less convince other people - although many people claim many things.
3)Therefore the only justified interim goal of life is to find the meaning of life - the answer to what should we do, a true philosophical framework to base all other things on.
I think that to get there we should use what has worked in the past for finding things; intelligence (I think superhuman intelligence may be necessary), information, science, and resources, reason and logic
This rest on a few assumtions. The assumtion of :reality, logic, that contradictions are bad, that we dont know the meaning of life, that its better to find it out than guess it, that we can get more information about it etc
But hey if you have a better one, lets hear it?
Personal identity final
Ok here is another post on personal identity and morals. Possibly the last post, as I've almost resolved this issue. Previously I posted this suggesting a solution to the personal identity issue, where the self is defined in a fuzzy way based on power different things/people have on each other. But now I understand the issue better it seems that theory was unnecessary.
(It seems the immortality institute, wta-talk and other transhumanist discussion forums are moving towards a similar closure. [update Daniel Dennett's Article, "The Self as a Centre of Narrative Gravity" suggests a similar thing, so there does seem to be a trend to a similar conclusion])
The concept of self... is an illusion. Well actually its a practice simplification, which is not useful in morals. The ‘self’ is a simplified psychological model of a collection of similar personality points. I will explain:
Over most of conventional human experience. One meat body = a relatively consistent personality points at given times. So we evolved a sense of self. We used it to model others minds and our own subconscious over time. But this ‘sense’ is only a general rule which becomes maladapted outside the environment it evolved for. But we have invested heavily in the concept with our morality, our justice system, our personal relations, and our language.
Even in the past there have been problems with the concept when confronted with rare things like; multiple personality disorder, sudden conversion, amnesia, brain damage, Alzheimer's, and conjoined twins.
In the future the self concept will be even more inaccurate (this is why transhumanists are leading this area of philosophy - they see the thought experiments become reality sooner than general people)
Normally we would just adjust the concept of self, and this is what has been attempted with thread theory and pattern theory. But these theories try to fit with the old evolved intuitions and also are based on a lack of understanding of the purpose of the ‘self’ concept. ultimately they fall out through 1) change 2) rate of change 3) unjustified appeal to intuition(this is a common flaw in philosophy). Instead of patching up the theroy of self. Lets use this opertunity to undertand it better, and thus understand ourselves and out world better.
The reason people think this matters is; if we choose the ‘wrong’ theory of self we limit/kill our ‘selves’. The concept of self has also been used as unjustified a basis for morality(the assumption that the self unit is what you should automatically feel loyalty to just because this is evolutionarily a good idea).
You see why should we assume the race, or the individual, or nations, or family, or cells, or genes, or memes, or the cortex, or species, or life etc is the basic unit of morality?
In short I don’t think any arbitrary unit should be a basis of morality. Instead my basis is a justified goal. That goal I would argue is the meaning of life (I will blog this later). The implications of this are obvious. I'm now a kind of altruist. Which feels strange for me –a former immortilist libertarian – to be saying.
(It seems the immortality institute, wta-talk and other transhumanist discussion forums are moving towards a similar closure. [update Daniel Dennett's Article, "The Self as a Centre of Narrative Gravity" suggests a similar thing, so there does seem to be a trend to a similar conclusion])
The concept of self... is an illusion. Well actually its a practice simplification, which is not useful in morals. The ‘self’ is a simplified psychological model of a collection of similar personality points. I will explain:
Over most of conventional human experience. One meat body = a relatively consistent personality points at given times. So we evolved a sense of self. We used it to model others minds and our own subconscious over time. But this ‘sense’ is only a general rule which becomes maladapted outside the environment it evolved for. But we have invested heavily in the concept with our morality, our justice system, our personal relations, and our language.
Even in the past there have been problems with the concept when confronted with rare things like; multiple personality disorder, sudden conversion, amnesia, brain damage, Alzheimer's, and conjoined twins.
In the future the self concept will be even more inaccurate (this is why transhumanists are leading this area of philosophy - they see the thought experiments become reality sooner than general people)
Normally we would just adjust the concept of self, and this is what has been attempted with thread theory and pattern theory. But these theories try to fit with the old evolved intuitions and also are based on a lack of understanding of the purpose of the ‘self’ concept. ultimately they fall out through 1) change 2) rate of change 3) unjustified appeal to intuition(this is a common flaw in philosophy). Instead of patching up the theroy of self. Lets use this opertunity to undertand it better, and thus understand ourselves and out world better.
The reason people think this matters is; if we choose the ‘wrong’ theory of self we limit/kill our ‘selves’. The concept of self has also been used as unjustified a basis for morality(the assumption that the self unit is what you should automatically feel loyalty to just because this is evolutionarily a good idea).
You see why should we assume the race, or the individual, or nations, or family, or cells, or genes, or memes, or the cortex, or species, or life etc is the basic unit of morality?
In short I don’t think any arbitrary unit should be a basis of morality. Instead my basis is a justified goal. That goal I would argue is the meaning of life (I will blog this later). The implications of this are obvious. I'm now a kind of altruist. Which feels strange for me –a former immortilist libertarian – to be saying.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
I joined the debating society at the beginning of the year. And and it has been very fun!
I think debating is a productive hobby, as it increases your public speaking (studies have shown this effects pay in many jobs), it helps you to convince people, and see the crux of arguments.
Suprisingly though debaters drink very heavily. Claytons the debating competition I went to a week ago, involved a lot of drinking. We also have the great cask wine debate. And byo debsoc dinners every now and again. The a good bebator is almost measured by your ability to function with a hangover!
I think debating is a productive hobby, as it increases your public speaking (studies have shown this effects pay in many jobs), it helps you to convince people, and see the crux of arguments.
Suprisingly though debaters drink very heavily. Claytons the debating competition I went to a week ago, involved a lot of drinking. We also have the great cask wine debate. And byo debsoc dinners every now and again. The a good bebator is almost measured by your ability to function with a hangover!
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The Mad Monk Walks by the Graveyard
The Mad Monk Walks by the Graveyard
It is strange to think that we will live and die under this grey sky,
After years of the same things;
After eating, weeping, sleeping, and loving,
Sin, and even some happyness, I am sure.
We are born, then die
as those before and afore us;
Can anything inbetween matter so;
First grow, then marry and father, age
And go hither oblivion, leaving neither trace nor name
It is strange to be a man, so like a God,
And yet to be so small.
It is strange to think that we will live and die under this grey sky,
After years of the same things;
After eating, weeping, sleeping, and loving,
Sin, and even some happyness, I am sure.
We are born, then die
as those before and afore us;
Can anything inbetween matter so;
First grow, then marry and father, age
And go hither oblivion, leaving neither trace nor name
It is strange to be a man, so like a God,
And yet to be so small.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Thread theory improved
As for personal identity,
my new thinking is that our self consciousness is an illusion. What we see as a self is a collection of instant-long persons using pretty much the same brain over time. (I think this crazy thing, because if you try to work out what is the real you when you split into two in various ways, you begin to ask questions - which mostly are rhetoric and beside the point)
But this brings up the question which matters. Why should one person, bother working... after all it's another person in the future that will starve, not you.
So why should we feel loyalty to our future selves?
My tentative answer;
Power-thread. This basically say we are a structure of power, the contents don't matter. It's similar to a club or corporations identity.
Who we have power over we should be loyal to. And who we have power over is an extention of 'us'.
It doesn't have the change problem that the pattern hypothesis does. It's basically the thread hypothsis redifined without the silly problem of decontruction/reconstruction. And without the arbitary; change is alright as long as it isn't sudden bit.
During duplication it says this;
A splits into B and C. A has power over how B and C will be so A feels loyalty to B and C. B and C don't neccisarily share goals (they might both want a pie, but for themselves), so they either co-operate and are partly the loyal to each other (and the 'same'), or not.
However it stil has the problem, that you can't tell how to make your future selves do what you want, so you can only have x<100% power over them. And you have less and less power over your future selves, as you look further forward. OF course this may just be the way things are.
So all this means is you should preserve a imperitive in you mental constitution that says "in the future I will resurect all my past selves if possible, and never get rid of this imperitive." This will get round the slow death of your present self over time.
my new thinking is that our self consciousness is an illusion. What we see as a self is a collection of instant-long persons using pretty much the same brain over time. (I think this crazy thing, because if you try to work out what is the real you when you split into two in various ways, you begin to ask questions - which mostly are rhetoric and beside the point)
But this brings up the question which matters. Why should one person, bother working... after all it's another person in the future that will starve, not you.
So why should we feel loyalty to our future selves?
My tentative answer;
Power-thread. This basically say we are a structure of power, the contents don't matter. It's similar to a club or corporations identity.
Who we have power over we should be loyal to. And who we have power over is an extention of 'us'.
It doesn't have the change problem that the pattern hypothesis does. It's basically the thread hypothsis redifined without the silly problem of decontruction/reconstruction. And without the arbitary; change is alright as long as it isn't sudden bit.
During duplication it says this;
A splits into B and C. A has power over how B and C will be so A feels loyalty to B and C. B and C don't neccisarily share goals (they might both want a pie, but for themselves), so they either co-operate and are partly the loyal to each other (and the 'same'), or not.
However it stil has the problem, that you can't tell how to make your future selves do what you want, so you can only have x<100% power over them. And you have less and less power over your future selves, as you look further forward. OF course this may just be the way things are.
So all this means is you should preserve a imperitive in you mental constitution that says "in the future I will resurect all my past selves if possible, and never get rid of this imperitive." This will get round the slow death of your present self over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
