Saturday, February 28, 2015

Vote Bank Espresso Love

Hi! Happy Saturday!

Dedicated to Leonard Nimoy! 

"I have been, and always shall be, your friend."
-Leonard Nimoy, Spock to Kirk, Nimoy to the World.

This post is about empathy and is dedicated to Leonard Nimoy. If only...we could all look into each others eyes and express this empathy. Mmmmm. Leonard made this statement and for many of us world over we felt he was speaking directly to us. Agape. A kind person indeed. So long Leonard!

Yesterday I proposed a solution. That solution was to take the science of six-degrees of separation and build an empathy map between groups of peoples. I was only joking about Facebook. In closing I suggested that Facebook build this map. Ha! That suggestion was mostly illustrative just to highlight the fact that Facebook has 1.25 billion active monthly users today and that technically building this map is very doable today.  Facebook is clueless how to manage world empathy.

However, Irreni has a rock solid plan for managing empathy,  for six-degree maps using the Device of Life [DoL]. One of the DoL's primary applications is the Vote Bank. The Vote Bank turns voting on its head where votes are deposited perpetually and not cast on a given day. A person's vote for an elected position is always on deposit. The Vote Bank then is akin to a financial bank where instead of depositing money into our bank account then we deposit votes into our vote account.

Technology got us to 7 billion people and so it is that the highest capacity for technology is now a requirement for governing. Irreni brings the political process into the 21st century.

The Vote Bank addresses these critical aspects to world scale:
  1. World Empathy
  2. Corruption
  3. Franchise
  4. Communication
The Vote Bank voting depends on the following:
  1. Public voting
  2. Bribes
  3. Vote who you know
  4. Random elections
As I am a person who has a certain capability it is always a challenge trying to convey certain thing...in this case public voting and legal bribing. To me it is so obvious because scale is my wheelhouse. However, most people are private people and react to public voting and bribing with revulsion. Understandably so. If the "man" knows your vote then he will come after you and maybe fire you from your job or worse. We all can see the detrimental effects corruption and bribery has on our governments.

You are not thinking in the billions. I am, that's the key difference. So, I'm going to ask you to take off your one-person hat for a moment and put on a billions hat and hear me out as I make the cases.

Public Voting

  1. Anyone can pick up on anyone else's political leanings just from casual conversation. The point here is that your actual vote in the voting booth is moot when it comes to political discrimination and those you know. If you live under a tyrannical government and violent threat for voting the wrong way then voting is meaningless anyway.
  2. People will use the thinnest of casual information to make judgements if that is their objective. People looking to discriminate typically do so for the thinnest of reasons, even skin color.
  3. The "man" already knows how you vote and the proof is called house-by-house gerrymandering. They, as in the government, already knows how you vote so as to gerrymander house-to-house. Your vote is being manipulated by putting you in a district where everyone votes like you.
  4. Most people are good.
  5. Most people are not looking to judge you to the point of harming you on the thinnest of casual conversation or even direct knowledge. I'm an atheist. I do not worry about religious persecution in the modern world. Trust me, the people who would discriminate against me are not the people I would want to work for and they are few and far between. This is kinda the same notion as what Groucho Marx was going for when he said, "I would not join a club that would have me as a member." If someone doesn't want to hire me because I'm an atheist then the feeling of is reciprocated, I do not want to work for them.
  6. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. There are always exceptions to the rule but for the sake of the greater good of the benefits of public voting will materialize discrimination. The vast majority of public voters will not experience discrimination.
Bribes
  1. Most people are corruptible. Ok, I just made the claim that our human nature is that most people are good. It appears I just contradicted myself. Let me rephrase. Most people are good in that people in general do not wish or work to harm people. Taking a bribe doesn't directly harm people or express maliciousness. I first heard the following corruption truthiness from Dean Martin who said, "A man is only as loyal as his opportunities." A man who gets chased by a lot of women has a lot of opportunity and will be less loyal than otherwise. Benjamin Franklin expressed this by recommending that men always hire old lady secretaries.
  2. Checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution is modeled on allowing corruption. The Continental Congress contemplated having the Supreme Court review all laws before passing them on to the President. However they did not because of Adams. Adams used Cicero as his guiding star when writing the original constitution of the entire planet Earth for Massachusetts. Cicero lamented that the fall of Democracy in Rome was in part due to a government that did not allow for any corruption. Power corrupts human nature so therefore corruption was unchecked because there was no way to recognize, acknowledge or control corruption in Rome. Adams created the theory of checks and balances and argued that by allowing corrupted laws to pass Congress and the President then corruption had an outlet. Only later would the Supreme Court check the corruption by overturning corrupt laws. For the record, money is not the only kind of corruption. Populist heat-of-the-moment corruption also exists. The incident that comes to my mind that is most flagrant is that of Terri Schiavo. The Schiavo bill passed the House on March 21, 2005 at 12:41 a.m. (UTC-5). U.S. President George W. Bush flew to Washington, D.C. from his vacation in Texas in order to sign the bill into law at 1:11 a.m. What is remarkable about this populist bill is that for the first time in American history a bill was written for a single person. A single person. Truly a populist-heated moment and corrupted bill passed Congress. The Supreme Court fulfilled its duty and checked the Congress by overturning the bill. 
  3. Bribery being illegal does not do away with bribes, but instead limits of the number of people to bribe. If bribing is made legal then the number of people to be bribed is 7 billion.  That's impossible. In college I took a civics class. In that class the professor espoused that one of the strengths of the American form of government is that government is federated. A federated government is very difficult to bribe. According to the professor that between the Federal, State and Municipal governments there where just too many people to bribe. Sadly, this feature of federation has been neutered by a central government so big and so powerful that our state and local governments have been rendered mostly impotent. 

Let's put the bribery and public voting observations together and draw a picture.  The Vote Bank means your vote is always on deposit. Public voting means your vote is always visible. Now you can be bribed. Someone pays you money and you change your vote in the bank. The change can be seen, money paid.

Vote for who you know

I have yet to settle on a name for "vote for who you know" voting. The idea is simple enough, you can only cast votes for people you know and the number of people you are allowed to claim to know requires a reciprocation by the other party. Further, vote for who you know has a cap, say thirty people.  Thirty people is just for the sake of this conversation. Vote are tallied by counting all the votes in the six-degree vote network. For example, assuming a six-degree chain of 'A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F' then the candidate 'F' has six votes. One direct vote and five indirect votes.

Vote for who you know optimizes empathy and mitigates corruption, permanently.

Let us say you are the Koch brothers in 2015 and you want to buy a politician. Today it is easy, just pay the politician a large enough bribe and finance the campaign. Done

The Irreni system is not so "done".
  1. Any one person has at most thirty direct votes. To win an election then the most vote getter will necessarily require maintaining a network of six-degrees so as to garner the most votes. Bribe money will need to be distributed. 
  2. Campaigning is inferior to bribing. If your choices are to watch $50 worth of campaign TV ads or to get $50 in your pocket, which are your going to choose?
  3. Former campaign finance money is now spent bribing the "vote for who you know" network. The money gets diluted. 
  4. Public voting starts a bidding war. 
  5. Since bribing is legal we can see the corruption first-hand in the system. 
  6. We can take action to appeal to individuals to vote their conscience and not the bribe. 
  7. Corruption's influence is diluted per person since the money necessarily needs to be distributed.
John Adams along with a cast of thousands have all lamented "woe be the day that voters realize they can vote themselves money." Legal bribing takes this notion and flips its head. People get bribed for their votes. Good people participate in the same system as corrupt people, a legal corruption system. Good people can ethically take the most money and still be good.

Random elections

Random elections are critical to making the legal bribing system work. Random elections are defined as during any given term of office then each day can be randomly chosen for the next election, including the first day of the current term. For example, when the next President of the U.S. takes office on January 20th 2016 then that is the first day available for random election. The entire four-year term is the period available for random elections.

Random elections make bribes risky, especially in the beginning. Paying off a bribe would only happen after an election and then your public vote is noted as having been cast as was bribed. Paying someone off by bribing them for the entire term will be much more expensive than bribing only at the end. You have a 50-50 chance of bribing the winner half-way through a term. You can concentrate your money and garner better odds in the last half of a term. Corruption then becomes diluted by odds making and uncertainty of the election day. Campaigning becomes problematic as well, opening the field of candidates.

Social Pressure

All election bribes become public knowledge in this system. People who take bribes can be managed. Studies can be done has to why and then social changes can be made to discourage bribing. A measure of how well any society is functioning can be a measure of the amount of open corruption. Less corrupt societies will be measurable.

Empathy Maps

Finally, vote for who you know becomes the empathy map presented in my previous post. People who you vote for represent someone you feel best represents your interests. No Facebook required as my previous post suggest. The public vote map doubles as an empathy map. Initially there will be challenges with the empathy map not having enough cross-over between countries and continents but with the Internet this can be easily remedied with virtual communities, virtual elections and world-wide voting.

 To conclude

The Vote Bank as outlined above optimizes empathy. Empathy is optimized by voting for those you empathize the most, vote for who you know. Corruption is checked in part by opening the population to be bribed to everyone. Bribery being made legal means bribery can be dealt with out in the open. This system also allows for good people to do good things and for corruption to co-exist. As Cicero said, promote the good and allow the corrupt.

The Vote Bank balances voting for money directly with voting for the best candidate. Voters using the 2015 election systems are voting themselves money but there is no avenue for voting the best candidate; just candidates promoted by corrupted parties. The Irreni Vote bank resolves this problem by six-degrees voting. This is realized by voting for a trusted voter, not a trusted candidate.  Take for example the case of trusted voter Jenny. Jenny is blogger and reporter and she is also known for her integrity. In Jenny's six-degree of voting network she represents a block of one-million votes for President of the U.S. People vote for people who vote for Jenny because they trust Jenny. Jenny writes and blogs about the candidate she has currently cast her vote. If she changes her vote for any reason she writes about her change. Jenny's vote block is contingent on her apparent integrity. If Jenny takes a bribe then her entire network falls apart. Jenny then votes for the best candidate, assuring her vote block remains in tact. This example illustrates how even with bribery being legal we can exercise our integrity and vote the best candidate for office. Voting the best candidate in 2015 is not possible in our corrupted two-party system today. Voting the best candidate is built into the Irreni Vote Bank model.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!








Friday, February 27, 2015

7 Billion Empathy

Hi! Happy Thursday!

How does each one of us realize empathy for seven billion people?

The Greeks had a word for this kind of love, agape love. One of the reasons I work on Irreni is as an expression of that agape.

But seriously, how do you have empathy for seven billion people?

Before we get to the solution though let us explicate the full nature of the problem by picking on the Muslims.  I'm picking on the Muslims because the world seems to be set against those folk these days.

We've reached a point now where if you criticize a Muslim then you are automatically called a bigot.

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1][2] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.
I have been called a bigot on many occasions simply because I am an outspoken atheist. I'm an outspoken, strident anti-theist. Religion is bad. Religion is evil. However, I always attack the ideas. For example I attack the idea that any entity that kills all humans on planet Earth in a great flood save one family is evil, therefore any religion based upon that entity must be evil.  However, when someone like myself attacks ideas one must be ready to be called a bigot and a hater for just attacking the ideas, or even just stating facts.

How do we have empathy for the 1.5 billion Muslims in this world? How do we have empathy for people who attack ideas that define who we are?

Let's get down to the root of the problem. The reason people need to keep saying there are 1.5 billion Muslims over and over again is that the Muslims do not just have a terrorist PR problem, they have a PR problem. Here are a couple of thought exercises to consider:

  1. Who wants to live in a Muslim country?
  2. Name on prominent populist Muslim you like?
  3. Name one thing Muslim people are known for besides terrorism?
  4. Name a Muslim? 
The problem with the Muslim community is that they are invisible to the rest of world.   So much so we constantly have to be reminded there are 1.5 billion of them, much to our surprise. The Muslims  don't just have a terrorist PR problem they have PR problem: the reason the terrorist image sticks is because there is no other image in people's minds to contrast that image with. Nothing.

This public relations problem makes having agape love for Muslims a challenge for the world.

And to be perfectly blunt about it, the Muslims owe us no image. If Muslims want to mind their own business and have nothing to do with the non-Muslim world in general, more power to 'um. I kinda have a soft spot for people who mind their own business.

The PR problem is best illustrated by the fact that the only reason we non-Muslims are to believe that Islam is a religion of peace is because the Muslims tell us so. We have to take their word for it because we have no experience with this. Doctors without borders was founded by France. Name one such charity founded by a Muslim country. Name one. Words alone are the only thing that can tell us non-Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace because we no direct experience with this. Muslims have no players on the world stage. Well, other than the terrorists and the warmongers. Religion of peace? What? That's not what I see on TV and in the news?

This is blog about solutions. The above was the set up for the empathy of 7 billion people solution.

Let us start with some basic facts.

  1. Humans have the most empathy for people closest to them.
  2. Six degrees of separation. Every person on this planet is connected to every other person via six degrees of separation. 
  3. 7 billion people is a big number. Six-degrees of separation is not. 
  4. We now have the ability to telecommute. We can represent ourselves via a technological filter. 
 The solution takes the shape in the form of a thought experiment:
Imagine you are wearing a robotic empathy suit of armor shaped like a person that completely engulfs you. This suit is giant size. This robotic suit is so large that inside it you have enough room to walk around a little,  you can swing your fists and hit nothing, you can jump up and down. The suit comes with a computer and an AI, artificial intelligence. The purpose of the suit is for the AI to restate everything you say, including non-verbal communication, such that whatever culture you are in and whomever you are talking too then you can never say anything insulting, hateful or impolite due to being rude or politically incorrect.

This thought experiment would be a great invention for people with reduced social group skills. When they say "fuck you" then the AI says, "nice haircut!" When touchy people go to touch someone then the AI does nothing. Great! Imagine how many people who cannot work today due to limited social skills could find work with such a robotic suit of armor. Those limited social skill words are translated. Woot!

Just to be clear the translation works both way. If the person inside the suit responds better to "fuck you" then the "nice haircut" comment from outside of the suit would get translated to "fuck you" to the person on the inside of the suit. The point of the suit is to make all communication between humans high functioning given the social group characteristics of each person.

That's the social thought experiment. Does this suit provide 7 billion people with empathy? Does this new robotic suit stop bigotry? No. A bigot can still pass a law against gay marriage, they would just be very polite about it.

The point of the this thought exercise is empathy. The suit translates verbal and non-verbal communication into apparent empathy. I can imagine in the not too distant future folks with limited apparent social skills and therefore apparent lack-of-empathy will be enabled to work via telecommuting and exclusively using avatars the function along the same lines as this robotic suit, translating social skills.

The suit's main benefit would be to provide people who really do have empathy but then express it incorrectly a new way to always correctly express it. The suit enables what might appear to be lack of empathy with the right appearance.

If all 7 billion people on this planet had our new suit would things improve? Yes because I think at the end of the day non-stereotypes get translated. For example there are 1.5 billion Muslims. There are as many different cultures in the Muslim community as there exists many different cultures within any set of 1.5 billion people on this planet. There have to be hundreds of stereotypes the rest of the world has not yet been introduced too about the wide ranging groups of Muslims.

The robotic suit addresses one very real empathy problem, the stranger problem. The suit, by definition, must be loaded with specific information about all 7 billion people or it wouldn't work. The problem with the Muslim community is that the only stereotype of Muslims people outside of that Muslim community is a simple one: a terrorist still living in the 12th century culturally. Bombs and oppressing women. That stereotype isn't even enough to flush out a cartoon character, let alone 7 billion people. Because of no stereotypes then when we see Muslims killing cartoonists, the cartoon image fits the cartoon stereotype we have of Muslims and the Muslims must wear it. Ugh.

The thought exercise robotic suit was meant to illustrate the lack of stereotype, lack of empathy stranger problem and subsequently lack of all apparent empathy in the real world today. The theoretical robotic suit also solves the genetic problem of lack of social skills. Still, the robotic empathy suit will not be able to prevent group bigotry when the only images and stereotypes people have of another group are negative ones. I will always have a soft spot for the French because they founded Doctors without Borders. We are missing these kinda stereotypes for Muslims.

To prevent group bigotry due to only having negative images of strangers then we need a robotic empathy suit upgrade. We need to upgrade from a theoretical robot to real people.

The people you have the most empathy for are those closest to you. That is a fact of human nature. Therefore, using the fact of six-degrees-of-separation then when we communicate with strangers we do so only using our six-degrees of separation chain. This maximizes empathy by negotiating with someone that you have empathy for.

The solution then is that we only negotiate with people closest to us for whom we have the most empathy for. We utilize the discovery of the six-degrees-of-separation chain to maximize people personally knowing each other so as to materialize empathy for all 7 billion people.

Our new chain of empathy acts like our robotic empathy suit but with the addition of being able to negotiate.

Today kinda practice this notion. We call this notion "ambassadors". Ambassadors typically, but not always, speak the language of both countries. Often ambassadors have lived in the foreign country. The issue today is that ambassadors are only one degree of separation and also they have no real negotiating power. The United Nations acts kinda like an ambassador chain of empathy. However, the United Nations doesn't truly scale either because that institution embodies only a country. A country like China has a billion people. Empathy problem not solved.

If we are really going to bring about world class empathy chains then we all must stand at the ready to be ambassadors because finding the six-degrees will involve a map, a new Facebook map, that maps human empathy connections and not just road connections.

Welcome to the information age! How exciting! Let's get Facebook to map those empathy connections! Facebook already has 1.25 billion monthly unique users. We can now realize human maps of connections. We have the technology to map the six-degrees of separation so as to bring about real empathy for all seven billion people: the empathy chain.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and Well met!

Monday, February 23, 2015

Oscars from a distance

Hi! Happy Monday!

Yesterday was the Oscars, and Steven Hawking, the subject of "The Theory of Everything" had this to say in an interview: 

Forget doomsday asteroids, global plagues and super volcanoes. British theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking says we're facing a much more immediate threat -- and it's our own behavior.
The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression,” Hawking told contest winner Adaeze Uyanwah, according to the Independent. Hawking chose aggression and warned that a nuclear war could end civilization and possibly the human race. We need to replace aggression with empathy, which "brings us together in a peaceful loving state,” he said.The subject of "The Theory of Everything" also told her that the future of man lies beyond Earth.

Yes indeed. The Device of Life gives everyone on this planet a connection to everyone else. The Data Center on the Moon lies beyond Earth. The DCOTM contains all of humankind's public knowledge out of danger and out of reach of our natural aggression and threat of nuclear war. It is a legacy for our children. It is a future legacy for many generations of children.

Finally, the Device of Life,  the DCTOM, the Vote Bank, the Universal Schema, public person profiles,  the Information Rule, the Right of Importance and all of the pillars of Irreni culminate to an overarching objective of mass empathy.

Mass empathy. 

Scale your empathy, scale the world.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and Well met!

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!






Sunday, February 22, 2015

Violence Escalates Violence

Hi! Sunday!

Zoom zoom!

I saw this story on Fox News today.

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/posts/10153001369026336

I invite you to read the comments of the above Facebook post. Reading the comments is wholly depressing. People cheering and celebrating death. Fox News and their followers. Ugh and Ugly.

There is an expression in the humanist community:
If you need religion to keep you from murdering and stealing then you don't have a problem with people not of your religion, but you have a problem with your empathy being missing.
There are two aspects of the above pharmacist killing the robber that will illustrate the pharmacist's evil:
  1. 1% of armed robberies end in death and 3% end in serious injury. 
  2. M.A.D., or mutually assured destruction.  

 

Evil One: 

A human life is worth more than property.

My morality is such that if a drug addict or other burglar broke into my home with me at home then morally that the burglar's life is worth more than whatever property is stolen. I'd tell the burglar to take what he wanted. I'm insured and I'd tell him that.  I'm funny that way, valuing life over property. But it is not just that. I've studied crime statistics. Only 1% of armed robberies end with death of the victim. Okay, 1% is 1% but the burglar's life is worth the risk in my moral spectrum. I accept the risk of death when I drive my car. If I were robbed at gunpoint I'd accept the risk of death.  I consider those who carry out death sentences for robbing property immoral and evil for placing property value above human life value. That robber the pharmacist killed was there to score drugs. If the pharmacist had given the kid the drugs then no one had to die.

 

Evil Two:

Escalating violence.
 
There are more guns in America than there are people. If guns deterred violence then America should be the safest country bar none. We are not. We are one of the most dangerous countries to live in when it comes to crime.
  1.  http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Robberies
  2.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The above two links show the statistics where Japan has no guns and ranks one of lowest on the armed robbery and murder charts per capita within the world. America is nowhere near the bottom. What's going on? Those of us who do not buy lottery tickets often joke that lottery tickets are for people who can't do math. We should include guns in that notion. Guns and lottery tickets are for people who can't do math. Oh and we should include vaccines too. Guns, lottery tickets and not getting vaccinated are for people who can't do math.

There has been a lot of education recently with vaccines and human herd morality, that for the benefit of the herd people need to get vaccinated. If you do not vaccinate the risk is not just to yourself but the entire herd. The same can be said about guns and violence.

How does violence really work? Violence does not deter violence, violence escalates violence. There is no evidence that killing robbers deter robbing. If killing deterred crime then gang neighborhoods should be the safest in the country. Gang neighborhoods are the worst. Robbery and murder are highest in gang neighborhoods in this country. People are packing exposed, not concealed, and gang members killing gang members does not deter crime. Violence escalates the violence threat. Our government has a word for this, MAD.

The evil, immoral act done by the pharmacist killing the robber is that he just placed every pharmacist in the future who gets robbed at greater risk of getting shot pre-emptively. 

Human nature is such that the Hobbesian Trap is our nature. The Hobbesian trap points out the escalation nature of violence.

When I lived in Oakland I saw this first-hand. In the gang communities where everyone is packing and ready to shoot then the pre-emptive strikes escalate. Drive-by shootings are common. Children are getting regularly shot through walls and killed in gang communities due to drive-by-shootings. Why put your own life at risk when a risk-free one exists: pre-emptive strike. This is the Hobbesian Trap the conceal carry folks are falling into. The concealed carry weapon people are insane. The entire history of human nature is that of violence escalates with humans. The current correlation of lower crime rates in concealed carry weapon states defies human nature and therefore cannot be causation when one considers all of human history, our American gangs and human nature.

So the pharmacist killing the robber, those advocating concealed carry, are doing harm to the herd. By escalating violence robbers are going to be more trigger happy and eventually resort to pre-emptive violence. The false notion that armed robbery goes down due to killing robbers can be seen first-hand by simply considering any gang community. Criminals thrive on violence, against each other and against us non-criminals. 

Violence escalates violence. Jesus said something similar in The Bible. The irony of Jesus getting this right is that for all the things that Jesus said that were wrong about human nature,  Jesus gets this violence notion right.  Yet his followers don't get it, don't get the lesson that violence escalates violence and that is our human nature.
  1. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
  2. Don't fight at all, pre-emptively strike.
The pharmacist put the herd at greater risk when there was only a 1% chance he was going to die. This is no different than the folks who do not vaccinate. The pharmacist valued his property over the life of robber when he killed a robber looking to steal drugs. If the robber were looking to kill he would have pre-emptively started shooting.

Charles Dickens wrote, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." People who advocate killing for robbery have no herd awareness and the greater risk they are putting the herd at. Escalating violence is a friend of the criminal, not the non-criminal. Escalating violence with concealed carry and soon the criminals will shoot first and not ask, car-jackers will not ask you to get out of the car when they car-jack you they will just shoot you in the head and take your car. If you do not believe this is possible realize that kids and babies are being killed in drive by shootings. That is the nature of escalation.

Scale:


How to scale violence? Should we ban guns?

I consider the answer to this the same answer as for religion itself. Should we ban religion?

No and no. We need to educate people. People need to understand, buy into , take ownership personally and emotionally relate to abandoning violence and religion. Abandoning drugs. Secularism is the key. People should have the right to practice their religion and their guns...and drugs.

You cannot legislate away religion, guns or drugs. You can educate. That is my purpose here in this blog post, to educate a greater morality calling the pharmacist evil for killing the robber. The scale solution, the scale position is that people need freedom to come to grips with these important aspects of human nature...religion, violence and guns...on their own terms. This is not the same as with vaccines. Disease can kill millions of people quickly, much faster and with greater ferocity than religion, guns or drugs. We can't afford the personal liberty and freedom to allow people to choose to vaccinate. 

So now we know how to implement what Charles Dickens said where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.  Educate not legislate. We should favor towards the side of individual liberty and freedom; educate moral lessons where time permits. Educate people about the nature of violence, religion and drugs. Where mental health problems exist we help and legislate that.  This means educating people on a day-by-day, case-by-case basis. Understanding people's mental health.  Only in extreme cases as with diseases and vaccines should we ever sacrifice personal liberty.

Finally, it is true that accepting risks associated with guns, drugs and religion is an evil unto itself, causing great harm possibly mitigated by legislation. However, if one believes that power and control of the people should be by the people,of the people and for the people and not a government or other specialized social group then this sacrifice of risk must be.  As Thomas Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. This eternal vigilance is constant people education of the best sort, the highest moral standards in such away that people willingly support the needs of the many balanced with the needs of the one given the resources of a any particular time. This is an every changing morality relative to population size, population traits and Earthy resources.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!
















Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Absolute Power

Hi! Happy Tuesday!

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I stated the other day that the foundation of all religion is a fundamental artifact of our human nature: we want the explanation of life to be as important and as complicated as we see the importance and intricacies of our life.

I do not have this natural trait for whatever reason. This conflation of importance, however, does not just apply to religion. Oh no. It also applies to power.

It is popular in the anti-theist community to quote the following:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
 Is what Steven said true? I argue yes-and-no. The truth, if you will, is easily observable and much easier to explain.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is not religion that perverts our nature, but concentration of power. The unfairness of that power rubs up against another aspect of human nature: fairness.  Why don't the poor murder the rich? Napoleon came to the same conclusion as Steven. Napoleon said religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

But Napoleon missed the mark. It is not religion but ideology. Religion is a form of ideology. Ideology is a system designed for one overarching purpose: to inoculate the powerful from fairness. That's it. Ideology works by taking our innate need for importance and utilizing that for concentrating power.

Irreni means innovation replaces revolution, engineering not ideology. There is a reason for this. The very simple explanation for good people doing bad things is absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remove the power from good people and they will go back to doing good. Oh sure there is a higher percentage of socio-paths and psychopaths amongst the powerful but it is very minor. Most of the powerful are good people doing bad things. More power, more bad.

Irreni breaks the cycle of empires for good by permanently breaking the concentration of power. Once Irreni is in place power is distributed. First decisions are spread out amongst us all and so power. Second, power is ever shifted among groups and never allowed to corrupt for very long.

This is why I state the purpose of this blog and Irreni World Scale is not ideology, it is anti-ideology: engineering and innovation. You will always need new ways to distribute power because our human nature will always find ways of concentrating it within any fixed system. There will never be some form of Democracy, Republicanism, Communism or Socialism we can just settle on. Social groups will be ever changing.

America today is following the cycle of empires and like all empires for one very simple reason: absolute power corrupts good people. If we are ever to get out from underneath this corruption we need to distribute power and then again move power continuously among people using technology, engineering and innovation.

This is the purpose of Irreni World Scale.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!




Monday, February 16, 2015

Genetic Engineering, Our Shared Responsibility

h I ! h A p P y  M o N d A y !

This is for Nancy, someone I met at Starbucks yesterday and had a chat with her and her friend about synthetic biology.

My current occupation is DNA construction, synthetic biology. I'm working on an AI engine of my invention to slice and splice DNA. My next leap is to combine two separate synthetic strategies and pick a combined winner amalgamating the two.

My previous stint in genetic engineering was in report writing of drug metabolism. The idea there being coming up with the correct dosage of drugs based on a persons metabolism using genetic testing.

In both of these genetic engineering endeavors of work there arises the topic of ethics. Genetic testing will sequence your genome and the insurance companies will know everything about your health as is determined by your genetics. Synthetic biology is GMO food and someday people.

Should we?

Our generation has failed miserably to provide the ethics that go with technology.

Our generation, my generation, has done a bang up job inventing technology. Ahh, the wonders never cease and we crave more. Well, I do anyway. ha! However, what we sorely lack as result is as Martin Luther King Jr. put in back in the 1960s, "technological advancement today is such that we have guided missiles  and misguided men."

We have failed to embrace our national ethics, starting with missiles and men. Should we have spent money going to the moon or better spent that money feeding the poor?

Joseph Campbell tried to wrestle with this dilemma back in the 1940s. America was ethically caught with its pants down when we dropped the atomic bomb. Was dropping the atomic bomb right? Was it wrong? Campbell posited that if we are ever to get out in front of science ethically then we need speculative fiction. Joseph Campbell lobbied and won for science fiction to become its own Dewey Decimal classification system. We believed, at that time, we should attempt to get ahead of the ethical debate.

What are the correct ethics with genetic engineering? super computers? robots? Cyborgs? over-population?

All of these topics have been covered in great detail in speculative fiction as to possible ethical positions. Where are we today? Where we were when science-fiction first started: the literature establishment still to this day vilifies and denigrates sci-fi.

Well screw them. Literature critics will someday be looked back at in history and attributed as having done a  great harm to the cause of science and the cause of humanity; all for snobbery of good prose. Literature critics have brought us nothing and yet managed to damage us greatly. Screw them. I have no respect for literature critics. None. Anyone who thinks science-fiction is simply childhood fantasies knows nothing about the topic at all or even why science fiction was given its own classification in the first place.

Should we proceed with uninhibited abandon with computers? Will AI destroy humanity as told in the movie "Terminator" when computers become self-aware? Should we program every robot with Asimov's three rules of robotics?

Should we embrace genetic engineering?

I'd like to recommend a book on this topic, Roger Zelazny's Hugo Award winning "The Lord of Light." In "The Lord of Light", Zelazny tackles two great issues: genetic engineering and accelerationism.

  1. Genetic engineering:

    Zelazny took Campbell's mandates seriously and engaged history, mythology and our best understanding of human nature to project into the future. His conclusion? If we are not careful the Divine Right of Kings claimed throughout all of history will become reality. If we are not careful only the very rich and the very powerful will be able to afford genetic engineering. Because of this they will use this advantage to enact tyranny. Over time these "super-humans" will be superior to enough to the average person that claims of divine blessings will appear to the lay person a proven reality.

  2. Accelerationism:

    Accelerationism goes hand-in-hand with Zelazny's genetic engineering prediction of the Divine Right of Kings. We face accelerationism today. Today we know that China and India cannot accelerate their day-to-day technological lives to those of the United States without seriously damaging the environment and Earth. Therefore we are morally obligated to prevent that acceleration of technological advancement. This is accelerationism defined. What we have today is a moral dilemma we refuse to discuss. Zelazny took this dilemma one step farther and posited what if the genetically superior were to destroy all technology today such that we reverted back to a pre-printing press level of technology then ignorance would abound and the genetically superior would be gods relative to the those born naturally.
Zelazy's conclusion is that a perpetual dystopia may ensue if we do not tackle these issues of genetic engineering coupled with accelerationism head on. We should not allow a technological environment where only the elite can enact genetic engineering because genetic engineering is illegal. And where are we today in discussing the ethics of either one of these issues? Literary critic shame. That's where we are.

What will be my generation's legacy? The legacy of a great blooming of technology or the legacy of a technology's resulting dystopian future about to follow because we, today, do not have the courage to embrace these great moral debates of genetic engineering and accelerationism?

Embracing these moral debates is what this blog, Irreni, is all about: morals world scale!

How thrilling!

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!







Sunday, February 15, 2015

Shaming 101

Hi! Happy Sunday!

I read an op/ed today from Norman Lear about shaming Brian Williams. Lear's point is that we've shamed Williams long enough and that it is time to forgive and move on.

Is it?

If Brian Williams committed suicide tomorrow would we have a national conversation about bullying? How should we think about shaming Brian Williams?

Here are some of the conventional thoughts off the top of my head:
  1. It comes with the territory, the $10 million paycheck. Public figures should expect public humiliation. You sign up for it when you become a public figure. I usually see this argument applied to tragic pop stars Michael Jackson, Linday Lohan or Brittany Spears. 
  2. Bullying is wrong so don't do it. Are we bullying Brian Williams to resign?
  3. It's just a joke.
  4. It is the punishment. I've seen this argument with folks like Anthony Weiner who texted a picture of his package to young girls. I doubt if Norman Lear would call for the end of Anthony Weiner or Bill Cosby jokes. 
So which is it among these precepts? Does shaming come with the territory, is it just  joking, is it the punishment or are we bullying?

"There is no such thing as bad taste, just taste and no taste." - Tiffany

"There is no such thing as thin skinned, just skin and no skin." - Mybrid

Yesterday I posited that the golden rule is evil because it oppresses people different from ourselves. That would certainly be the case here if I were the human nature standard for bullying. You can't bully me. Not with just shame anyway. If I were the standard then there is no holds bar. No amount of shaming is too much. Jokes, bullying, doesn't matter. Why? Firstly it is who I am but also I was raised that sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. Where I grew up unmerited and unwarranted ridicule and mocking is used to toughen children up and also in adulthood as banter between men. Man talk. You're so ugly if I had a dog with a face like yours I'd shave its butt and make it walk backwards. Relentless, unmitigated, unwarranted shaming all the time. So if I were the standard using golden rule and since shaming me doesn't bother me then shame away with total impunity., Done and done.

But that would be immoral to use my own nature to judge everyone. If my human nature were set as the shaming standard then suicides would go up, bullying would go up and oppression would increase. That's evil. That is why the golden rule is evil. We cannot just use our own nature.

The information rule says to treat people as they are, not as you are.

Ok, now what?  Given the information rule should we shame Brian Williams?
  1. What do we know about Brian Williams and shame? I don't know anything. I don't know if Brian has been even asked how he feels or if he has made a statement. 
  2. Am I shaming Brian Williams? I say that I'm not. The jokes are between me and my friends. If Brian Williams had a Facebook page and I went to his site and posted my humor then I'd be shaming Brian Williams.  I would never do that. Why? Because I don't know Brian Williams and how shaming would affect him. 
  3. Is public comedy shaming? This is where I think Norman Lear was pointing his criticism at mostly. Are the late night comedians bullying Brian Williams by making jokes? For example, I heard a joke about a historical bit of news and the punch line was, "and we know this because Brian Williams reported on this back in 1562." Should we stop with the jokes?
  4. Public shaming is a deterrent the same way a penalty of jail is a deterrent. One of the effects of shaming Brian Williams is that it puts all news anchors on notice, now and the future. Lie and you will be shamed.
  5. Shaming is a powerful human nature tool that should not just be dismissed because a few people have little or no tolerance.
 The answer using the information rule is two fold:
  1. Ask Brian Williams 
  2. Constantly weigh the cost and benefits to Brian and the public. 
I think one of the hardest things for religious people to unwind in the information age will be moving away from dogma to moral relativity that requires real-time evaluation. The ever changing moral landscape of the information age will not make moving way from dogma easy. You don't have to think with dogma, a rule is a rule now and forever more. It's lazy and cheapens human life.  The information age uses dynamic moral metrics of whether we have gone to far with each topic case-by-case, as with the shaming Brian Williams, Bill Cosby or Anthony Weiner. Computers give us the power to evaluate morality at the finest level of granularity, the individual.

The information age relative morality brings up two important questions:
  1. Should we be ultra-conservative in lieu of any information being made available? In this case encourage no public shaming ever unless the recipient agrees to it.
  2.  Where do we get our information? 
Imagine for the moment that the Data Center On The Moon exists and we all have the Device of Life. Further assume we've all been classified as to our capacity to handle shame on a scale of one-to-ten where one is none and ten is all. People with thick skin like myself are tens. Someone who suffers from depression and are on a suicide watch are a one. In this future scenario we could easily look up Brian Williams shame profile and see whether it is appropriate or not. We treat Brian as he is, not as we are.

But, today we don't have the DCOTM or the DOL. What to do? The answer is less than satisfactory, similar to alcohol in public where we choose to expose us all to risk but we still demand it. Comedy is to society like alcohol is to society in my view. Yes, comedy with its public humiliation hurts people just like public alcohol, just a different manner. And just like with alcohol I believe we will want and demand comedy even though public shaming can have life threatening effects on the most sensitive among us.

Having said we need to accept public shaming, is universally just accepting public alcohol or public comedy the best we can do morally? No. For example even today we could start up a public registry of alcohol offenders the same as with child molester offenders. We could use this registry to restrict the movements of alcohol offenders in a similar fashion. Why don't we? We should. If someone has a known alcohol problem we should morally and legally prohibit them from entering public establishments that serve alcohol. Why not? It is the best for them and for us.

Today we don't have the DCOTM or the DOL that I'm proposing. We don't even have a national registry of alcohol offenders. What to do? Well, we do the ugly thing and hash it out in the public square. We do what Norman Lear did and when we think things go to far then we speak out so others can decide. If we know first-hand Brian Williams has mental health problems we let people know. What we don't do is legislate dynamic moral boundaries to the most conservative and hence most prohibitive behavior. This will fail just like alcohol prohibition did. This will chafe our freedom like prohibition did.

So, we do the best we can with public shaming; with the most compassion we can muster to accept the risks to ourselves and others just like with public alcohol. We accept and acknowledge the risks.

But, I'm now arguing we do more. I'm now arguing we move to embrace the information rule and move away from the golden rule where we begin to treat people as they are, not as we are. We begin to publish information about everyone publicly so we know how to morally treat each other when it comes to shaming, alcohol, gender and all public life impacting values.

Thrilling! I find it thrilling that we are looking to advance or morality to the next era of dependency, together we stand and together we fall.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!




Saturday, February 14, 2015

Fundamentals, A Thriller

Hi! hAPPY sATURDAY!

Dut dut duh da dut dut do da. Ok, that was my text impression to the intro of the theme song to Mission Impossible.


Here's the scenario. You're fifteen years old. It's summer time. It's hot. It's 1977 and air conditioning only exists in office buildings. It's hot. Water. Clear, cold water is all you crave because the only thing that is out wetting the humidity is the sweat that is bubbling off your skin like some witches cauldron bubbling, boiling. You drink water constantly. It's hot. And you're bored.

You're a teenager and you're bored. What do you do? How bored? Well, the year before back when you were in primer school there was summer school. For a few hours during the summer day you had what is referred to back then as summer school. Think of summer school for grade-schoolers in Lafayette Indiana as summer camp, playing games like Chutes and Ladders. Yeah, it sucks to be in the same school building you attend all winter long but at least you are doing something, Chutes and Ladders with kids half your age. You also rehearse for an annual play in Columbian Park, the biggest park in town.  That was in primer school. Now you don't even have that bit of solace. You got nothing. It's hot.

You're a teenager and you're bored. Like a typical teenager  you decide to get wild. Really wild. Crazy wild. You start by reading the book, "Ripley's Believe It or Not". Not just snippets. Oh no. You read it cover-to-cover. That crazy excitement wears off and you want more. Much more. Then you discover the latest craziest, hottest book that just came out, The Book of Lists.

In that "Book of Lists" there is an entry that draws your attention. A challenge really. The challenge? The challenge is if you are stranded on deserted island and only allowed one book, what would it be? The number one answer? The Bible.

The Bible? Really? You've just got done reading a most riveting book, "Ripley's Believe It Or Not!" What could top that? You start thinking. You've been going to Sunday school most Sundays for as long as you can remember in your fifteen years. It was Mom's free baby sitter. Sunday school and church may have been a lot of things but not interesting . Enforced boredom was more like it. About the only pique of interest you ever get from church is that there are actual real kids that go to Sunday school who are even stranger than you.

Now the hot sticky summer has an air of suspense. Woot! mmm. Intrigue!  How does  the "Book of Lists" claim that The Bible is an interesting book stack up to Ripley's? 

Game on. Let's read The Bible.

Jaw drops, mic drops, walk off the stage. The Bible sucks. What a let down.

Not only is The Bible boring, it is the worst writing ever. By orders of magnitude. The only reason you finish the book, cover-to-cover, is some macabre fascination with being tortured with bad writing. The closest you ever want to get to a sadistic experience in your life is forcing yourself to read The Bible. Never again. After reading that book you promise yourself never again will you force yourself to read bad writing.

Then something happens. Something that happens to all teenagers and children as they grow up; the world gets bigger. Your world enlarges. You realize that the world is bigger than your family, bigger than your school mates and bigger than  your weirdness within that realm. You now usher into to your mind the entire Earth's population and all its history. You realize you're f***d. ha! Not only are you an outcast in your community, but now the entire world and all of history! Ouch!

There is a myth about us atheists and us anti-theists. There is a myth that we are not religious solely based upon arguments of evolution and cosmology. Or perhaps we are angry at "God". No. Millions of us are atheists and anti-theists because The Bible is self-refuting and really bad literature. We became non-religious and even anti-religious at a very, very young age. Christopher Hitchens claimed six-years. I'm jealous. It took me until the ripe old age of fifteen. 

But, this post is not about wrestling with religion. This post is about organics and fundamentals.

Why? Why do people such as myself read The Bible in our youth and immediately reject our culture where most do not? What's the answer?

Organics. Genetics. Most people accept the religion of their childhood, or some close approximation thereof. There exists a small percentage of us though that do not. Organics.

To better get your mind around this let us turn to modern anthropology. Religion is synonymous with culture and identity. Culture and religion encompass our social groups, our social standing, our birth, our marriage and our deaths. Culture and religion extend from the very center to the outer edges of social life. Who can refute that? Why would anyone? Why would I?

The notion of religion itself is organic. Religion is in our genes. Every culture has religion across time and space. Anthropologists have discovered this. So, if religion is organic so then likewise the rejection of it.  My rejection of religion at age fifteen is in part organic. I admit it.

Religion is not an argument then. Religion is an identity. Culture is identity.  The only people who are willing to engage in shifting their religion, shifting their culture, are those who are willing to shift their very identity. So the organic property, the genes or lack thereof that enable us to reset our identity are the same genes that demand conformity.

Religion is not just a conversation then about intelligence and education, but also identity. Identity is a function of cultural imprinting that goes to the very core of who we are from birth.

Changing culture is changing religion and both are a tall order to overcome our  genetics that most of people will never conceive to undertake. Why? People are organically wired to be tribal, except a few of us. Very few of us.

I have understood as long as I have been able to contemplate these things that religion is identity. This was even before studying modern anthropology. Identity is the least mutable thing for any person.

So as strident as I am in my anti-theists positions I have never undertaken any campaign of anti-theism. You can't argue with genetics.

So why now? Why am I proposing to replace religion? Because our environment has changed and obsoleted our genetics. Our tribes and families are breaking down at breakneck speeds. The populations of the non-religious are rising rapidly with correlation to the breakdown of tribes and families. Some 20 percent of the US population today is non-religious from technological influences on our environment: the internet, the automobile, the cell phone, the microwave and countless other modern inventions. The time has come. The thrilling! time has come!

This fundamental thriller then is not to subvert religion at all.  The thrill is to engage the new 20% who are non-religious in what comes next:  world scale. And it is not just about the irrelevance of religion but all social groups that pre-date the Internet.

Back up. This blog post is about fundamentals. Let us discuss the fundamentals. Why does The Bible fail at the fundamentals? 

Here are just  two fundamental  that I remember considering from 1977:

  1. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not murder.
    These are restatements of the original golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. The Bible's restatement is he who does not have the gold must follow the rules and then gain not kill the rule maker. Evil. Pure evil. How much tyranny and oppression has come as a result of this?
  2. Do unto others as you have them do unto you.
    This is the second golden rule. This is particularly evil because it gives license to persecute those different from you. Gay people and heretics such as myself have been persecuted unto death for as long as religion has followed this rule. Evil, pure evil.
Here are the thrilling fundamental upgrades for the information age:
  1. Thou shall not tell people to follow the rules without first defining the rules. The definition of ownership was never defined in The Bible, just the proclamation to follow the ownership rule. Just bad on all accounts. 
  2. Treat people as they are, not as you are. 
Let's call these the first and second Rules of Information. Gold is no longer the life standard. The new life standard is Information. We live in an Information Age and therefore these are information rules.

How do we put these rules into practice? One example is that parents have long lamented that newborns do not come with an owner's manual. Why not? We actually know far more about human nature than ever before in history. Why not start testing babies on an ongoing basis and giving parents manuals of human nature? This  notion represents the spirit of the second rule of information: treat people as they are, not as you are.

It should be obvious by now that the information rules can only be applied in the information age. The golden rules were from a gold age and were our first worst attempt in grappling with human nature. We know so much more now. We must use our new knowledge and abandon the golden rule. We are now incumbent to build a system of ethics and morals dependent on technology to classify us all.  We need technology to manage technology.  We need need the Data Center on The Moon containing the entire human expanse of all knowledge in the Universal Schema, curated by the Terran Sea Otter Academy, and delivered via the Device of Life distributed at birth. Everyone having access to all human knowledge from cradle-to-grave then enables the possibility of the information age and its two new fundamental rules of ethics.

How thrilling! A fundamental thriller! We are not looking back at religion, capitalism, socialism or communism. We are looking forward with excitement and celebration to a world scale of humanity. We are thrilling to being connected and dependent on an entire planet so as to maximize opportunity and life for all.

Fundamentals, A Thriller!

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!















Friday, February 13, 2015

Year One Party On!

Hi! Happy Friday!

I know it is. Zappy Friday!

Scale freaks people out. Then again starting over anew completely and re-inventing all social groups does too. My last couple of posts have advocated wiping the social group slate clean and starting from scratch.

How could we possibly do that? You ask? You squeak! Easy. Scale is easy, btw. Once you get in the groove. Here a couple of scale principles to memorize:
  1. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 
  2. Extraoridinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 
Any new social group being promoted needs to have evidence of its efficacy given the claims. Since all new social groups have no evidence then what to do? This is easy part. You get some evidence. How? Experiments.

That's right, we experiment and collect the data and then as the new social groups start to pan out based on real evidence of working we keep building.

Easy. That was easy.

Where to begin! First, let us rejoice in our commitment to disengage from what's anchoring us in the ancient by declaring year one. Year one, Party on!

We start by having a big celebration! We reset all the clocks to year one and go to a universal 24 hour clock. This will take a couple of years to implement. During that time we celebrate what we are letting go of, the past. We acknowledge that all the social groupings previously were our first worst attempts and are now committing anew! Celebrate! Imagine: the year is set to year one! The whole world participates in the discussion as to why? Why? Why! Because we have a new mandate to experiment with all new social groups that drop the past and never look back.

How exciting is that! And if we really want to get crazy we start the first year as year zero!

Second, we start making movies, writing books, creating dances and culturally promote our new proposed social groups! Use the power of television and movies to sell our ideas! Everyone becomes an actor! Woo hoo! 

In conclusion, the way to scale wholesale social group reboot is to declare the commitment, sell the ideas and then experiment on the ideas sold to gather the evidence to back to the claims. All failures are success are finally recorded for posterity.   Easy peasy !

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Pre-Internet

Hi! Happy Thursday!

The last couple of posts I've walked by something that I'd like to elaborate on a bit now: previous social group ideas are not worth discussing.

Let's illustrate why this is with a couple of examples: polling and political parties.

Polling

Why do we need polling? Because it would be impractical to ask everyone. Correction, because it would be impractical to ask everyone prior to the Internet.

Polling is power to the powerful. You realize you can go anywhere in the world, anywhere at all, and Google search something. Google caters to the entire planet. Billions of requests every day. So why can't the US government manage 300 million users posting comments? The answer is obvious. While the NSA is setting up an unprecedented network capacity to spy on us, we are still using paper ballets to tell them what to do. Unh hunh. We should have entertained myriads of new proposals for moving politics into the Internet age decades ago and had all Americans, all 300 million users registered to interact with our various governments. But we don't. Not even locally. Why? Because the people in power like the way things are. The have no interest in we the people. Polling is and always has been a tool of the political parties. Scott Silverman was the only pollster who called the last US presidential election correctly. Why? Because all the other pollsters are anything but scientific. One firm, Rasmussen, was so in the tank for conservatives they predicted a Mitt Romney landslide. Guess what? Go to any conservative web site and they are still using Rasmussen. Polling is power to the powerful. It allows them to control the message. We no longer need polling. Just set up a web site for 300 million users. Google and Facebook have far more than that. As of the third quarter of 2014, Facebook had 1.35 billion monthly active users.

So why is our government relying on polling? Polling is obsolete.

Political Parties

Political parties come from a much slower era of communication and education.  Political parties filled the slowness gap. They presented platforms and planks that people would agree upon and people would vote for politicians solely on the basis of party.

No more today. We can get as much information as we want on any politician and any position. Platforms and planks are obsolete.

Political parties are power to the powerful. At their worst they represent two virtual people subverting the 500 in Congress when politicians are instructed to vote along party lines. That's all political parties are these days: tools of oppression and tyranny.

Political parties were controversial back in 1789. They are not in the US Constitution and even back then were viewed as being subversive. But, given the slowness of the education and communication of 1789, they were considered a necessary evil.

Now political parities are just evil.

Conclusion, no messing around.

Why even bother discussing these archaic skins of social group ideas we should have shed long ago? Political parties and polling can be made obsolete in one fell stroke: a national web site for 300 million users to directly interact. Just one idea makes these two social group ideas totally irrelevant.

These are just two examples of social group ideas that are so obsolete so as to make even discussing reworking them a waste of time. One single idea, creating a national web site of all 300 million Americans makes polling and parties obsolete.  All past social group ideas are so irrelevant they should be picked over like vultures on a dead body so we can digest any little good parts without even thinking about what the animals once were. That is how obsolete the old ideas of social groups are. No messing around, just walk on by.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!






Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Device of Life

Hi! Happy Donut Day!

Ok, it is just donut day because I take donuts to work on Wednesday. If you really want this to be donut day then you'll need to stop by where I work. Hmmmm, donuts!

I'd like to dedicate this post to Caroline Shaw across the pond, the lagoon, about twenty rivers, an isthmus and then again half-way round the world. Best wishes for a speedy recovery Caroline!  The future is coming!

Also, thanks to Markus Nilsson for pointing out a correction needed about the meaning of life and everything. The actual correct answer is 42. Of course.

And now...

Yesterday I posited a simplicity: choose and depend as the meaning of life. My recommendation to realize this was all seven billion people post their purpose on a web site and then we tabulate these and curate the dependencies to assess how we depend on each other.

You might have asked yourself, howse that work? Seven billion mission statements is a lot of mission statements. Madness! Glad you asked, allow me.

First though I need to point out something: my purpose and my expertise is pondering these issues. Yours ain't. Just like you trust a doctor with patching you up then you need to trust the professional scaler.  I do need you to read this though as it is critical that everyone understands at the day-to-day level the social group systems. I'm proposing something and trying to sell it. I'm trying to motivate change. That's what I'm putting to paper here.

The Device of Life, aka The Vote Bank, is just one of twenty big fancy pants ideas that form the pillars of a proposal to scale social groups planet-wide going forward. Other big fancy pants ideas include the right to individual currency (print your own money), The Data Center on the Moon, the right of importance, The Terran Sea Otter Academy, the Universal schema and so on. The point is that all government and social systems today are archaic and pre-date the Internet. Let's just get rid of them. The Device of Life is part of a social system that depends on the Internet and brings social groups into the 21st century. But wait! There's more! Not only does the Irreni World Scale plan depend on the Internet but it also depends on the Data Center on The Moon. A technology we have yet to build. And that, my friends, is where our thinking needs to be. We need to be forward thinking not archaic anchored in our social groups. We need to just skip over pre-Internet ideas as if they never existed and propose anew. There is no reason to talk about things like capitalism, democracy and republic as if they are relevant. Done and done.

The Device of Life.

The Device of Life [DOL] is a handheld computer, a tablet, and everyone gets one. This is not an unreasonable request. As of today we humans have already built and discarded over seven billion cell phones; more than there are people on this planet. What I'm calling for has already been accomplished. What I'm calling for is a DOL for every person from birth. The DOL gives everyone access for their entire lifespan the totality of all human knowledge. BOOM! Let's do it! How exciting! This concept aligns with one of the new twenty pillars I'm calling for; information is a right. We all understand a right to education. Now we need to understand a basic right to information. The DOL does this...but not ONLY this. The plot thickens.

For the record, the DOL is not implemented or controlled by any corporation or government. The DOL is maintained by The Terran Sea Otter Academy [TSOA]. What is the TSOA? The TSOA is a university responsible for managing the library of all public human knowledge. All public domain knowledge is curated in a massive database using The Universal Schema. The data is housed on the Data Center on the Moon [DCOTM]. The DCOTM, the entire moon?, is declared public property owned by all living humans forever more. The DCOTM is to be the home of all public domain knowledge and kept well out of reach of all intellectual property owners. For the record I only bring this paragraph to your attention as a hint to the massive scale required to pull this off. And the plan is already made. How sweet is that!

The Device of Life serves multiple purposes. The DOL is also a Vote Bank. Think of a Vote Bank as an ATM of votes, a bank account for votes and not money. We no longer cast votes but deposit them.  They are on deposit twenty-four hours a day. Your vote is always in place. The DOL is the interface to the Vote Bank. The Vote Bank, btw, uses a massively scaled voting system where you only vote for people you know. Hold up, I'm going off on a tangent. Back to the DOL.

The Device of Life is also a vote bank. That vote bank contains one very special vote, your mission statement. The purpose in life you choose. For the sake of argument let's posit purpose statements are limited in size, just like with Twitter messages. A purpose statement in life is limited to oh, say, one-thousand characters.

Your purpose in life lives on the DOL and is permanently publicly available. The DOL is networked to the Universal Schema sitting on the Data Center on the Moon and all of humanity's votes for their life's purpose are cast and tallied by the TSOA.

So now what? All this technology still does not answer the fundamental question: how to make sense of seven billion mission statements?

The answer is your purpose is not meaningful at the seven billion people level, nobody's is. Not directly.

Directly your mission statement is applicable to your immediate community. You are part of a village, a family, a workplace, or some local community that numbers in 3-30 people in count. Your mission statement is immediately relevant to your local community. They must promote it and act on it. That is who your mission statement directly impacts.

Then what? Think about it. Small groups become larger groups by the small groups themselves joining as groups of groups. Representation from each group of groups represents 3-30 small groups. Keep scaling the concept of groups of groups until finally all seven billion people have been accounted for. Each group-of-groups curates a single purpose statement for the group-of--groups derived from the individual statements therein. This single mission statement reflects the 3-30 mission statements of the group. Finally, the group-of-group-of-group-of-groups encompasses seven-billion people. End of government. End of corporations. We become purposed groups that interconnect at all levels.

If mission statements are rolled up using groups-of-groups then why bother with one web site of all seven billion statements? Because every life matters. This is the indirect value of the statement. Think of it like the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. where every name of every solider killed is inscribed on a wall. The mission statements of all the living people on Earth are all collected on one web site. Beautiful. All lives matter. All lives are important.

How often can you change your purpose statement? Is it a one time only affair?

You can change your purpose daily, hourly or by the second. The thing is though is that if people are going to commit time and resources to you and based upon your purpose in life you need to commit to your purpose as well. Whimsically changing that purpose does not reflect mutual commitment and dependency on others.

Should mission statements just be about life's passion? Should our life's purpose ever be practical? Practical is fine. Some people may not have any passionate pursuit or maybe their community can't afford that opportunity. Not all of us can be astronauts. ha! The objective of our new planet-wide social groups of life, I believe, should be to afford everyone the maximum opportunity to pursue their passion, but practical purposes are okay.

Let's talk about life-boat ethics for a moment so as to demonstrate the superior morality of this new system to any that have come before it.

Imagine, if you will, a comet is about to slam into Earth in the next month. A true doomsday event. Projections indicate about half of the entire human population will be exterminated. What to do?

Currently the President of the United States, leaders of the world, make the life-and-death decisions in a vacuum. That is morally short-sighted. The DOL and the vote bank, on the other hand, scales morality.

Imagine a scenario where what I'm proposing is already in place. Everyone has a DOL and can use it. Further assume we all know this comet is coming and half of us are going to die. We can all then update our purpose statements and deposit new votes in the vote bank in real time and make a collective moral decision on how to handle the death of half the world's people together. The decision is no longer on any one single persons shoulders. Together we stand, together we fall.

To conclude, the web site of seven billion mission statements is an indirect use of mission statements. It is a piece of art reflecting all of humanity. Our mission statements are directly used by our immediate community and then these statements are used to derive group-of-group statements.

And there you have it. How to manage seven billion mission statements.

Cheers!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met! 

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The Meaning of Life

Hi! Happy Tuesday!

The Meaning of Life:
  1. Choose a purpose.
  2. Depend on each other.

That's it.

How long would it take for you, by yourself, personally to build a modern anything? A car? A house? A lamp? Or even just the fabric in your clothes?

There is no need for elaborate discussions regarding the meaning of life. None. Religion, voluminous philosophy books and the centuries of vocabulary galore are all unnecessary. For it is written in our mind that we know these two principles to be true. These truths are self evident.

So why have we? Why have we invented religion? invented sophistications? invented books of such monstrous complexity about human nature and the meaning of life. A sophistication such that even the most brilliant among us are hard pressed to grasp the intricacies, not to mention the motivation? What is it about life that drives us mad, drunk with passion to find complex patterns of meanings in life?

Quite simple, really. We superimpose what we see as the utmost importance of our existence onto the explanation of it. I, however, do not. That is my gift. I was born into it. I do not use the wafting, oh-so-yummy bacon smell of my ego all wafting through the kitchen air on a sunny morning to so seduce an explanation. I would never convolute sentences with bacon! :-) Oh no! My friend Mark once put it this way, give a PhD a problem and you will get a PhD solution.  Me? I do simple.

Why do I bring this up? Good question. Because it speaks to my earnestness as my calling when it comes to scale. Something is lacking today: correct simplicity. All solutions that scale start with with the right simplifying assumptions. Make something as simple as possible, but no simpler, is something Einstein once said. That is what I'm like.

Scaling the world to eight billion people does not start with the US Constitution, the Bible or UN charter on human rights. No. It starts at the beginning: choose and depend.

We, you and I together, need to specify why we each individually choose to live and then...again...how we ferociously and with much gusto come together to depend on each other and grab life by the horns! Horns? That sounds very dangerous to me. Hmmmm. I never intuited that horn expression. What? Anyway...

Literally. I mean quite literally. We need to start a web site where all seven billion people can write their individual mission statements. And then, as seven billion statements are being correlated and cross-tabulated, and then we write our mutual assurances of dependency. What we create then is one ongoing, real-time, always-updating feedback loop that we build from. Static words will never do. Static words in a constitution or book will never do when it comes to meaning. People are born and die every day. A constantly updating meaning provides us with relevant individual and mutual purposes that reflect us all living now. Our purposes alone and mutual are correlated together!

And that, my friends, brothers and sisters, is how we scale a planet from the right simplicity: choose and depend.

And on a personal purpose note: Earth. It is my wish that we all decide just one of our collective purposes is to be stewards of this here spaceship planet Earth. Let this purpose define binding reasons to need each other so much...so much as to transcend violence amongst each and every one of us.  I hope the purpose of Earth's stewardship becomes a collective poetry in motion. Make it so! Let that be a start to our common togetherness and mutually affirmed morality to bolster the importance of all humanity acting together to party on! this great planet!. A toast! To us! and to us happy'ing on this great spaceship planet Earth! Let the festivities begin!

So, my purpose in life is programming computers and humanity so as to be part of a planet-wide common humanity stewarding spaceship Earth that is filled with maximum opportunity for each and every one of us and to do this using ever expanding cycles of technology that increase opportunity for all people and also ever expanding diversity of all life on spaceship Earth. 

Cheers!
-Mybrid

Well come! and Well met!