Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Irreni Solutions VS The Baltimore Angels

Hi! Happy Tuesday!

Baltimore Angels? That's not right. The baseball team in Baltimore is named the Baltimore Orioles.  What's going on here?

Right.

Normally when you read 'versus" then the juxtaposition are on the two sides opposite of the word 'versus'.  A versus B would juxtaposition A against B. Right. However, in this case B doesn't exist where The Baltimore Angels don't exist. Mmmm.

Well I'm having a bit of fun aren't I. The real juxtaposition is not Irreni Solutions VS The Baltimore Angels because the Angels do not exist. The real juxtaposition or contrast in this case is Baltimore VS Angels, or the violence of Baltimore  versus the peace of  of our better angels.

Again, the contrast of the 'versus' is the violence of Baltimore versus the peace of our better angels.

This week the peaceful protests in Baltimore over the death of Freddie Gray by police  were taken over and co-opted by looters and violence doers. What should we think of this? Well, Irreni Solutions has a distinct take on it that is worth listening too: your intuition is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

Pinker presents a large amount of data (and statistical analysis thereof) that, he argues, demonstrate that violence has been in decline over millennia and that the present is probably the most peaceful time in the history of the human species. The decline in violence, he argues, is enormous in magnitude, visible on both long and short time scales, and found in many domains, including military conflict, homicide, genocide, torture, criminal justice, and treatment of children, homosexuals, animals and racial and ethnic minorities. He stresses that "The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue."
Pinker argues that the radical declines in violent behavior that he documents do not result from major changes in human biology or cognition. He specifically rejects the view that humans are necessarily violent, and thus have to undergo radical change in order to become more peaceable. However, Pinker also rejects what he regards as the simplistic nature versus nurture argument, which would imply that the radical change must therefore have come purely from external ("nurture") sources. Instead, he argues: "The way to explain the decline of violence is to identify the changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand."
The world is going to hell in a handbasket. That's what people think when they see images such as with Baltimore. Also a new meme is on the rise that police are killers. Every day new video of police indiscriminately killing for no reason makes the national news. It is difficult to watch police shooting people in the back and not think, "Wow, that's not what the police should be doing."

People's intuition will lead them to the wrong conclusion. Steven Pinker's book shows violence has declined in a world even with an ever larger population.  Awesome! That's what we should all be thinking. But we aren't, are we?  We are less violent than ever before and yet that is not the impression people have. Violence in the US has been on a dramatic decline for 40 years and yet people see the news and think the opposite.

What's going on?

What's going on is that your intuition is failing you. Your intuition is simply this:
  • Where there is smoke there is fire. 
That intuition works well with real smoke and real fire but fails miserably with statistics. In statistics smoke is considered an anecdote.

Challenge for you. Here's your challenge. Crime studies in the US have shown that child murder and child abduction off the streets by strangers is lower than it ever has been. Specifically, child abduction is lower than in the 1960s where kids like me grew up as "latch key" kids. When I was a kid I walked to school and walked home again, just like every other kid. Would you let your kid walk seven blocks home knowing it is safer today  then in the 1960s? That's the challenge. Would you let your kid walk home from school?

I've put this challenge to a couple of friends of mine awhile back and both gave an empathic "No!" for an answer.

People don't intuit statistics. For example, the lottery is tax on the poor and uneducated. I do not buy lottery tickets because I know better. I'm sorry but you are an idiot if you throw your money away on lottery tickets.  And yet people who know better, who know math, still buy lottery tickets and cannot let go of their intuition; an intuition that says buying a ticket means they might win.

Another case of failed intuition was demonstrated to me a few years ago when there was a sniper in Washington DC. A co-worker of mine cancelled a business trip. I was like, "why?" Her response was the snipers. I reminded her that mathematically speaking she was more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than by then sniper given the population of DC. She said she knew this but couldn't help herself.

When it comes to scale your intuition will fail you, big time. Get it? ha! Big time! That is the lesson of Irreni Solutions VS The Baltimore Angels. One of the many, many, many reasons for everyone to have a solid understanding in math is to retrain your intuition for scale.

We are in the most peaceful time ever in human history but the media paints an anecdotal misrepresentation that is on the extreme other end.

So how does Irreni World Scale help people overcome their intuition and approach scale of topics like violence realistically?
  1. Information: The device of life is in the hands of everyone. The Terran Sea Otter Academy collects data for everyone. The Data Center On the Moon backs it all up to make it publically available as a trusted public resource.
  2. Moral diversity: If you read Steven Pinker's book about violence declining he points out that cosmopolitan world view mitigates tribal violence. Irreni promotes moral heterogeniety and not religion and moral homogeniety. The world is more secular than ever, more atheist than ever, and the most peaceful ever. Suck on that religion.
  3. Scaling Empathy. Moral diversity means building a tribe with people who have emotional spaces different from you that you can leverage. Like minded people create group-think that can bolster violence and has been human behavior since the dawn of time. Now with public education and public information massive empathy is made possible. 
In conclusion the fact of the matter is that police murdering black people may be on the decline now that police are getting caught on video more and more every day. However many people are just now becoming informed about police killers and will jump to a conclusion that the police murderers are on the rise when in fact they are just now being exposed for the first time ever.

The fact of the matter is we don't know if police killers are on the rise or decline. The fact of the matter is that an anecdote such as Baltimore does not a trend a make. And yet people will come to conclusions because of Baltimore. Irreni World Scale promotes scalable, 7 billion people solutions that work to overcome our natural intuition. It does so by using technology that helps people better make decisions in an information age that is managed by statistics and not intuition that smoke means fire.

Cheers!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!













Saturday, April 25, 2015

The Human Race, We Won!

Hi! h A p P y  S a T u R d A y !

Hope you all are feeling well and feeling zappy!


Good News! The human race is over, we won! Wooo hooo!

The last couple of blog posts I have been introducing two Irreni, big fancy pants ideas: COx and OI.  There are twenty such ideas and today we'll examine two more.

The Human Quality Principle. 

The human race is over! We won! The information age marks a new era of human objective: quality of life.

Real-time Project Pool

Pseudo direct democracy where using the Vote Bank folks vote not only on candidates but also public projects continuously. These votes inform the representatives. 

Getting It Together


Technology ushered in modern religion. The rise of modern religion 5,000 years ago coincides nicely with the burgeoning technology of farming. Farming meant people could stay in one place and also meant people had more free time. Religion, then, is a testament that humans are lousy with managing free time.

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
-Susan Ertz
 
Technology produced the modern religions that account for most people today in an era where humans were still struggling to survive. Religion is our first worst attempt to explain nature; disease, lightning, earthquakes and human violence. Religion is closely tied to survival mentality. It is long past time to acknowledge religion's role in the human history and move on.

Technology produced the modern religions and technology produced the new era of the human condition: quality of life. We are no longer in on a survival footing. We now have the technology for just 1-2% of the people on this planet to feed the other 98%. We must acknowledge we are in the age of quality of life. Our moral obligation is now to provide opportunity and meaning for every person born, every person alive today. It is time to move beyond survival religion.

But to what? What do we move towards?

The answer is obvious; let me walk you through it.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a quality of life statement. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been on the books for quite some time now as the American quality of life metric. The US has been moving away from the survival nature of religion and towards opportunity and quality for over 200 years.

But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just a mission statement. This jingo does not set up any implementation on how this mission is to take place. The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are really about setting up an environment for government to stay out of each person's way and to let people decide on their own how to pursue happiness.

Irreni World Scale takes the next step beyond creating an opportunity environment to an opportunity implementation.

You have now been walked through one step; moving from creating an environment of government staying out of the way of happiness to implementation of happiness.

America has an existing implementation for providing people with opportunity: public education. Public education is not in the US Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once said that Democracy needs an educated populace and informed citizenry in order to have informed, educated voters. What is amazing about public education being a bedrock of American ethos is that public education is not in the US constitution and yet every State has it.

Vaunted public education runs afoul of religion every day. Public education is about improving an individual's quality of life whereas religion is about survival and subjugation to the tribe. Public education informs about all of history and all of the diversity of life where religion and the golden rule depend heavily on monoculture and homogeneity of history.

Public education is at the nexus of our collective American cognitive dissonance. These two opposing ideas of quality of life  and survival having opposing world views. Eduction informs a diverse moral history where religion requires a narrow moral history. Education exposes the true human nature of moral relativism whereas religion demands moral uniformity.

I have a story I'd like to share about this clash. It involves abortion.

A few years ago in the state of California there was a law being debated regarding underage girls requiring consent from her parents before getting abortion. On the face of it this law sounds reasonable enough but this law does not take into account human diversity.

The most damaging myth going in society today is not religion. The most damaging myth going is that all parents love their children and would only do what's best for them. This sets up a perfect standard for people. Parents are perfect and the law is designed to it.

This perfection standard of people is what ultimately brought down Democracy in Rome. John Adams wrote the very first constitution ever for the state of Massachusetts. John Adams chose Cicero for his muse, not Jesus. Adams took it to heart when Cicero debriefed Rome's demise was because of Roman laws demanding people be perfect in order to be effective. Therefore Adams created a constitution that allowed for corruption and relied on checks-and-balances between co-equal branches of government to check power. The reason the Supreme Court does not approve laws prior to being sent to the President being signed is to allow for corruption. Congress and the President can pass corrupt laws that are corrupted by money or populist movements and claim victory with those to whom they are corruptly beholden. The corrupted laws eventually get
overturned by the Supreme Court.

A law requiring underage girls to get parental consent requires perfect parents. At the time that this law was being debated here in California I was debating this law on social media websites. I am wholly against this law. I have studied enough anthropology and sociology enough to know that somewhere between 50-80% of all teenage pregnancies are with a family relative: father, brother, cousin, etc. When I pointed out this fact to the mostly religious folks who were in favor of this law the truth came out. The law is about promoting desired behaviors and expected social norms. This is the survival mentality of religion where there is a homogeneous morality that is enforced for survival. Fathers that get their daughters pregnant do not factor into this. A girl who is the victim of her father, brother or cousin doesn't matter. A girl who doesn't want to bring down the family by revealing her pregnancy doesn't matter.

That is religion in a nutshell. Religion is only concerned with dogma and moral objectivity because the end game is survival. All non-conforming behaviors to the objective dogma are considered perverted and most important not considered at all in law. The law requires perfection and everyone to be ideal. Religious law promotes a moral objectivity that is shown to work, but only for a few who can live close the ideal standards. 

But we do not live an the age of survival any more and moral relativity is the objective. Moral standards are of a time, place and era when human quality of life matters. It is for this reason that gay marriage matters. It is no longer morally acceptable to label homosexuality a sin, gay people as evil. Religion is now evil. Religious dogma and moral objective codes are  evil. And the shift from moral objectivity to moral relativity in our culture started when this country was founded. Even in 1776 technology had moved us from the human race to the human quality condition.

Today public education is a manifestation of the quality of life vs. survival.

I have now walked you through the next step; implementation of happiness promotes moral diversity.

Now we are ready to discuss the RTPP, real-time project pool. Education informs and makes us aware of moral relativity. Education prepares us. The next step is implementation. The next step is two fold: The Sexy Principle of Human Quality combined with the RTPP.

Previously I introduced the Sexy Principle of Human Quality, which is we all are responsible for informing each other through culture what our ideal societies are. The Sexy Principle requires us to to promote using the arts such as movies, music and dance our desired notions of societies.

The RTPP is the culmination of the Sexy Principle. Once we collectively agree on the kinds of societies we want then we create projects to bring those societies into being. This is the RTPP. The real-time project pools is an indirect form of Democracy. The RTPP is implemented using the device of life, another big fancy pants idea where every person has an Internet tablet from cradle-to-grave for social networking. There is a project board available in the device of life where everyone votes in real-time for projects that would bring about the kind of societies we want to live in. Our representatives are beholden to bring these projects into being.

If you have been following Irreni here lately then you know I've been advocating lots and lots of social experiments. The RTPP is a tool for managing these experiments. Every project in the RTPP is a social experiment. These projects/social experiments stay alive as long as people continue to vote for them.

The human race is over, we won! This means we are no longer beholden to objective ideology and religion. In the age of human quality and age of information we create quality of life with whatever kinds of societies that we can all agree upon.  We focus on the quality of life and not just survival. We embrace moral diversity and eject moral objectivity. Zoom zoom!

Cheers!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!









Friday, April 24, 2015

Irreni Solutions Hugs Ya!

Hi! Zappy Friday!

Mmm, Irreni VS The Ozzies! Irreni VS The Boston Baked Bean! I could've gone with either one of those for today's topic of introducing the OI! Principle! OI! OI! OI!

We all know the Australians, or Ozzies, down under say Oy! AC/DC uses Oy! in a few of their songs. Somehow the punk rock scene in Boston picked up on this. In fact there is a genre of punk rock, Celtic punk, that uses Oy! that I really like. I also like Boston Ska punk such as The Mighty Mighty Bostones. What? So the Irish come to Boston and a few hundred years later pick up punk rock with Ozzie empathic noises! Gotta love life. Mmm.

Irreni Solutions Hugs Ya!

OI Principle of Human Quality.

OI stands for opportunity importance. Everyone has a right to opportunity and all people are equal opportunity important. Now that the age of human quality is upon us then the obligation is to afford everyone opportunity of importance for quality of life.

Unlike with religion there are no outsiders with Irreni World Solutions. Everyone is in. This is a reflection of the COx principle I introduced yesterday.

The world's major religions that account for billions embrace a principle of insider vs. outsider.  You are either for us or agin us. Not so with Irreni.

Yesterday I blogged about the COx principle that embodies a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The COx principle states emphatically that the definition of people means only the living people. The COx principle excludes space aliens and supernatural powers such as gods.

The OI principle expands the concept that we are all created equal. The OI principle states we are all living equal. Everyone has an equal right to opportunity importance. We all have the equal right to shelter, food, healthcare and eduction; all of which afford everyone opportunity.

We humans have an obligation to take care of each other. There are no outsiders, even with contradictory morals. I've expressed morals contradictory to my own in some of my posts. For example I have emphatically stated religion is evil. In a religious context calling something evil is an insider vs. outsider statement. In the Irreni context it is not.

Here is what I wrote the other day about free will:

In the age of information rule the make-up of your tribe changes. The ideal tribe is one that empowers everyone in the tribe with the most emotional spaces manageable, diversity. For example, personally I will die before I kill anyone. My empathy and my emotional space is such that I cannot kill anyone even in self defense. I cannot and I will not. However, if I want to survive then I need to find a tribe where there I have enough in common with people who are willing to kill. By making a decision to be part of a tribe with people of different emotional spaces then I have exercised a form of vicarious free-will. I'm able to enlist others to make decisions that are not possible for me to make. Free will boundary is extended.

Irreni World Scale is engineered to expand the degrees of freedom in your free choice universe. This engineering requires everyone to find a tribe, but not a homogeneous tribe as has been the case throughout human existence. No, we must together transcend homogeneity of tribe to a balance of homogeneity and heterogeneity the opens the choice possibilities for everyone in the tribe.
Irreni is founded upon a principle of moral diversity and moral heterogeneity.  In Irreni it is desirable to form a tribe that is not homogeneous of one set of morals.

Let me put this notion of evil in another context. Instead of picking on religion then I will single out guns. I can personally cite studies that show the escalation of violence is embedded in human nature and that violence begets violence. I can cite facts of human violence escalation in places like Oakland where the gang members now assume everyone is packing and have resorted to drive-by-shootings that are indiscriminate and kill babies. These drive-by shootings have replaced targeted shootings due to an escalation of guns. I can argue that those in this country who are escalating concealed carry and open carry are evil;  evil by escalating violence in this country. People who carry guns put those of us who do not carry guns in greater risk of shoot-first, ask no questions. Soon drive-by shootings will extend beyond gang neighborhoods. Throughout all of human history violence escalates when violence is used as a deterrent: right up to the point of nuclear war and M.A.D., mutually assured destruction.

Yet even as I label gun owners as evil I can have them in my tribe as I stated in the free will post and the included paragraph above. 

Pointing out that guns and religion are evil is simply pointing out the guns and religion are harmful. The folks who claim religion and guns are beneficial disagree in the overall cost/benefit analysis.

Humans are distinct from computers these days by one important trait: contradiction. Humans can embrace both A and not A at the same time. Irreni exploits this contradiction in a positive fashion by promoting diversity of morality.

The OI principle of importance is meant to scale to all 7 billion people on this planet by creating tribes with people of contradicting morals, or moral diversity. Everyone has the right to opportunity importance. And to quote Benjamin Franklin: your rights end where my rights begin. If we can accomplish right management within our own tribe we can do so with the world. This is a person-to-person solution, not a government mandate. If you don't want the government telling you to accept competing morals then you need to embrace, manage and use them to your advantage.

There are no outsiders on planet Earth as we are all Terrans. Irreni's twin pillars of human rights of COx and OI  include all living people. Irreni World Scale hugs ya!

This is why the tag line of this blog is "scale your empathy, scale the world." People with opposing morals can still empathize with each other.

The OI principle is not just about managing contradictory morals such that all 7 billion people are important. The OI principle means someone cannot send someone else in their place to die.

Imagine, if you will, that any government or ruling official had to be in the front lines of any war or violence that the ruling official with power cared to start.

If all those jack-asses sitting in Washington had to pick up a gun and be in the front lines of  Iraq, Syria or other middle-Eastern country then America's current history on war would be vastly different.

That is the OI principle. Back before the world had 7 billion people it might be argued that someone was irreplaceable. No more. If humans had done their job treating all people as important then with 7 billion people there would be hundreds of Albert Einstein class intelligence people right now, making a difference. An Albert Einstein class intelligence is not irreplaceable with 7 billion people.

Back in the civil war it was Abe Lincoln who halted the practice of American generals riding into battle because he was losing qualified generals. No more. With 400 million Americans today then you could lose one-thousand generals and still find one-thousand more. George Washington rode into battle with his men in the front lines. Time to bring that concept back but this time include the Congress people.

The OI principle states that no one is more opportunity important than another by right. Congress does not have the right to send people to die on their behalf or anyone others. War is still easily possible where you just have to be in the front lines if you want to start it.

We are all living equal and not just created equal. Irreni World Scale solutions is not by the people, of the people for the people but by the living, of the living and for the living. In the modern world we can no longer pretend we humans can separate into our respective corners so as to be  isolated and in this way manage contradictory morals to keep us from killing each other We need to accept our contradictory moral nature and even exploit it. The COx and OI principles of Irreni World Scale set up the boundaries of just how far one can go. Replacing the golden rule with the information rule, treating others as they are and not as you are, makes competing moral codes possible. The golden rule has to be out.

Cheers!

Scale your empathy, scale the world! 

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!







Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Irreni Solutions VS The Talking Dead

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

I was going to go with "Irreni Solutions VS Zombies". But, "The Talking Dead" allusion to "The Walking Dead" TV series zombies serves and the talking dead is how I would like to introduce an Irreni World Scale big fancy pants idea: COx.

COx Principle of Human Quality: Dead humans, space aliens and supernatural creatures have no hold on humans. A person's loyalty is first and foremost to their fellow living humans, all of them.
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. ... Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
About year ago, I was chatting with a senior executive at a large organization that had just seen a new CEO arrive on the scene. I asked how it was going and she said that the striking thing about the new CEO was that he was very “self-effacing.”She contrasted this as a big change from the former CEO who while being very smart, was brash and lacking in modesty. She said, “He would suck all the oxygen out of any room because the attention always had to be on him.”
-Vince Molinaro
COx is short for contradictory oxygen principle. The dead are sucking all the oxygen out of the room for the living today and the contradiction is that the dead can't even breathe. Fuck that. We are building out planet Earth. What does that mean for future generations? What it shouldn't mean is we proscribe future generation's lives cradle-to-grave based on what we've built or destroyed. That's the COx principle. The talking dead have no power over the talking living.

The impact of the COx principle on Irreni World Scale is that once Irreni is up and running then it will always be up and running and thus effectively rewriting the constitution permanently. Every generation has to right to rewrite their government's constitution. The only reason we don't scrap the US constitution today is that we are abject cowards. Oh, and some of us have a religious fetish with the founders and the original constitutional document.

Another implication of the COx principle is that all generations are stewards of the planet Earth. Each generation must leave the Earth in a healthy condition for the next generation's self determination. 

Imagine if you will space aliens from outer space contact Earth and you are the person they choose to contact. These aliens call themselves Zombies. The Zombies ask you to join them. Your job is to help them kill off every single human but yourself. The Zombies make a compelling argument that one living human means nothing so you can trust them. They will give you anything and everything you want for the rest of your entire life. You just have to help them kill all humans.

Who would you go through in with it? Help the Zombies or would you be loyal to humans living on this planet? Of course you'd pick the humans. And yet? For some reason people pick the dead over living. The US Constitution was written by a bunch of dead guys. Time to move on. Even worse humans pick some made-up supernatural God. God is not human. Humans should only have loyalty to other living humans. Period. Religion is evil because religion promotes loyalty to non-humans, the supernatural. The COx prinple of human quality says humans are loyal to living humans only. Since humans have the ability for self-determination then there exists no obligation whatsoever to any supernatural power, past generation, space alien or god.

Isn't that empowering? No more big questions about "where did we come from" or "why are we here?" Those questions do not matter because we have the ability for self-determination and our highest moral standard is to determine our own destiny!

Cheers!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!
















Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Irreni Solutions vs. Until Death Do You Part

Hi! Happy Tuesday!

Today is entitled, "Chuck vs. Until Death Do You Part". In this episode Chuck and Sarah are on a mission in Suburbia. Our two deeply-in-love spies go undercover as a married couple. Will these two love birds having a brush with "Until Death Do You Part" be intimidated from getting married where real death doesn't keep them from their job? Tune in to find out!

Ha!

Irreni Solutions VS. Until Death Do You Part

First of all let me say to all the same sex married couples: congratulations. You've earned it. Coming out, public humility and especially all the shaming and bullying from the religious community represent serious emotional obstacles not easily overcome.

Huzzah! Really I mean it!

But unfortunately marriage is an already dead institution so I regret to inform you that your victory will be short. However the battle for public acceptance as normal and not perverts has been accomplished. So no matter what the fate of marriage is tomorrow no one can ever take public acceptance of same sex relationships away from you today.

Marriage is dead for one simple reason: 30 years is not 70 years.

I was looking into life insurance recently and learned a startling statistic. It turns out that one-third of Americans born today are expected by the actuaries of insurance companies to live until the age of ninety.

Till death do you part for a lifespan of thirty years is totally different for a lifespan of seventy years, ninety-years.  It is for this reason and this reason alone that marriage is over.

Divorce in the modern era is not a sign of moral decay from abandoning God. Divorce in the modern era is a sign of us living to an average age past seventy. Keeping a marriage together on average fifty years is completely different challenge than twenty years.

This is how asinine religion is. Humans could easily discover how to stop ageing tomorrow. That would mean death would only happen by disease, accident or murder. Life spans could last thousands of years. And yet even in the face of this technological advancement religion would meet this new moral situation with the 2000-years-old "till death do you part" moral. Face it, religion has no answers. Religion is irrelevant.

Now that lifespans have doubled in time since "until death do you part" was originally penned then it doesn't make any sense to make this commitment. Katherine Hepburn put it this way when she was asked in an interview why she never married: "Well, if you want to eat from the same menu every night that's your choice, its not mine".

Who wants to eat from the same menu for fifty years? Oh sure there is a certain percentage of the population for which endless monogamy doesn't equate to hellish monotony: but that percentage is small.

What marriage needs is a complete make over and the world marriage tossed out. Divorce should not be an tragedy or a thing. It is not so much we need to do away with marriage as it is we need to jettison divorce.

Just throw the entire concept of marriage and divorce out. Let's start over.

But what makes sense?
  1. Contracts for kids. Marriage should not be the long term contract, but rather having kids. We should shift the contract from the couple to the parent and kid. When you have a kid the state could hand you a contract that says you are responsible for that kid until the kid reaches adulthood.
  2. Terms. Marriage contracts could simply have terms of five years, ten years, etc. When the term ends there is no divorce. The couple are responsible for dividing up property on their own. 
  3. Corporations. Make a marriage nothing more than a C corp. Having run a business now for over ten years I have come to understand a few things. First of all every corporation has to have what are called By Laws. Corporate by laws are as binding as any contract. Instead of have a prenuptial that may not be able to anticipate many years then the couple becomes a company. The couple draws up by laws that are updated annually on an ongoing basis. Dissolving the company is just like dissolving any company today. 
Those are just three possible suggestions right off of the top of my head and I'm sure after reading my suggestions your imagination kicked in and you could come up with a dozen more.

Irreni Solutions vs. Until Death Do You Part.

Marriage is yet again another example of how technology, in this case medicine, changed the moral landscape. Our lifespans are now twice as a long as they were 2000 years ago. Divorce is not a symptom of feminism, liberalism or moral decay. Divorce is a symptom of we are living longer and marriage for an entire lifespan makes less-and-less sense every day.

The Irreni Solution to marriage is we come up with a few hundred experiment ideas on how to move beyond traditional marriage. Then we run those experiments for at least a hundred years. We gather the evidence and validate any claims made for the experiments. In one-hundred years we'll have new moral codes for raising children as well as satisfying our natural propensity for intense intimate relationships. 

Zoom zoom!

Cheers!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!
















Monday, April 20, 2015

Irreni Solutions VS. The Microwave

Hi! Happy Monday!

I loved the TV series Chuck! It is available on Netflix and most of the episodes are entitled like, "Chuck vs. The Microwave."

Yesterday I blogged about innovation being the problem and then innovation being the solution. All this yik-yak about left vs. right and religion is just nonsense.

So, what would solutions look like if we applied Irreni design to the past?

We'll call this Irreni Solutions vs. the Microwave.

There was a well publicized study a few years ago that the microwave oven correlated with the demise of the family meal at night. Since the adoption on a large scale of the microwave oven then families on average no longer eat dinner together. Sociologists have linked this missing meal to a furthering of the break down of the family unit.

The microwave oven was kinda the the straw that builds, not breaks,  the camel's back. The microwave oven made the cooking time of say things like a baked potato go from 60 minutes to 5 minutes. Reducing cooking time  freed  up time for married women with children so much so they could work full-time on a massive scale.  For sure the microwave oven was just one in a long line of home appliances that reduced the time it took to do domestic chores. But the microwave oven price dropping and adoption rising of microwave ovens in home correlates nicely with the trend of women entering into the workforce and subsequently the further deterioration of the family unit.

Let's juxtapose the Irreni approach to the new moral dilemma created by technology, women entering the workforce, with what actually happened. Our choices for managing women entering the workforce are:

  1. Irreni: Implement hundreds of social experiments on a small scale and gradually picking winners over decades until national solutions are found. Variations of experiments would include things such as raising salaries for jobs from 10-100% at all different levels to allow single parent incomes to make do.
  2. What happened: Blame liberals for the sexual revolution and feminism as responsible for the decline of the family even though the root cause was women entering the workforce. What's just nonsensical to the extreme is that both liberal and conservative women entered the workforce in like numbers.
The year 1984 was a landmark year for me as it was the year I came to California at the age of 22. I was well under way in developing Irreni but I still hadn't made the connection yet that new moral dilemmas are made possible by technology and thus technology and not ideology is the root cause of the American moral struggle we face today.

By 1988 I was entering college and started taking an interest in the social sciences. At that time the impact on women entering the workforce was being well documented and discussed in colleges.

Here's what the media said:

  1. Reagonomics was working! Hurray! Reagan ended the recession! Trickle down economics and deregulation worked! 
  2. The family was suffering! Blame feminism and liberals!
Here's the reality:
  1. Women entered the workforce in record numbers from 1980 until about 1992, when an equilibrium or saturation point was met. The percentage of women in the workforce stabilized and hasn't changed since 1992.
  2. From 1992 until 2015 the economy has been driven by one thing: economic bubbles. At first it was the Internet until 2000. Then it was real-estate until 2006. We are now still living in a cycle of banking bubbles.
The conservatives had a choice in 1980s. Conservatives are the folks who claim in national media the moral high-ground based on their religion. Their choice was they could meet the new moral dilemma of women entering the workforce head on and offer new moral solutions or these folks could choose to feel righteous and lay blame and finger-point from their high-ground. Well we all know how that choice goes, every time.

Even in the early 1990s long before the microwave oven study came out it was clear that technology was root cause for our national need for new morals. Women entered the workforce because of two factors: time and money. They had the time made available by technology and a long recession required them to make the money.
 
Now if Irreni World Scale had been around in the 1980s then things would have been different. The Irreni approach is to launch a large number of experiments all with different parameters and then scientifically monitor the results. Winners will prevail and then be scaled.

Last week it was floated in the news that the new minimum wage should be $50/hour. That is the kind of thing that Irreni World Scale would say. The only difference is that Irreni would also suggest $10, $20, $30, $40 and so on up to $100/hour. Scaling social programs should not start nationally by introducing $50/hour minimum wage. Scaling social programs should be done with innovation: lots of competition over long periods of time.

Irreni World Scale leaves religion in the dust. Irreni World Scale exposes religion for the fraud that religion is when religion claims authority of morality.  Religion as a moral engine never supplies scalable answers, only guilt and blame. We have lots of history to prove it. On the other hand what innovation creates then innovation can solve. We can solve these important moral challenges such as with the two-parent working family enabled by microwave ovens by launching lots and lots of experiments that include up to doubling a person's salary such that a family only needs one person to work. The key to Irreni is to be scientific about the experiments so as to gather the results and validate the winners. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We need to build evidence from small-to-large over time.

Irreni World Scale replaces the ideology of not only religion but also capitalism, socialism, communism and democracy. Irreni leap-frogs all ideology by treating ideas as independent. Ideas are isolated experiments to be tested in the working world. Irreni World Scale moves beyond the necessary slow pace of changing ideology to the rapid pace of millions of experiments; what we in the tech world call innovation. Finally, as I've stated in my previous posts experiments in the real world take time, decades and even centuries. The world can still achieve a rapid pace of social innovation over those decades and centuries when that time is divided into thousands and millions of experiments. Religion cannot and never will be able to keep up with the pace of technological advancement.  Irreni World Scale can. Let the experiments begin!

Cheers!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!












Sunday, April 19, 2015

A Brief History of Innovation vs. Religion

Hi! Happy Sunday!

You might think it a bit odd that Irreni World Scale is calling for innovation  not revolution, engineering vs. ideology.

But in fact it is not odd at all. It is natural, literally. What is unnatural  is what you get in the news.

The news has been feeding everyone nonsense for decades. What is really going on is that journalist know nothing about science and treat everything as politics.

There is a false narrative that the journalists have been promulgating for  years. That narrative goes something like the decline of morality in western cultures is due to the liberal western values. The Muslims certainly believe this. The religious right certainly believe this. The media generates billions of dollars in ad revenue propping up this emotional, spleen venting fabrication.

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself if scientists have ever looked into claims of liberalism destroying the family? Have you ever asked yourself if the sexual revolution has ever been shown to undermine morality?

What really killed religion? What really happened to the family?

This is going to be a brief history so here you go.

The Printing Press

Gutenberg signed religion's death certificate when he invented the printing press. It was only a matter of time mixed with technological advancement before religion would be exposed and made irrelevant. Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450's and within 50 years Martin Luther was banging on the Vatican's doors ushering the demise of Catholicism. Gutenberg invents the printing press and Martin Luther brings down Catholicism. This is because Gutenberg ironically decided the Bible was going to be his first book of mass production. Well met Gutenberg!

Religion has never been the source of morality. What religion is is control. Religion has been a power based founded upon a tyranny of ignorance. Educate the people and then goodbye religion.

It is for this reason that the appropriate position for strident anti-theists such as myself is not to oppose religion, but rather to promote education and technology

The Renaissance

We're going to skip this era and many other eras of history so we can get right to what matters most: history in America beginning in the 20th century.

The 20th Century

Prior to the 20th Century the average person never travelled a radius of more than 30 miles from their birth place. People grew their own food and the American Census of 1900 indicated that 90% of Americans were directly involved in growing their own food.

Then comes along the advent of the automobile, the internal combustion engine and the airplane after 1900. As the 20th century progresses then along comes the telephone, indoor plumbing and electricity.

All of this new technology is mass produced and made available to the common American and as a result revolutionizes society. Technology turned society on its head.

I took a sociology class in college where  we read studies of what happened to society after WWII. I remember reading one particular paper that really stood out for me. The study was about all the new technology since 1900 and the effects it was having on Americans.

It turns out that after WWII there was an ideal condition made readily available: GI's were returning from abroad with foreign wives. The thesis of the study was to understand the impact of technology on new arrivals. How long would it take for these women to adjust to American culture? How much would they assimilate? Would they assimilate the technology?

What the study found is that the 1950s saw the birth of the suburbs in America. The advent of indoor plumbing, electricity and food transportation made suburbs possible. People no longer needed an acre of land to grown their own food and so families could be more densely populated, but not as much as in the city.

The study found that religion was not the only institutionalized form of ignorance tyranny.  The male of the household ruled with ignorance. The ignorance part is the key to all this. Turns out that husbands had been controlling women down through the ages by telling them  lies. Think of cults where people are brainwashed. A husband could convince his wife that say beating her was the norm.

The suburb undermined that tyranny of ignorance however. Homes being closer together meant women could lean over the fence and talk more to compare notes. Women learned that their husbands were lying. Factor into that education the telephone then you get even more notes. Pile on a television where the husband is not, in fact, beating his wife and well you get the picture.

The study concluded that women became fully westernised after a period of seven years and were not as controllable due to ignorance. The conclusion was that technology, not ideology, lifted women out of the tyranny of the home by improving communication.

How about another study after WWII. There is another study we read concerning the history of no-fault divorce. How did no-fault divorce come to be in every state? Ever ask yourself that?

One study concluded that in fact the automobile was instrumental in bring no-fault divorce about. The advent of the automobile meant that  husband could so easily abandon his wife and be anywhere in the country within two days. Get a fresh start. And husbands did. They abandoned their wives and started families in other states. Running out on your marriage has never been a felony crime where one state will extradite you back to another. Imagine you are a judge in a state where a women is seeking divorce from a run away husband in another state who refuses to appear in court? What choice does the judge have but to declare a divorce with no-fault when the other party is not around?

I'm oversimplifying the science here because I'm telling just a brief history. Technological innovation at the start of the 20th century rapidly revolutionized society by exposing aspects of human nature never before exposed.  Religion has no answer for new technological morals required other than to lay blame for failures. Religion cannot provide answers to moral dilemmas not possible 2000 years ago.

I'll close not with another study but with an anecdote which I think is illustrative that technology and not ideology has changed morality.

My brother is a Jehovah Witness. I've necessarily brushed up against some of the quirks of that religion because of exposure. One of the aspects I found interesting was that of the morality of watching movies.

Turns out the Jehovah Witnesses at that time were not allowed to watch 'R' rated movies per church doctrine. What I find dumbfounding is why the Jehovah Witnesses would leave their moral code to a non-religious organization in Hollywood?

Why? Well, it turns out one cannot rate movies without watching them. Oops. Any Jehovah Witness who watches all the movies so as to rate them then is committing  sin. Of course the obvious answer is to either a.) don't watch movies at all or b.) only watch movies made by the religious for religious. Turns out that making movies was impractical  and going cold turkey  unreasonable because that would cut Jehovah Witnesses off from society at large.

The point of all this history is that technology exposes human nature to new opportunities and new moral situations every single day. This innovation is antithetical to all religions because religions are rooted in dogma and tradition. Dogma and tradition have no answer to new moral landscapes brought about by technology.

It is for this reason you will fine no definitive religious moral about what movies  to watch.

Every day religion becomes more irrelevant as technology creates new and exciting opportunities for people that in turn create new moral quandaries. And yet every day the news feeds us the same old BS of ideology, left vs. right. The real gap in morality these days is not that people have abandoned religious morals but that technology exposes new morals by the thousands and religion cannot provide. And this is the brief history of innovation vs. religion.

Where innovation has challenged us with new moral needs then we can use innovation to meet those needs. That is the design of Irreni World Scale. Irreni World Scale is calling for thousands if not millions of social experiments to be run over a long period of time to close the gap of unmet moral needs created by technology and left unmet by religion.

Cheers!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!







Framing Atheism

Hi! Happy Sunday!

Hope everyone is doing well!

Openly Secular Day is coming up on April 23rd. I would come out as an anti-theist atheist if I could, but then everyone who knows me already knows.

CBS just ran a video about the discrimination against atheists in this country:
CBS Openly Secular Video
If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is the law of the land in all fifty states then question for Americans to contemplate with respect to civil rights is who's next? Black lives matter? Atheists?

While I applaud efforts by groups like Openly Secular fighting the discrimination against atheists like myself, I'm not sure if it is the right framing for promoting secularism.

Why is it that framing atheists as victims of discrimination may not the best  framing?
  1. Secularism is inevitable. Look at the UK and the Nordic countries.
  2. Gay marriage went from the majority against to the majority in favor just in two short decades. I call that a wave of secularism.
  3. Only 17% of scientists are religious. 
  4. Geeks such as myself are not religious and we dominate computers, programming and the Internet. Java, Python, Ruby, C, C++ and other computer languages are something the religious are not well versed on. Technology is in juxtaposition with religion and technology is expanding daily.
Discrimination albeit racism, homophobia or against atheists for sure needs to be exposed and ridiculed.  However, I question if we are best served by national campaigns educating about atheist discrimination?

The reason I bring this up is because I believe there is a better framing. This better framing strikes at the heart of why the religious discriminate against atheists. That better framing involves the lie and the myth that religion is the source of morality.  It is not.

All of the science of the day tells us that religion has no bearing on morality whatsoever. Dispel the myth that religion is the source of morality and  non-religious stigma is made irrelevant and we'll get more secularism.

Religion has no bearing on morality. None. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that religion is the source of morality. Name one religion that has proof of this. It is a lie like all other historical religious lies that has been perpetuated by tradition and dogma but in fact has no basis in science and reality.

What I'm arguing for then is rather than to spend public education dollars and energy denouncing discrimination against atheists that instead atheists spend public education dollars and energy dispelling the myth that religion is the source of morality.

Here is the science as I understand it:

  1. Social studies have been conducted to study religions and their morals. Even the Catholic church has commissioned studies to prove that Catholic cultures materially are superior morally over the non-Catholic. To the Vatican's credit the Vatican came up empty handed and admitted as such. 
  2. Religious cultures are not self-similar. In order to state that religion is the source of morality then once must first identify moral outcomes based upon moral tenets for religious cultures. If, for example, studies found Christian cultures had no divorce because divorce is prohibited as moral tenet then one could correlate at least Christianity is source of that morality. However, that is not the case. Pick any two Christian cultures and their divorce rate will vary greatly and will vary the same as any other non-Christian culture.
  3. The best indicator for any two cultures sharing values and morals is not religion, but time. Two cultures that exist at the same time in close proximity have more in common than two cultures based upon a religion with no time and space proximity. It would be ludicrous to claim that "time" is the source of morality.   It is equally ludicrous to claim that religion is as well. At least with time there is correlation.
It is rather obvious and common sense that if two Christian cultures have nothing morally in common then religion cannot be the source of morality.

But the evidence against religion being the source of morality is even more obvious and more compelling then comparing different cultures. Even within a single culture one will find that religious folks occupy both sides of great moral positions.

For example, let us ponder abortion in the United States:
  1. Republicans are against abortion.
  2. Liberals are for abortion.
  3. Republicans and Liberals consider themselves Christian in like percentage of population.
Christians in equal number are on both sides of the abortion debate. The conclusion from the above three statements is that Christianity as a source of morality doesn't determine an abortion moral standard. Republican Christians insist that Liberals cannot be "true" Christians. The problem with that statement though is that there is NO RECOGNIZED MORAL TEST for being a Christian. That's right. The challenge for any Christian to prove that their religion is a source of morality is to provide a concise, moral standard that anyone can judge any other Christian by instead of using self-affiliation used today. Given there are some 30,000 sects of Christianity in this country then it is a pretty safe bet that we will never see that moral standard. Self-affiliation as the only standard for religious identification reflects no moral standard and no source of morality.

But, the evidence against religion being the source of morality is even more obvious and more compelling then just comparing Liberals and Conservatives in this country. Let us just compare Conservatives.

  1. The birth-rate in the Bible belt and other more other conservative areas of the US is no higher than the Liberal coasts. 
  2. Pew polls have shown that conservative women get abortions only 4% less than liberal women. 
I actually did not have to reach into abortion statistics for this point,  I could've just used divorce. Christians are total hypocrites when espousing Christianity is the source of morality all the while ignoring that morality and getting divorce. The point here being is that if religion is the source of morality then it must pass scientific muster of claims matching evidence. Clearly religion fails when matching moral claims with real world evidence. The reason I'm pointing out the hypocrisy with conservatives on abortion is simply to show that the religious conservatives who point fingers and liberal Christians for not being true Christians are every bit the hypocrites when it comes to abortion.

Framing Atheism

Atheists are scapegoats for Christians. The Christians cast their sins on the atheist goat and send that goat out into the dessert to die so as to take away their sins. They do this rather than admit their opponent on the other side of the moral debate is in fact a Christian. This is why I think framing the debate about atheist discrimination will not be so effective because the root cause of cognitive dissonance about the contradictions found in Christian morality.

There is no evidence that the moral claims of the Christian religion, or any religion, actually manifest the morality claimed. Further there is no universal agreement what those morals are within any religious culture.

Pick any great moral debate like abortion, capital punishment, war, imprisonment, drugs, vaccination, climate change, birth control or eating pork and you will find that for any particular religion there will be people in that religion of opposing moral standards and then again religious adherents failing to live up to the moral standards the same as anyone else. Religion buys you nothing morally.

Religion is not the source of morality. This is the framing of atheism I think that should be made in the public square today as opposed to launching new public awareness campaigns regarding atheist discrimination.

Cheers!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!















Saturday, April 18, 2015

Free Will

Hi! Happy Friday!


Do you have free will? Stick around and I will answer that question.

There are these things that I call emotional spaces. Emotional spaces are just like physical spaces in some ways. You can move in-and-out of them. Some are big, some are small. Each person is like a little planet Earth. Each person has their own landscape of spaces. Some spaces are universal, like hunger. Other spaces only a few people will ever experience.

I came up with the notion of emotional spaces to better understand my own life. So much of my life has no vocabulary. The emotional spaces are never discussed or written about.

Emotional spaces can also be defined by what they are not: a blank slate. Humans have never been blank slates and unfortunately some ancient Greek philosopher coined the term tabula rasa and humans have been suffering for it ever since.

We are not blank slates. Our every existence is defined by a landscape of experiences and emotional spaces those experiences live in. To whit, the tabula rasa is evil and it hurts people. By extension the golden rule is evil and it hurts people. Heterosexual people who have no homosexual emotional space then cannot relate to a homosexual who would die before giving up being homosexual. The religious exclaim there are no atheists in foxholes because the religious have no emotional space for being non-religious.

The list of emotional spaces are as limitless as the number of people who have ever lived. Even though we all share universal spaces such as fear and hunger the combination of size and shape of those universal fear and hunger spaces varies widely among people.

If you are not a socio-path, a psychopath, narcissist or just clinically depressed then you cannot know what it is like to visit those emotional spaces. Have you ever just felt an urge to steal something? Then you are not a kleptomaniac. People with agoraphobia can't leave the house. Do you have that emotional space?

Irreni World Scale transcends every religion to date and does so by transcending the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is humankind's universal first worst attempt at managing human nature where all of human nature is the same as yours. I listed just a few emotional spaces above. As I was doing so you rattled off at least ten more in your mind. You know you did. These emotional spaces are so severe people will die because the space influence. Most of us have no experience with these emotional spaces and this is why humankind must transcend the golden rule to the next level of human morality: treat others as they are and not as you are.  This information rule is contingent all of us getting to know each other's emotional spaces.

Emotional spaces constrain our free will. Emotional spaces represent the entirely of choices available to us. Our mental capacity to manage those spaces represents the degrees of choice freedom that we have, your free will boundaries.

Irreni World Scale is built upon a moral foundation of the information rule. The information rule by its very nature is truly only possible in the current era of technology that we currently live in. The information rule requires information. We cannot know how to treat others as they are if we do not have the information to do so. The information rule is of a time and place. The information rule would not make sense in any era before the Internet, and the information rule must replace the golden rule after the Internet.

The Beatles have a song, "With a Little Help From My Friends." Their song was a send up to drugs, drugs being their "friends" in this case. Irreni World Scale should have a similar song, "With a lot of Help From My Tribe."

Free will doesn't just have to be just about you, your emotional spaces and your ability to mentally manage your emotional spaces. Free will boundaries can be extended with a little help.

Find your tribe!

Irreni World Scale is built on empowering people to experience ever greater degrees of choice and free will. How? By building upon six-degrees of knowing people who have both similar and yet distinct emotional spaces from you. There are things you cannot do and that you will never be able to emotionally do, but those things are possible by people that you know in your tribe.

Find your tribe!

Find your tribe! Prior to the age of the information rule a tribe was best realized when homogeneous. The tribe aspired to be a group of people who focused on sharing the exact same emotional spaces. This makes sense when the foundation for such a tribe is the golden rule. This is religion.

Find your tribe!

In the age of information rule the make-up of your tribe changes. The ideal tribe is one that empowers everyone in the tribe with the most emotional spaces manageable, diversity. For example, personally I will die before I kill anyone. My empathy and my emotional space is such that I cannot kill anyone even in self defense. I cannot and I will not. However, if I want to survive then I need to find a tribe where there I have enough in common with people who are willing to kill. By making a decision to be part of a tribe with people of different emotional spaces then I have exercised a form of vicarious free-will. I'm able to enlist others to make decisions that are not possible for me to make. Free will boundary is extended.

Irreni World Scale is engineered to expand the degrees of freedom in your free choice universe. This engineering requires everyone to find a tribe, but not a homogeneous tribe as has been the case throughout human existence. No, we must together transcend homogeneity of tribe to a balance of homogeneity and heterogeneity the opens the choice possibilities for everyone in the tribe.

How much heterogeneity should one seek out? The answer is the same answer Thomas Jefferson gave when asked about federal charity. Thomas Jefferson was asked if the federal government should give to charity and if so how much? Jefferson's answer was simply, "as much as the public will tolerate." You should seek out a tribe to expand your free will boundaries with a tribe as heterogeneous as the tribe can tolerate.

And that is Free Will in the 21st century.

Cheers!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!











Thursday, April 16, 2015

Charitable Intution

Hi! Happy Thursday!

A couple of talking points today: 

  1. Scale is going to require all of us to redefine how we think about life.
  2. Conservative philosophy no longer applies in an age of scale.

I'm going to walk you through both talking points today using the topic of charity.

Redefining how we think about charity. 


Ever stop and ask yourself why and what we call "charity"? For example, I personally call my taxes charity. Taxes are charity. I give the money away and the money gets used to help people via Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.

But there is actually an even better reason to call taxes charity: effectiveness.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/the-poorhouse-aunt-winnie_n_802338.html:

Aunt Winnie, whose story is preserved in the archives of the Historical Society of Washington, had been sent to an American institution that was by then some 300 years old and went by a variety of names: the county farm, the poor farm, the almshouse or, most often, simply the poorhouse. She would probably have been surprised to learn that more than a hundred years later, after the virtual eradication of elderly poverty, a powerful political movement would materialize with the mission of returning to the hands-off social policies that made the poorhouse the nation's only refuge for the jobless, the aged, the infirm and the disabled.
"Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a closet New Dealer, said this year. Poverty statistics are unreliable before about 1960, when the elderly poverty rate was 35 percent, but that figure likely represents a steep decline from the day Social Security became law. Though there were no national measurements, in surveys taken between 1925 and 1932 in Connecticut, New York and Wisconsin, nearly half of elderly people lived on less than $25 per month, which survey administrators deemed "insufficient subsistence income." A third in Connecticut had no income at all. An attempt to quantify elderly poverty in 1939, deep into the depression, using census data, found the rate may have been close to 80 percent. Whatever the national numbers, by 1974 official elderly poverty had fallen below 15 percent and by 1995 it had dropped to ten.
Social Security single-handedly wiped out poorhouses and did so in less than two decades. Poorhouses were an institution since the inception of the United States. Name a single charity that has helped the poor on the scale Social Security has.

Charity doesn't scale. In 2011 figures show that Americans gave a total $200 billion dollars in charity for the for year. That is all charity combined, both foreign and domestic. Forced taxation for charitable purposes in this country, what the conservatives demonize as welfare, runs about $2 trillion dollars per year. That's right $2 trillion dollars.

The moral of this story is that taxes are for more moral than charity. Voluntary giving is far inferior to forced taxation.  When it comes to taking care of the elderly, the handicapped and the poor these folks are far better off with forced taxation.

Therefore I feel the same uplifting feelings when paying my taxes as I do when donating to charity. I know my taxes are doing far more good. The overall tax burden in this country when local, state and federal taxes are combined is around 50%. The rich on the whole have never given 50% of their salary to charity. Prior to the US there as no such thing in the entire world as a middle class, just the few rich and multitudes of poor.  This rich/poor dichotomy had been all of human history and the elite in England belly-laughed at the naive Americans for thinking to even try to create life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. And at the heart of the belly laugh is  that charity by the rich never did anything to alleviate poverty.  Not ever in history.  Only Social Security wiped out the poorhouse.

The lie of religion is that 10% is enough. It is not. As the last century of the US has shown, the real number is 50%.

Charity has many characteristics in its definition:
  1. Voluntary giving of money
  2. Purpose of helping those less fortunate
  3. Improve ones mental health 
  4. Morality
Taxation fits all of those characteristics except that of being voluntary. So, I consider my taxes the greatest charity and the greater moral good when trying to help people with my money.

Charity doesn't scale. It never has and it never will because it is not in human nature for us to voluntarily give 50%. We have all of human history before the United States to prove it.

Conservative philosophy no longer applies in an age of scale. 

In the previous section I proved that charity as a religious philosophy fails. Tithing 10% of ones income throughout all of history never solved a problem of poverty. Social Security under a forced taxation and overall tax burden of 50% did.

Charity is just an anecdote of why conservatism philosophy fails. The core principle one can wholeheartedly just dismiss conservative ideology outright is the nature of conservationism no longer applies today with a world scale of 7 billion people.

Conservatism, n: 1. the wisdom of stopping or slowing down social change due  to knowing what is already working and the risk of the unknown.

I may sound like a conservative these last couple of posts when it comes to the police wearing body cameras but I am not. I am not saying the police should not wear body cameras. What I am saying is that we should not enact social changes without scientific experiments and a graduated scale.

If we roll out police cameras to all 630,000 police officers and 400,000 police reservists without science then the program may fail due to improper protocols and unforeseen consequences. In the age of scale science needs to be applied.

Traditionally conservatives would fulfil a venerable role of saying "whoa there young'un, hold your horses." Social conservatives stick to things that are known to work. That's the definition of conservative and traditionally conservatives acted as a check on progressives to keep the rate of social change manageable.

That traditional role for conservatives is immoral in the 21st century. The pace of technological advancement makes being conservative immoral. Technology has forced our hand to move fast with social changes. We cannot slow down the rate of social change, we need a fast-pace of social change to keep up with the iPhone and what not.

Conservationism is dead. So is religion. Time to admit reality and move on to Irreni World Scale!

Slowing Down at a Fast Pace


In the last couple of posts I have been promoting a contradiction: slowing down and speeding up. Slowing things down with Irreni World Scale has the aspect of conservatism by applying social brakes when demanding we do the science first over a long period of time. Contradictory, Irreni World Scale sets an unprecedented rapid pace of human change by demanding millions of experiments be implemented over the course of one-hundred years.

Cheers!
 
The future is coming!

Be sexy people!

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!










Monday, April 13, 2015

With Scale Intuition Fails

Hi! Happy Monday!

With Scale Intuition Fails

"Technology has put pressure on us to move beyond the very slow pace of evolving our social systems and to a rapid pace to innovate."
-Mybrid Wonderful, Sixy-Three Quad-Zero


"Yes I'm recommending a lot of slow, hard, long work with lots of candles and moaning."
-Mybrid Wonderful, Slow Speed Ahead 

I can't be right on both accounts, can I? How can I recommend both a rapid pace to innovate and slow speed ahead? I must be wrong.

If you believe I'm wrong then you would be wrong. That's because your intuition fails you. With scale intuition fails: latency is not throughput.

Let us consider scale as it is taught in computer science. Yes, we are going to apply principles of computer science to political science. We are going to learn to scale. I'm teaching you.

In computer science when network bandwidth is considered one has to consider the trip time, or latency, of the first packet and then again the rate of packets that can be sent. The first network packet of a request may take an entire second to reach google.com, for example, but all the subsequent packets are right behind the first packet being sent. The same applies on the response. The trip time of the response may take one entire second to return but the subsequent packets will be right behind the first.

For this exercise we are going to simplify network bandwidth to a unit called a network packet. The bandwidth will be in units of packets-per-second (pps).

In my Google search example above I supposed a two-second round trip time: one second for the first packet to arrive and another second for the first return packet. That is a total latency time of two seconds.

Now, if I send one packet and receive one packet then my bandwidth is very poor at 1pps. Assuming Google can produce one-thousand packets in one-tenth of  a second and further assuming the Google search response was one-thousand packets then my bandwidth is now 1000p/2.1s or approximately 500pps. Notice how 500pps is approaching the rate of 1000pps, which is the rate at which Google is assumed to be able to produce packets.

In my post entitled "Slow Speed Ahead" I'm demanding we take the time to do experiments and get things correct. That is recommending a slow latency. In fact, I'm thinking that the latency will be on the order of one-hundred years. It is going to take a century of building social scale infrastructure before we start seeing results. Slow speed ahead if we want to do this right. We need to treat social experiments as science and quantify the hell out of them.

In my post entitled "Sixty-Three Quad Zero" I was not suggesting the number of experiments that be undertaken, but I am now. I am suggesting that we initiate millions of experiments: right here, right now. That's called innovation. Innovation requires tons of experiments that through a combination of science along with trial-and-error produces winners.

Over the course of one-hundred years if the human race embarks on one-million social experiments and nine out of ten of those fail, the same as the Internet start-up failure rate,  then there will be one-hundred thousand successful experiments over the course of one-hundred years. That's a throughput of one-thousand social program innovations per year. That rate of innovation is not possible to scale with politics as we have today. Not even close.

We need to start thinking in scale.

For example, rushing to put body cameras on policemen is bound to fail because we are not experimenting over many years socially. We need the time for the feedback of social factors to kick in and influence the process. We need to innovate.

We also need to consider alternate ideas. For example, perhaps an alternate idea to cops-with-cameras is camera operators. For all 630,000 cops on the street today then we hire 630,000 operators to do nothing except what citizens are doing today: take video of incidents. This will create 630,000 jobs overnight. Big plus. Second, cops don't have to be under surveillance with body cameras when they go to the bathroom, they make a private call, etc. If you are not disturbed  by the notion of mandatory 24/7 surveillance then let us mandate that for you. Now.

We need to innovate millions of social experiments, but do so with science. The science of experimenting with social programs needs to be voluminous, ergo the Data Center on the Moon where all experiments feed results into a database owned by the public for the public good. Part of the experiment of running millions of simultaneous experiments is learning how to experiment from experience.

If we can produce a rate of one-thousand successfully innovative social changes-per-year over the next century then we will have left behind a better world for our children. After all, a generation is no longer twenty years when we are living upwards of one-hundred years.

Cheers!
 
Be sexy people!

The future is coming! 

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!









Saturday, April 11, 2015

Sixty-Three Quad-Zero

Hi! Happy Saturday!

Sixty-Three Quad-Zero

James Bond was 007 because presumably the number of people licensed to kill was limited. What a quaint thought. Here in the USA there are 630,000 police officers licenced to kill with impunity. Sixty-Three Quad-Zero!

Today is a teaching moment about scale. Today I'll put news headlines in the context of scale.

Here are the news topics at hand:

  1. Walter Scott and the Blue Code of Silence. 

    Why isn't the partner of the Walter Scott murdering cop charged with accessory to murder? Hello, cover up? Why aren't the 630,000 police officers in this country speaking out.
  2. Elizabeth Warren.

    Why is Elizabeth a lone wolf? Why isn't Elizabeth Warren partnering up with Bernie Sanders? Where are Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein? Why aren't all Democrats in Washtingto DC standing with Elizabeth Warren?


  3. California Drought.

    I came to California in 1984 and there was a drought. Why hasn't California and the USA overlayed this country with water pipelines the same as with oil pipelines?


Blue Code of Silence


The Catholic Church is a disgraced institution of child rapists. I
bring this up because at the end of last century we saw first hand the
result of sticking to a code of silence the Catholic Church
maintained. It failed. The Catholic Church has no cred. None. This
code of silence is a universal moral throughout human history. Gangs
and social groups of all kinds hate snitches. The code of silence has
protected those on the the inside and given assurance of illusion to
those outside. No more.

No more. Codes of silence do not scale in the modern world. Just ask
the Catholic Church. The police are getting a taste of this with
ubiquitous cameras in phones filming them everywhere. In South
Carolina a police officer was caught shooting a man in the back eight
times as the victim ran away. The cop was fired and charged with
murder but only after the cops had closed ranks to protect their
own. The blue code of silence kicked in. The murdering cop's partner
who witnessed the whole thing said nothing. It is only because a
civilian brought forth a video showing the murder did the police fire
the murdering cop and charge him with murder.

Why haven't the 630,000 police officers in this country taken to the
media to condemn this murder and show their outrage? This question is
one of human nature. This same question applies to terrorism. Why
haven't the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world take to the media to
condemn terrorism and show the outrage. Why haven't the priests in the
Catholic Church spoken out over the last fifty years about the child
rape? Why don't the people in gang neighborhoods cooperate with the
police and maintain a code of silence?

How is this an issue of scale? Stereotypes. Stereotypes of local
priests and police are no longer determined solely locally. We are all
in this together, worldwide.  Human nature requires stereotypes.
Humans are pattern matching machines and when those patterns apply to
humans we call them stereotypes. Pattern matching is who we are at our
very core. There is no fighting the national and global stereotypes
replacing what were once only local.

It doesn't matter if most police officers are good when all 630,000
police officers are enacting a code of silence to protect one bad one:
the partner of the murdering cop in South Carolina. Justice needs to
be applied fairly in the minds of the people or all respect for the
law will be lost.

The murdering cop in South Carolina is becoming part of new stereotype
of cops on par with the stereotype today of Mexican Federales. Media
no longer stays local. People will stereotype a cop in New York with a
story of cop in South Carolina. This is a just a new
reality. Corporate media optimizing dollars per story ensures that
only a handful of stories get national attention and this undermines
historical media local stereotypes. There is no going back. That means
we all have to speak out nationally.

The blue code of silence needs go. Police need to start flushing out
all the bad cops before they lose all credibility just like the Catholic Church. Sadly that will never happen. The Catholic Church is still to this day clinging to a code of silence and so will the police.  The police in this country are on an inevitable course of total credibility destruction. The police would rather go down in flames then break the code just like with the Catholic Church.

Elizabeth Warren

Mr. U.: "There is no news. There's the truth of the signal. What l see. And, there's the puppet theater. . . the Parliament jesters foist on the somnambulant public."
Mal: "Well, what about this? Did this make the puppet theater?"
Mr. U.: "No, sir. And no lawforce flags, either. I had to go into the security feed direct."
Mal: "You can do that?"
Mr. U.: "Can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere."
-Mr. Universe, Serenity

Elizabeth Warren is playing a part in a cynical puppet theater made
for too big to fail. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Elizabeth Warren is
100% sincere in her beliefs just as she is equally sure there is 0%
chance of making a difference. A too-big-to-fail government,
too-big-to-fail banks have no incentive to do anything moral or good any
more. None.

Just as we must ask the question about why the 630,000 police officers are not crying out about the partner covering up for the murdering cop; just as we must ask why 1.2 billion Muslim's are not crying out about terrorism; then we must ask why aren't all Democrats in Congress standing with Elizabeth Warren?

The answer is obvious, of course. Elizabeth Warren is just puppet theater. Elizabeth Warren represents the escape valve on a tea kettle. She allows the progressives to blow steam. But that is all she is. She is not standing with Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic Presidential Candidate. That's because there is no sincerity in Washington in supporting anything Elizabeth Warren is espousing. She is just playing her part.

Politics has always been cynical and people have always been played. This is nothing new and this is nothing scale-worthy. What Elizabeth Warren represents is a symptom of a scale that is too-big-to-fail. No matter how damning the transgression of entities too-big-to-fail there is no transgression going to bring them down. We are in denial about this and Elizabeth Warren feeds our denial.

That's it. That is Elizabeth Warren.

California Drought


California's water problem is well understood. I came to California in
1984. There was drought. Trust me on this one: the one thing the
morons who run this country understand is supply and demand. Even the
idiot politicians in Washington and California government are smart
enough to have pieced together a plan to build a pipeline from Canada
to California. But they haven't. Oh wait, yes they have...for oil.

The delicious irony of the Keystone Pipeline debacle to deliver
tar-sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Louisiana is that the story has been
all over the news going on two years now and so has been California’s
drought. We've been talking about pipelines for oil to meet supply and
demand, but not for water. Why not?

We the people no longer scale with a population of 400 million. The scale moral is "we the profits". We the profits determine the political will for oil. We the people did not. We the people cannot scale the political will. Democracy is dead.

Evolution Breaking Bad

What these three news stories have fundamentally  in common is that humans socially evolve at the same pace we genetically evolve, very slowly. Codes of silence such as the blue code of silence have been around forever. Today codes of silence don't work for the rapists in the Catholic Church  and are working less every day for the police. Why are the 630,000 police silent? Technology has put pressure on us to move beyond the very slow pace of evolving our social systems and to a rapid pace to innovate.


So, welcome to Irreni World Scale! Irreni World Scale brings to the forefront the fundamental shift from evolving social systems to innovating social systems.  So let us commit together to fast forward social programs to keep pace with technology today.

Cheers!

Be Sexy people!

Slow Speed Ahead!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Slow Speed Ahead!

Hi! Happy Saturday!

Slow Speed Ahead!

Every once in awhile here at Irreni World Scale I like to post to say slow speed ahead! Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and I'm making a lot of claims!

Slowing things down is what I call the Sexy Principle of Quality of Life. Mmmmm.

The Sexy Principle comes from project management and computer science. What? Hunh? LOL. This is one of those computer science practices being applied to politics. Oh yeah, baby, right there. Lower. :-)

A long time ago in a land far, far away software project management used a process that later came to be called The Waterfall. How nice, eh? Images of taking a waterfall shower on a tropical Hawaiian island, a little rain coming down. Mmmm. If only software development was such. The Waterfall approach really means two things, 1.) no looking back and 2.) lock-step.

The Waterfall approach starts at the top of the waterfall with something called the business requirements and transitions along a cascade of functional requirements, development, test plans and testing. The CEO, sales, marketing or some other business minded person comes up with a business case for some new piece of software. Boom! Could be even your customer if your business is providing software for others. The cascade of the production of a software project from The Waterfall starts and then descends from the very top of the power food chain all the way down to the very bottom of the company food chain: Quality Control.

The food chain of a software project in a corporation usually goes some like:
  • CEO / Customer
  • Upper Management
  • Design or Keyman Engineer
  • Project Management
  • Developer  Engineer
  • Bug Fix Engineer
  • QA Engineer
  • QC Tester
Sh*t rolls down hill and that is how and why The Waterfall gets its name. What's interesting about The Waterfall is that role of Project Management is sandwiched between engineering roles. A Keyman Engineering role is someone in the company who is the only person that knows how something works. The project manager has the lovely job of pretending to deliver the business requirements when the untouchable Keyman Engineer keeps changing things and holding software hostage.

That's The Waterfall. The Waterfall process was pretty much the only process for software development after the invention of the computer for the next fifty years. Not because it was proven to work;  not because it worked well; and not because it worked more often then not. But because sh*t rolling down hill is the only thing people in power want despite all the failures and waste.

Then somewhere in the 1980s Fedex starting eating the US Postal Service's lunch and did so charging much hirer rates than what the USPS. The CEO of Fedex published a management book about "empowering" employees and how this lead to the success of Fedex. This management book dovetailed nicely into another empowerment process, new management process using a Japanese way of manufacturing called JIT, just-in-time manufacturing. For over a decade it seemed like every month a new business management book came out.  The underlying theme was to revolutionize sh*t rolling down hill and capture the value of people all along the food chain, empower the people!  Manufacturing world over was adopting JIT and business practices empowering people. Hooray!

Then the Internet came along in the 1990s, or more importantly The World Wide Web. The web launched a new business model overnight, the Internet startup. Internet startup companies started making millions of dollars in just one-or-two years and putting bricks-and-mortar companies out of business. Amazon came out and said they were going to sell everything, all the bricks-and-mortar companies laughed and Amazon is now laughing last.

The advent of the quick turn-around of overnight software success coupled with new business practices empowering people undermined The Waterfall process.  Unfortunately I cannot say they killed The Waterfall process. Government agencies, large companies and companies lead by megalomaniacs are never going to give up on sh*t rolling down hill. Waterfall is here to stay unless human nature changes, sad to say.

Now you are asking yourself, what took the place of The Waterfall for software development? Will that process be even sexier? Oooooo, the suspense! Ha ha!

The Sexy Principle could have been called The Feedback Principle but where is the sexy in that? Eh? What replaced The Waterfall could be also called The Feedback Principle as well, just like The Sexy Principle. The actual name is Agile.

The Agile process uses feedback but feedback goes by a different name: iterations. The Agile process tries to break the cycle of sh*t rolling downhill by pushing the bad ideas, bad requirements and bad design back uphill in small iterations. The Agile process works intuitively in a small start-up of a handful of people. This is because all of the roles of The Waterfall are typically found in the same person. The founder of an Internet startup is also the tester. Kinda hard not to see the reality of bad requirements, bad ideas and bad design when you are the person doing it all.

The Agile process, as you might expect, is most effective in small startups with everyone assuming multiple roles.

The Sexy Principe of Quality of Life is meant to follow the trail blazed by Waterfall-to-Agile and provide a feedback process for human development in an agile way.  Instead of sh*t rolling down hill from the government telling us what is socially desired at the large scale via some weird process of amalgamation of polling, political party compromises and corruption then we talk to each other.

We talk to each other but with style. Bring on the sexy.

Each and every one of us becomes a movie maker. We make movies or TV shows that promote our wants and ideals for society at large! The political amalgamation process becomes  the movie amalgamation process where we incorporate values and ideals from each other's hopes and dreams into works of art.

But that is just the beginning of the Sexy Principle process. Oh yes, we want it long and slow and hard. Right there. Hmmmm. Slow speed ahead!

You don't roll out large human development projects to 400 million people at once like was done with Obamacare. That is not the long, slow, hard way a good orgasm takes. Not at all. You start out slow and build up to a crecendo! Pardon me while a take a break and listen to Ravel's "Bolero" concerto!

Imagine we roll out the notion of police wearing body cameras overnight for all 630,000 police officers in this country who are servicing all 400 million of us. Ummm, hello 1984? By screaming for police body cameras we are falling into the trap that Franklin and many others have warned us about: those who would sacrifice personal liberty for security deserve neither.

Here's the scenario. You walk into work one day and your boss informs you that you are required to wear a body camera. You're like, "what?" and scratch your head. Your boss further goes onto to say, "our insurance provider has informed us that we are required to have all employees wear body cameras just like the police. And just like the police the video and audio will be deleted regularly with no trace as long as there are no human resources conflicts being reported with you involved. We feel this protects not only the company but employees such as women being protected from unwanted sexual advances and so on. Here put this on." What are you going to do about it? We will literally be living 1984 dystopia. That microphone will be live 24/7 feeding into security ears and if you say anything bad about your boss? you're fired.

This is called the law of unintended consequences. This is why you do not roll things out to large groups of people without first scaling up ever larger groups of people.

The Sexy Principle informs a feedback process with the following requirements:
  1. Person-to-person inform with style. We create new music, art, video and food to present our dreams and hopes to each other. Remember, this is no longer about survival, but quality of life. Quality of life means fun! with the run! 
  2. Simulation and role playing. We try out our ideas and expectations using simulation first. We use the best technology possible to simulate and then use role playing to empathize. 
  3. Record, quantify and research. My idea is the results of simulation and role playing experiments are recorded and then managed by the Terran Sea Otter Academy, TSOA. 
  4. Feedback of the results and subsequence research are used to make decisions about whether to continue and if so how to continue. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All human development projects need to have science applied where expected results of ideal claims can be scientifically certified.
  5. Continue steps 1-4 above but also adding in real-world implementations of every larger groups of people until the human development project runs its course.
Wow! You may be saying to yourself. That's a lot, a lot of work. And fun! All that new art is going to be fun. Yes I'm recommending a lot of slow, hard, long work with lots of candles and moaning. We can afford too though...in fact we need too. Either sh*t rolls down hill from our government or we dance with each other  reformulating large scale social expectations. Let's dance!


Cheers!

Be Sexy people!

Slow Speed Ahead!

The future is coming!

Well come! and well met!