Saturday, August 29, 2015

The New Evil, Resolved

Hi! Happy Saturday!

I hope you are having a Wonderful! day!

If we were to consider a system of ten morals relative to a system of one-thousand morals then there is no discussion. And so it is that religion is dead and irrelevant. The golden rule has expired and we are onto the information rule; treat others as they are and not as you are. Empathy for all has blossomed because the human race is over, we've won. We know how to survive so we are now onto the quality-of-life, human chapter . Quality of life for everyone! Opportunity for everyone!

Zoom zoom!

Religious morality is irrelevant because it doesn't scale. Scale is a common theme here at Irreni. In the modern age it is irrelevant to be  religious because we of good conscious could never compromise our thousands, nay hundred-of-thousands of morals that we live by today. How could anyone consider a limited bronze-age, primitive moral code here in the complex information age?

Morality like so many things has scaled by leaps and bounds over the years and we need to scale our dialog accordingly.

Where should we begin? How 'bout at the top:  good versus evil?

How do we discuss good vs. evil these days? Well, first off let's identify what's changed now that religion is gone:

  1. No supernatural. Good and evil are not fixed states of supernatural condition. Good and evil then are just conditions that are ever changing and always transitioning. Therefore saying someone is either a "good person" or a "bad person" is meaningless. Every single one of is both good and evil depending on the aspect of life one is talking about.
  2. No more dehumanization. No insider versus outsider. Empathy for all requires no dehumanizing. Calling something or someone evil does not infer dehumanization. 
  3. No free will, but limited will. Humans have a limited capability of self-determination.
  4. Emerging morals continuously supersede existing morals and so everyone will have outdated morals. In other words, what was moral yesterday may be immoral tomorrow. 
This blog is about first and foremost about solutions. A solution is forthcoming. There will be a modern solution. But before we get there we need to suss out how things changing require us to change how we think and act upon good and evil.

First we need to define good and evil for the information age:
  1. Good: helpful
  2. Evil: harmful
There ya go. So when I say the rich today are really, really evil, despicable evil, then I'm just saying the rich are harmful. Which they are. What I am not saying is "off with their heads" like what happened during the French revolution. Empathy for all includes everyone. A new era is upon us where we are all in this together.

Ok, so if evil people are not to be dehumanized and they are not imbued with some nebulous, dark supernatural state then what good is the word evil? Evil remains a pejorative. Shame is powerful tool in our human psychological  toolbox. To be evil is to be shameful. Again, though, no dehumanization.

In the information era of human existence and in the quality-of-life human chapter we now can find it in our hearts and in our minds to reflect on everyone being both good and evil. Our mission is to encourage the good and discourage the evil.

One of the many ironies of religion is that religion attempts to cast people as computers. Religion treats people as either-or; a one or a zero. In religion a person is either good or a person is evil, you can't be both. Hitler was evil. We do not consider him good because he is evil. Binary. Treating people like computers is so pre-21st century.

Now, in the 21st century, we get to be humans. We get to be enigmas. We are all both good and evil.

Let us consider one of my personal heroes and also a hero to most Americans: George Washington. The list of good, admirable and awe inspiring things done by George Washington fills many books. Washington was a very good man.

Yet Washington owned slaves and lots of them. That makes Washington evil. In prior generations this enigma of Washington being both good and evil would have played out one of two ways. One is hero worship of Washington meant avoiding the slave conversation other than acknowledgement. The other way this played out is that if someone called Washington evil because slavery was evil then that person was labeled unpatriotic and outcast.

No more. Humans are not computers. We don't have to choose if Washington was either good or evil. In this generation it is not only acceptable but desirable to call out Washington as both good and evil. Good and evil are not a state. They just mean helpful and harmful. Further, there is no ledger. Previous moral judgements would sometimes try to weigh all the good Washington did against all the bad Washington did and then somehow weigh the scales. The problem with weighing the scales is that a.) there is no quantitative scale  and b.) the final tally winner masks that which was considered lesser. Hitler is considered evil and only evil using a weighing of the scales. Did Hitler do good? We can have that conversation now. We can see Hitler as a person now and not a dehumanized devil demon. We are not religious.

But modern morals have evolved as more than just re-defining good and evil. The scale of morals today means we are only responsible for a minor fraction of all the morals today. For example, we all want the buildings that we live in built to a moral building code. That moral building code reflects the expectation that people should not be dying in buildings due to building failure. It is considered immoral for a building to not have safety measures. It is a moral code. The same goes for flight safety and so on. To whit, unlike the religious era where all morals were meant for everyone and everyone was expected to abide and be accountable to all morals that is not the case in the information age. That expectation doesn't scale. Instead we have built a new moral system where we compartmentalize and depend on each other. There are millions of modern morals but individually we are only responsible for small fraction. Religion is dead.

But wait, there's more!  Evil and good have evolved in another way in the modern era: they change over time. Morals are changing rapidly and the growth in moral count is accelerating. As time goes by morals that were once good become evil. And that is a complete about face from religion. In religion once something is morally good it is always morally good. Religion can't scale to evolving morals.

For example, I grew in an era of thick skin. I grew up in an era of wickedly offensive humor. Comedy was all about being offensive. That sensibility is changing today. PC is the norm for the up coming generation. Thick skin may still be a moral good but getting it by way of offending people until they grow thick skin is not going to be an acceptable good way to get it.

Another instance of a modern moral good becoming moral evil is how we treat animals. We should all be vegetarians now. All of us eating meat are being evil. The world's population of seven billion people means the arable, farm land is quickly shrinking. Meat is inefficient form of food. There is a high risk we not be able to feed every increasing populations eating meat and so the moral thing to do is for us all to become vegetarian. I try but I'm still eating bacon. Oh bacon.

Good and evil have come along way since the computer days of the bronze age where good and evil had supernatural overtones and so one was either one or the other. You couldn't be possessed by the devil and the Lord simultaneously. Times have change and it is no longer moral to consider someone as binary good or evil. We are all both good and evil. And we are all on a continuous journey of becoming more, better good. Well, hopefully.

All of which brings me to our solution. The most vile, wicked, despicable, wretched, detestable evil people today are the rich. Now, in the past such a statement was meant to dehumanize. Now it is not. Now what detestable evil means is to call out shame.

Shame on the rich. Why? Some people would say that the rich today deserve no more calling out then the rich at any time in the American past. This is simply not true from an American history perspective. The rich today are ever so much more nasty, vicious and evil. By what measure, you might ask?

That measure is in the 1920s when the income tax was first instituted the tax on anything over 1 million dollars was 100%. And guess what? This was a decision the BY rich FOR the rich. This was not a populist thing. The rich had an understanding that with privilege there is no honestly making a million dollars. Money will make money, something denied to the poor. That's not honest.

I've studied a great deal of American history prior to the civil war. One thing that is strikingly clear is that the privileged called themselves that: privileged. There is a saying from the 1920s that reflects this well I think: one can't make a million dollars honestly. Another saying about privilege is that it takes money to make money.

For sure this obligation was not felt by all the rich. But Washington had it. Franklin had it. Both died very wealthy men.  The rich felt an obligation to the masses because they understood they were privileged and that with privilege came a heavy burden of public obligation. Thomas Jefferson earned no salary as the governor of Virginia.

And today?  The rich of America today have no compassion and no ethics. They are ruthless, uncaring and arrogant vampires sucking the life out of the middle class and poor. Crap. I called them vampires, dehumanizing them. Let me try again. The rich of America today remind me of the rich of Europe prior to this country's founding. Let the plebs eat the cake of bread, why would they want anything more? The poor want to be poor. This attitude of the European rich of the 1700s is identical to the American rich today.

The rich of America today deserve every bit the same derision given the rich of 1800s in Europe before their heads were chopped off.

However, empathy for all, remember? Everyone is an enigma of good and evil. We don't dehumanize people and we certainly don't kill them.

So what do we do?

And now time for the Irreni World Scale solution.

We take their toys away.

One way to do this is we could pass a constitutional amendment that every single person in the top 1% is stripped of 100% of all money and property. These people claim their time is worth $430 million/year. There should be no problem for these people to earn another $430 million the following year after being stripped of it all. Let's do it.  Of course we also have to deal with the non-Americans who hold the same kind of American wealth the top 1% Americans do. Strip them of 100% of all American money and property as well.

All the proceeds go into increasing wages of all Americans.

This is just a thought exercise to demonstrate we live in a new era. We no longer need to resort to violence or dehumanizing the evil-doers. Empathy for all. The rich can simply become rich again overnight. No harm no foul. Well, at least to hear them tell it, because, you know, they EARN 100% of all their wealth.

Of course we could always go farther and ban the rich from entering into the very businesses and occupations they previously abused. But we should not. Why? Because the real objective is empathy for all. The rich in America prior to 1920 understood that with great wealth came great privilege and great responsibility. Perhaps we can get the modern rich to see the light?

My ideal scenario would go something like this. We the populist masses begin a 3-5 year process to pass a one-time only constitutional amendment to strip the evil rich of all wealth. During that 3-5 years the amendment is being passed the rich have an opportunity, a window of time, to decide to turn it around and do good. They rich could just like in the 1920s get together and agree to tax 100% of ALL income over one million dollars per year. The rich decide for the rich. Perhaps then we the people wouldn't feel the need then to pass this new amendment?

And that, my friends, is the new morality. We shame people until hopefully they turn it around from evil-to-good. If not? Wellllllll, suffer the consequences. Empathy for all!

Cheers!

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!
















Thursday, August 27, 2015

Finding your tribe: moral relativity.

Hi! Happy Thursday!

Today we are going to mash two things together: finding your tribe and moral relativity.

First let us start with moral relativity.

State sanctioned moral relativity resulted from secularism in 1789 where everyone was entitled to their own absolute moral code in the form of their own religion. Freedom of religion was everyone's right. Secularism in 1789 meant that there were competing religions and competing absolute moral codes that people  subscribed too and thus resulted in a moral pluralism or moral relativity across various religious factions. A religion itself was not morally relative.  Each religion taught that only a single absolute moral code was correct. Religion's main claim to authority was in fact the notion that only religion imbues people with morals and that people would not otherwise have morals if not for the religion.

Moral relativity today means something quite different. Moral relativity today means as individuals we recognize competing moral codes as valid and have empathy for all.

Part of the stagnation the US is facing today in politics is our inability individually to recognize moral relativity and to publicly acknowledge multiple codes of morality and ethics as good.

Instead, today we still cling to moral absolutes. Take for example the morality of abortion. Those who believe abortion is murder do not accept that the morality of abortion being legal is valid. The problem with  abortion is murder is that some 60% of Americans believe Roe V. Wade should stand. Further, conservative women and liberal women have abortions in the same percentage such the differences are within the margin of error. In other words, the people espousing abortion is murder in fact get abortions.

So what is the correct moral code with respect to moral absolutes? Is slavery okay? A large percentage of Americans felt slavery was moral prior to the civil war? Is morality really just a matter of public sentiment?

The US Constitution tries to grapple with the concept of absolute moral codes in the Bill of Rights. In come sense one could argue that the Bill of Rights and subsequent constitutional amendments represent an attempt to define the moral absolutes upon which then any religious code can be acceptably built. Slavery is not permitted and therefore you religion is not allowed to practice slavery.

The Bill of Rights was not intended, however, to define an absolute moral code. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the citizens from the government. But when  you think about it protecting citizens from the government and defining an absolute moral code are similar in purpose: to protect the individual from the many. The difference is that the Bill of Rights loosely defined the many as the government whereas the an absolute moral code defines everyone as the many.

Irreni World Scale defines a solution as follows. There exists an absolute moral code where upon all moral relative codes must adhere too. Further the best absolute moral code is the minimal absolute moral code with an objective to defend every single person from tyranny and oppression of any sort.

For example, Irreni World Scale includes the Opportunity Importance Principle, or OI! Principle, as one of the 20 big fancy pants ideas. The OI! Principle states that we are no longer in the human race. The race is over, we won. We know how to survive. We know how to feed, shelter and cloth every single person on the planet. Therefore we are now into the Quality of Life era of human existence. Therefore everyone has an equal opportunity for importance.

Irreni World Scale then makes slavery immoral because slavery would violate the OI principle, those who would be enslaved are obviously not as important as the masters.

And abortion? Doesn't the OI! Principle make abortion absolutely immoral? Well, yes and no. You see there is the sticky problem of defining what it means to be a "person". We can probably all agree that a dying person who is brain dead and who has no chance for opportunity ever again is not a "person" in the moral sense. Therefore it is morally okay to take someone who is dying and brain dead off of life support.

So when does person-hood begin and end? That is decision that Irreni World Scale doesn't tackle because that is really a matter of a policy of an era. When we define a person to be "a person" is really a matter of the state of current technology. Given different parts of the world will have different technological levels then the line between person and not-person will be relative and a forever source of debate and change.

Are moral absolutes morals for all time or relative to a time? The answer is moral absolutes are relative to a time.

For this next part I'm going to use a graphic that popped up on my Facebook feed.

Facebook Discussion

If you click on the "Facebook Discussion" link then you will find the typical back-and-forth on guns discussion.

The reason I am using guns is that guns are not really addressed by religions. Therefore it is kinda up to us to decide the morality. The moral issue of guns is more-or-less out of the religious realm.

And what moral realm do guns occupy? The US was founded before the automobile and train were available to make fresh meat daily an option at the market. Therefore, people then owned a gun and hunted for fresh meat. Times change. We do not need guns for fresh food any more and that moral realm no longer exists. Besides folks having guns for hunting in 1789 there is another moral realm bias that existed when the 2nd amendment was created: we were just coming off a 10 year battle for independence.

There are actually two different types of morality with respect to guns as morals exist today in the US: should the moral realm be absolute and then what are the relative moral realms?

Guns today no longer have a food survival purpose. Guns only have a purpose to kill people, animals and for competition sport. It is nigh impossible to make any case that allowing guns for everyone should be a moral absolute. But what about the inverse? Should guns be banned as a moral absolute?  Guns as a sport should be superseded by the OI! Principle.

Guns are a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they are allowed then they need to be allowed for everyone because guns have a long history as the weapon of choice for enforcing tyranny and oppression. If we disallow guns then we should disallow guns for everyone, including the military. Not a single person should be allowed to have a gun morally if any are disallowed to have guns.

The answer lies in the environment and state of the world today. Humans do not enact laws today at the world level. As a result absolute morality as adopted by any subset of humans is not, in fact, absolute morality at all.  The Earth is evolving to greater acknowledgement of a set of minimum universal moral codes. We are not there yet. Therefore until such a time as guns can be technically banished from the face of the earth for all humans then guns should be a relative moral each generation modifies as we move closer to common minimal moral absolutes as a species.

To whit, we should repeal the 2nd amendment and not create the inverse of banning guns.

Absolute morality then is not absolute for all time, but absolute to a time, a generation and a technological and political capability of an era.

What about morals that are not absolute? That's where you need to find your tribe.

Irreni World Scale defines a two-fold moral solution whereby absolute morality is a bare minimum to thwart systemic tyranny and oppression.

One of the things we've learned about human nature ere these last 200 years since the US was founded is that human nature is not uniform. We are not emotionally alike. To whit, one size does not fit all. Marriage is no longer defined to be between a man and a women because not all men are attracted to women, etc.

Our minds are not blank slates at birth. Our genetics and are environment predispose us to be willing to die before living a life of conflicting morals in society at large.

Gay people have long died for their nature to be homosexual and the heterosexuals have been more than willing to persecute, ostracise and kill gays for all of history.

Violent behavior and resulting morality occupies much the same emotional space as sexuality due to its primal nature. Violent behavior is very much about our genetics. For example, I am a pacifist by nature. I pain to think of ever killing anyone and would probably let the most evil vile vicious thing kill me before defending myself. Therefore I believe so called castle laws are immoral. No one deserves to die for stealing your television.

I cannot emotionally relate to people who want to kill intruders. And they cannot emotionally relate to me. The list of emotional expanses that people will die for and therefore separate us morally and emotionally as humans are countless. Sexuality, violent behavior, faith in God, adultery, stealing, lying are just some of the classic emotional divide-to-the-death issues we humans harbor.

What do we do?

First find your tribe. Second, realize that given no two people are alike then no tribe will agree with you 100%. Eventually we all make moral compromises to belong to a group. Irreni World Scale puts a new twist on finding your tribe. That twist is to find your most morally diverse tribe and not your most morally homogeneous tribe.

People today are in moral emotional pain due to not recognizing moral relativity and being unable to "find a tribe".

There are a couple of reasons for this pain. First is a false moral expectation of some universal moral absolutism existing across all of mankind for things that are in fact morally relative. Second is our tendency for confirmation bias where people find a tribe that is as homogeneous as possible morally. Confirmation bias is defined to be always seeking out people and views that already agree with you. Confirmation creates an illusion of moral absolutes that in fact doesn't exist and therefore creates the most pain.

Irreni World Scale resolves both reasons for moral relativity emotional pain due to tribal bias. First tribes are limited to about 30 people. Then tribes of tribes are formed. Second people are encouraged to find a morally diverse tribes as possible. You should try to form a tribe that includes as a diverse of innate set of moral perspectives as possible such that the diversity of the moral world is not such a painful shock.

To whit, for someone like myself who was born a pacifist then I should seek to include someone who feels morally obligated to own guns for self defense. If someone like myself believes abortion should be legal then I should tribe up with at least one person who is against abortion being illegal.

Make no mistake about it. Finding your tribe is about finding people who accept you as you are. That is the first priority in finding a tribe. But, if you only try to find a tribe where everyone is as close in nature to you as possible then the moral relativity pain of living in a world of seven billion people of competing morality will be a most severe pain.

Irreni World Scale is a moral system that scales. The system does this by finding a minimal universal set of absolute morals for planet Earth that are relative to a time. Once the minimal set of absolute morals are defined for a time then all morals are relative to the minimum set. People of similar natures find their tribe with a eye towards fostering as much moral relativity as possible within a tribe so as to avoid confirmation bias and hence avoid a deep moral relativity pain  due to not understanding and not fitting into the relative moral world at large.

Cheers!

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!
















Sunday, August 23, 2015

Rethinking Revolution: Disruption

Hi! Happy Sunday!

Today's post is about scratching that imagination itch.

Irreni World scale is first and foremost about solutions. Today's itch scratch is about the solution of innovation replacing revolution.

Innovation is a process disrupting existing market systems with better systems. The iPhone disrupted the cellular phone market. This process works in the free market because capitalism invites disruption of competition.

And governments? Do governments invite disruption of competition? No. Irreni World Scale can easily be seen as naive in that sense. The powers that be are not going to allow a competing government. Therefore replacing a government typically entails revolution, war and killing those who are in power at that time. Revolution burns the government to the ground and starts anew.

The US is too big to fail. We are the only world's "super-power" policing the oceans and lands. We manage the supply chains of food. We are the banking center. The US is just too big to fail for revolution. The 1% know this and are mocking us, laughing at us, Dick Cheney'ing us.

So what can we do then? Disruption.

Innovation is a benevolent form of disruption in that wars are not required and people don't have to be physically hurt. But there are two other kinds of disruption: disruption for disruption's sake and malevolent disruption. Revolution is a form of malevolent disruption. Think the French Revolution where the guillotine disrupted the heads of the 1% of their day. We could do the same today, chop off the heads of the 1%, but that would be 3 million of 300 million people. Do we really want to do that?

What can we do?

Innovation is benevolent disruption that needs some sunshine in order to grow. Corruption and the 1% have a stranglehold on government power today,  closing off the oxygen and sunlight required to innovate government.

So we make a few cracks of our own using disruption for disruption's sake.  Disruption for disruption's sake provides the same fertile opportunity soil that free markets provide competitive opportunity soil for innovation today. Once disruption for disruption's sake creates cracks in the corruption then the new ideas and the innovative ideas such as Irreni can have room to take hold.

How do we do this disruption for disruption's sake?

Easy, instead of saying "off with their heads" we say "off with their power heads".

The notion is simple. Fire and enforce a lifetime ban on every single person in a government or industry. Tell every single director on a US corporation board today that they are fired and can never, ever be a corporate board member ever again. One can imagine firing 100% of all Federal government employees and removing all of today's elected officials. No reason to physically chop people's heads off. Instead we cut off their  power head. We tell every person in financial industry, "You're fired!" And we follow it up with "You're fired permanently, you are forever banned from working in the financial industry ever again."

Crazy, eh? What we need is a little humility in this country. What we need is to put people on notice that no one is indispensable. We need to put these jackholes who justify their $400 million bonuses because they are irreplaceable, "no you are not". We can fire 100% of all US corporate boards and C level officers today and the world would never notice. Not a single fly would die as a result. These people are useless, the least useful people on the planet. Fire them all with impunity and sleep easy at night. 

In addtion it is time for the people who claim, "It is only  a few bad apples" to suffer the consequences of that attitude. That is not an acceptable excuse for the dot com bust, the real estate bust and the recession of 2008.

Meh, so this is just a thought experiment. This is just a thought experiment designed to get your creative political juices flowing about disruption. Think disruption.

What would disruption for disruption's sake really look like in practice? Well, we could demand as 300 million people a new constitutional amendment:

The Disruption Amendment:
1.) The American people have the sovereignty by a 50% majority ballot measure vote to disrupt any market or government, including and up to replacing 100% of the people in the Federal government and armed forces.
2.) Disruption may include removing up to 100% of people involved in the market and government over a period of one-to-ten years. 
3.) Disruption may include relocating offices and other gathering places so as to disrupt the surrounding culture. For example, moving Washington DC to somewhere more central, or even splitting up a central seat such as Washington DC into many federated locations.
4.) Disruption candidates must be selected by standards of participation that existed prior to the industry or market consideration for disruption.
5.) Selection of less than 100% of candidates must be random from the 100% of candidates.
Imagine we fired 100% of all Federal employees and elected politicians. All gone. Would this work? Sure. This is an argument of scale. We have 300 million people. With 300 million people anyone can be replaced, tomorrow.

Disruption can be more than just firing people for life. Imagine we moved Washington DC to the very heart of the continental US. Our seat of government would be much safer than it is today, exposed on a coast. We flush the cesspool that is Washington DC down the proverbial toilet by just moving it to say, Colorado.

Again, this is all just flight of fancy. However, it is dead serious in that we are never going to "wipe the slate clean" as disruption through elections today. The corruption that controls our government will ensure that. And for sure the corruption that runs this country would kill The Disruption Amendment proposed above too.

Which brings me back to my opening remark. The main take-away from this blog post is to consider forms of disruption in lieu of revolution. We don't have to chop off people's physical heads to disrupt. We can chop off their power head.  We can disrupt the government for disruption's sake so as to allow some light to shine on new ideas, trying new political ideas such as Irreni World Scale.

Which brings me to my final point. Disruption for disruption's sake is pointless. We should only disrupt markets and governments when at least some new ideas are waiting in the wings ready to grow as disruption ensues. 

Cheers!

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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, August 21, 2015

Empathy For All, For The Day!

Hi! Happy Friday!

Today's post is about love and acceptance.

I was having a break-room conversation with the younger generation the other day about political-correctness.

I love rude, crude and socially unacceptable humor. My own take on being PC is we should just label  venues and materials that are rude, crude and socially unacceptable the same way we label content for violence and sex.

For example, there is a Penn and Teller movie called "The Aristocrats". It is a documentary about telling the same joke one-hundred times by one-hundred different comedians. The joke happens to be a joke where the point is to offend as many people as possible. I find "The Aristocrats" hysterical. In my mind this movie would have the most comprehensive label possible, "Rated CE, comedy intended to offend everyone."

Anyway, I was dicussing at lunch this week that being PC is here to stay according to an article featured on the cover of "The Atlantic". The Atlantic author declares that being PC has turned a tipping point on college campuses and there is no going back.  I was asking a representative of the recently graduated how they felt about this thesis? They agreed. And they said it is not a problem, PC was second nature. Being PC is natural for a twenty-something as breathing oxygen and there is no big deal. Meh.

I say "meh" because I do have empathy for all, I do. I say meh because I realize my humor is outdated. I'm outdated. I grew up in an offensive comedy generation. Meh.

Empathy for all!

This conversation came about on the same day that Jared Fogle pled guilty to child pornography and underage sex.


Political Correctness is a harbinger of "empathy for all" generation being ushered in by a rise of secularism and the dismissal of religion as evil. Religion is about insiders versus outsiders, us versus them. Therefore religion is evil. That's what I'm blogging about here.

Empathy for all is a pointedly non-religious view point. I have empathy for all. Not offending people agrees with my empathy for all.

So, I just reflect where the next generations will be going and how religion is going to be left in the dust with empathy for all. Specifically wishing suffering upon others will no longer be accepted:

  1. Rape.
    Specifically males raping males in prison is not funny and it is not an acceptable form of justice, ever. That footlong joke about Subway spokesperson Jared Fogle is not funny. The fact that Christian Americans condone male rape in prison and have for centuries pretty much sums up my contempt for religion in this country. If Christianity had any kind of efficacy whatsoever then our prison system as it exists today would have never come to be where men are raping men is considered justice by the American public.
  2. Death penalty.
    It is not about justice for the victims when we kill someone. It is a statement about who we are and our empathy for all and so we will not kill people. 
  3. Animals.
    Again, as with the death penalty, how we treat animals reflects on our empathy. In the next generations empathy will be highly valued and treatment of animals will be seen as a strong indicator of empathy.
  4. Free will doesn't exist.
    People are in part programmed by their genetics and their environment. Empathy for all takes this into account when considering crime. Empathy for all will no longer consider suffering as a form of justice, but rather adjusting living conditions for people's limitations will be expected. 
  5. One life-time.
    Empathy for all is 100% focused on this life-time. The after-life and free-will don't exist and so providing even the most heinous and evil of vicious killers opportunity and value of life will be valued. This is not about rehabilitation but understanding people's limitations. Society will have a responsibility as with public education to managing public limitations. As science progresses and we can identify heinous and evil people characteristics then steps can be taken to mitigate evil tendencies before manifestation and for those people to thrive. Empathy for all. We only have one life-time and everyone is an innocent five-year-old when we start our memories and our higher order brain functions kick in.
Empathy for all is coming. Make no mistake about it. Science and especially the study of genetics and the brain will allow us to understand in unprecedented ways exactly why people behave they way they do and we will understand that our animal species of Homo sapiens has limited capability to make good choices for self-determination. We are going to engineer and innovate ways to mitigate bad behavior with science and so have empathy for all. That will be the new morality. Say goodbye to religion. Yeah!

The future is coming. Empathy for all is coming as being PC on college campuses is already a done deal.

The religious days are coming to an end. The days of "do the crime, do the time" will be made irrelevant by science.

Irreni World Scale is built upon empathy for all. Irreni World Scale is designed to optimize relative morality so as to include everyone, everyone.

To whit, if you are old like me and you think the death penalty is a form of justice then you are out dated. If you think male rape in prison is an acceptable form of punishment for Jared Fogle and for child rape and child pornography then the world has already passed you by. Rape is not funny. Neither is it a justice punishment.

Secularism is coming and the complexity of a moral code built on empathy for all is exponentially greater in the number of rules than the 2000-year-old simplicity of religion. Religion cannot compete with future morality. Scientific manuals of people are coming. Mapping the human brain is coming.

Irreni World Scale is built on the information rule: treat people as they are and not as you are. The golden rule is over. Empathy for all!

Cheers!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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, August 19, 2015

Think Groups: Bernie Sanders is the Problem

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

Bernie Sanders has been in Washington for 30 years. What coalitions and groups has he been able to form to be effective? The answer? The same as Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein: none. 

One of my on-off hobbies is studying early American history and the founding of this country. Why? Because there were groups of intellectuals writing political ideas, intellectually fighting it out. As far as I know the sheer number of thinkers and doers leading up to 1776 in this country is unprecedented in founding any country before or since. That is what makes the founding of this country so fascinating to study: the sheer number of thought leaders dancing the political ballet! It is truly worth studying.

Now we are  2015 with 30 times more peoples than the 10 million in 1789. So the question is this: do we have 30 times the number political thinkers? Do we have 30 times the Franklins, Jeffersons, Madisons, Adams, Washingtons and the list goes on-and-on? In fact, how many innovative political thinkers do we have today in the public square?

None.

Well one, of course, myself. :-) (bow), Irreni World Scale jumps the gap of no political upkeep  these last two centuries and meets the political challenges of the day with today's technology and education.

And Bernie Sanders?

Why isn't Bernie embraced by all the Democrats in Washington today? Bernie has been in Washington DC for over 30 years. And? How many Democratic endorsements does he have already from the either the House or the Senate? Zero.

Bernie cannot build a coalition. If Bernie can't build a coalition or be part of a coalition having 30 years in Washington then he never will. Period. Bernie is a man out standing in his field. By himself. Bernie is just another cult of personality type no different than Donald Trump, just a different personality.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders represent the same idea: populist release valves to keep the population from boiling over.  What Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders do not represent is a group: they don't represent a anyone in Washington DC but themselves. One would think, at a minimum that Warren would be stumping with Bernie given how close their messages are. Is she? Nope.

Bernie Sanders has been on Thom Hartman's "Friday with Bernie" radio hour for years. I've listened to Bernie for years. There is nothing to him. Bernie is what I call a conservative Democrat. He wants to repeal things back to the way they were. And that's it. He has no ideas to meet climate change and other new challenges facing us today.

Bernie was there these last thirty years when it all when down, when the 1% started raping the middle class. Bernie was impotent to do anything about it and most importantly Bernie wasn't able to put his ego aside to build a coalition.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I do believe the 1% look at Bernie Sanders as no threat. Because he's not. Bernie Sanders only has jingoisms and aphorisms. Great for Facebook memes and "Friday's with Bernie" but nothing else.

We need new groups. Nothing is going to change in this country until we get serious political groups with serious debated political ideas like we had back in 1776. We need a plethora of intellectual thinkers and not sound bite wars.

The way I see it America has watched too many Superman'ish movies, cartoons and cop shows where a single individual is the focus of a solution. That's not what it takes to change a country. America required excellent factions of opposing views to found this country and we need them to move forward as well. Cult of personality isn't going to cut it.

Irreni World Scale builds new factions from the ground up. So when you are thinking about change in this upcoming election just ask yourself this: where are the factions and groups behind the leaders? What new political ideas are being put forth to meet the new challenges of the day?

Then answer yourself, A Ha!, Irreni World Scale!

Cheers!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!
















Sunday, August 16, 2015

Tender Trump

Hi! Welcome to a Happy Sunday!

Wouldn't it be great if we nicknamed Trump, "Tender Trump"?

"Leave a Tender Moment Alone" is  the title of a Billy Joel song. To hear Wikipedia tell it Billy Joel was hearkening back to softer days of R&B:

Even though I'm in love
Sometimes I get so afraid
I'll say something so wrong
Just to have something to say
I know the moment isn't right
To tell the girl a comical line
To keep the conversation light
I guess I'm just frightened out of my mind
But if that's how I feel
Then it's the best feeling I've even known
It's undeniably real
Leave a tender moment alone
Leave a tender moment alone is a lyric in the song that is good advice to many a nervous guy on a date; just don't say anything. Leave a tender moment alone just happens to be a very nice way of saying, "shut up". ha! Mmmm.

Tender Trump as a nickname is my funny way of referencing that lyric whereby we think to replace "tender" with "trump" in the above lyric,  leave a Trump moment alone. Sometimes the mood is best left alone.

Imagine if we all started referring to Trump as "Tender Trump". In one fell swoop we tell the media to fuck off, we won't participate in train wreck politics telling Trump to fuck off. Kill 'um with kindness! as they say.

This blog is about solutions, not punditry. Today I want to provide scalable solution to the Trump phenomenon.

What is the Trump phenomenon? Much punditry has been made about Trump's rise in polls and then again 24 million viewers watching the Republican debate. The most common opinion going is that reality TV has arrived in politics and people want saucy, trashy talk. Trump is providing.

But is that it? I have read other, less common, pundit opinions of which one struck me as noteworthy: the Republican voters are finally starting to develop some self-awareness and engage in introspection. Really?

So what do you think?

And that is the problem right there: think. The answer should not be a matter of think, but science and fact.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Was Trump really the reason the Fox debate received 24 million viewers?

Let us do a periphery scientific questioning in to this claim:
  1. Has Trump every drawn anywhere near 24 million viewers just for watching Trump? No, not ever. This fact undermines the claim Trump was responsible for 24 million viewers.
  2. Has the capability to count viewers dramatically improved since 2012? Yup. Again undermining the claim.
  3. Did Fox control all of the outlets where previously it did not? Yup. 
  4. Was there any investigation or alternative reason considered for this sudden jump to 24 million? Nope. 
  5. 24 million viewers is on the order of the same number of voters in the last election where 84 million voters turned out in 2014. Think about that. One fourth of the number of voters in the last election watched this debate. The only unquestioned opinion  for this was Trump was the reason. Are we not selling out selves short leaving it at this? Shouldn't we do some investigation? Why can we get 24 million viewers but only 84 million voters?
Irreni lesson number one:
Demand scientific answers and shame punditry. 

So our first lesson is demand science. Don't accept on face value claims made. 

The second Irreni lesson is about cognitive dissonance with respect to bullying. This nation is bullying Donald Trump, no doubt about it.  In an interview Trump held the US in his minds eye for just a split second. Trump was asked why felt it was okay or him to be obnoxious. Trump's mind's eye, moment of truth  was  people make fun of him all the time about his hair and no one seems to mind it. Ever. Therefore he feels it is okay to bully because he is being bullied.

Bullying has been a national conversation for a few years yet now. Yet with respect to the bullying of Trump we get crickets? Why? Because we feel Trump brings it on himself. And therein lies our cognitive dissonance. We are against bullying until we are not. We want to bully and yet we don't want bullying, cognitive dissonance.

Tender Trump. A nickname of "Tender Trump" removes bullying of Trump from the picture. Kill Trump with kindness and he will go away over night. Quit bullying Trump over his hair. America's desire to beat up a politician, any politician, even someone like Trump who has never been a politician, is something we want very very badly. We must avoid this bullying temptation.

Irreni lesson number two:
 Cognitive dissonance is emotional and detectable.
Our fascination with someone like Trump is nothing more than our fascination with our own collective cognitive dissonance around bullying. We all want to make fun of Trump's hair and enjoy it and so we give Trump a pass to bully us and others.. This has become a vicious cycle. All we need to do to dismiss our cognitive dissonance is a.) detect it and b.) reconcile it and call him Tender Trump.

Cheers!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!
















Sunday, August 9, 2015

Legalize Prostitution? We Are Not Computers.

Hi! Happy Sunday!

Should we legalize prostitution? Yes. And No.

We are not computers.

There has been news lately surrounding Amnesty International's proposed new platform to decriminalize prostitution. 

Should we?

From the linked article above:

But equally, critics and anti-trafficking activists say decriminalisation fails to take into account backgrounds of economic deprivation, pimp coercion and the intrinsic link between prostitution and sex trafficking.

 Let us look at the word 'intrinsic':

"belonging to a thing by its very nature:"

This is not mere word parsing. Dogma can be manufactured anywhere at any time. And given there is no single world-wide religion and further given topics such as prostitution, abortion, and climate change are world-wide then expect rapidly growing non-religious dogma in public opinion.

What is going on here is an attempt by the author to make human trafficking and prostitution one-and-the-same and to fix in ones mind a moral absolute without evidence. The problem is that not all prostitutes are trafficked into prostitution, far from it, and not all women sold into bondage today are prostitutes. We have sweatshops in this country where mostly women are trafficked as cheap labor and are working off the price for transport to the US by making clothes.

I bring this current event topic up to make a very important point that underpins Irreni World Scale:

Morality is relative, not absolute. Good and evil are not binary.  We are not computers.

I'm a shades of gray kinda guy. I never see things in black-and-white. Never. The article linked above is a perfect example of a weakness in our human nature. We want things to be in black-and-white:

"The biggest threat to democracy today is an oversimplified solution to a complicated problem."
-Joan Fedor, Phi Theta Kappa Convention, Keynote speech, 1990
It is a flaw in our nature to drive towards the binary, one or the other, black-and-white. Dogma. Those in power use our flawed nature against us. Just like with capitalism group think takes advantages of the weaknesses in our very nature. If you have an addiction or predilection  then capitalism will sell it to you. Group think will exploit any confirmation bias dogma you might have, without evidence and without nuance.

Removing religion from global arguments today does not in any way diminish the tendency for people to want desperately to see things in black-and-white  Meh. Be on guard.

And that is really all I wanted to say. Jon Stewart left the Daily Show this week and in his final show he encouraged us to call out bullshit when we see it. The article above is a nefarious kind of bs precisely because it plays into our blind spot of our human nature to desire binary framing and dogma.

That means you need to be an active reader. There are a couple of easy mental exercises one can adopt to insulate your binary nature:

  • Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 
  • Moral relativity is our collective nature, moral absolutes are our personal nature. Do not confuse the two.
In the article linked above here are just some of the claims made without evidence that can be dismissed without evidence:

  1. But equally, critics and anti-trafficking activists say decriminalisation fails to take into account backgrounds of economic deprivation, pimp coercion and the intrinsic link between prostitution and sex trafficking.

    A synonym for the word 'intrinsic' is absolute. We all know that is not true. Absolute claims only require one counter-example to be invalid.
  2. Decriminalising commercial sex industry does not make it any safer.

    Within the article this is a quote of someone else. I guess even the author had enough sense to recognize how much she was opening herself to criticism by just stating it. Again, this is just a claim with no evidence.
  3. Perrier argues prostitution is inherently harmful, whether legal or illegal.

    Again, hiding behind quoting someone else to avoid criticism. Again notice the use of the word "inherent". Words like "inherent" and "intrinsic" are two insidious words that denote absolute and are stand-in for "dogma". To whit, writing doesn't require religious words to project a religious mindset. I'm singling out this op-ed piece because of its overt dogma. I am very sympathetic to the cause. However, I'm brutally antagonistic against dogmatic claims in all forms. So should we all be.
  4. But Perrier argues prostitution is never a choice. 

    Claims made without evidence have gone full crazy here and are egregious. We are not computers. We are not binary. Just recently I read where there has been an up-tick in college women engaging in sex work of stripping, to pay for college. This is clearly a choice. "But Maggie found a solution, working just four nights a week. She said she makes $180,000 a year stripping, and she will actually take a pay cut when she becomes a lawyer."
  5. Decriminalisation is the worst thing for women in that country. Not just the women in prostitution, but for all women. Because what you are saying is that they are all potential commodities, depending on what way the circumstances of their lives shape out."

    Hyperbole. This op-ed has jumped the shark from egregious dogmatic to full-on hyperbole.
  6. Another issue is the intrinsic link between prostitution and sex trafficking, she says. Amnesty's proposal urges its membership to see the two phenomena separately, which disregards the problem of supply and demand – the demand for prostitution fuels trafficking to support it.

    This is the icing on the cake. This person is claiming authority because Amesty's proposal is binary and not dogmatic. Dogma is the argument!  That is just too rich. Essentially Amnesty's position is wrong because they see two phenomena and not one? The desire for sex is intrinsic in human nature and it is essential for survival of our species and any species. We are animals. This is not a problem of supply and demand. This is a challenge of a never solved problem: managing male sexual urges on a large scale. Prostitution is just a piece of that puzzle. Porn and the rise of single person households in developed countries are just two other important factors. A holistic approach needs to be taken to solve this problem of the dangers of male sexual desire. 
This post is punditry. When I started this blog I said it would be about solutions and not about punditry like the kind I just offered here. But, in my defense, I was raising a point of punditry that is often overlooked from today's opinion community: the bullshit of dogma not associated with religion. World-wide arguments are being made more-and-more today and since no religion can be argued world-wide  then new dogmas are being be raised up. Our job is to chop them down. The particularly onerous part today is that without a unifying religion to attack then today's dogma will require as many attacks as there are arguments. We can no longer just say some dogma of religion is bs and dismiss dogmatic arguments easily. Things have gotten a lot harder. 

So here is the Irreni solution.

Irreni World Scale acknowledges moral relativity across the board of all human nature. Whether the moral topic is legalizing prostitution, legalizing drugs or legalizing abortion the moral relativity system of Irreni is to call for experiments. Lots of experiments. In the case of legalizing prostitution here are just some experiments that could be run:

  1. Licensing. Control who is allowed by having standardized tests of health, safety and psychology. Psychology for both themselves and their clients. 
  2. Zones. This is the Nevada approach. Just legalize certain areas. 
  3. Age. Require all sex workers to be over the age of 21.  or 30. or 50. Why the different ages? Because that's what experiments are for. 
  4. Public record. Make every transaction a matter of public record.
  5. Robotics. Use technology to solve this problem.
Above are just a few ideas off the top of my head for running experiments on legalizing prostitution.

In addition to lots of experiments Irreni World Scale calls for long duration experiments on the order of 100 years. Life is a feedback loop. The feedback of multiple experiments being conducted in parallel will impact every experiment being run. Years will be needed to isolate the effects of feedback and to make any kind of authoritative efficacy claims.

Moral relativity: think it, breath it! Even if one is religious having a healthy cynicism regarding dogmatic absolutes, claims made without evidence, is important to keep in mind as secularism increases in the world and people turn to words like "inherent" or "intrinsic" to bully. World-wide issues require world-wide arguments and religious arguments will not work. New dogmas are being created daily. Your mission is to recognize it and call it out.

Cheers!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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, August 7, 2015

The Worst Word Ever

Hi! Zappy Friday!

Get your handkerchief out. Prepare to hear the most evil, vicious, horrific word that has ever been uttered across humans ears.

And of course its origins are French. I kid. Who doesn't like French wine? I mean this evil word does have French origins but that has nothing to do with why it is so horrific.

This horrific word even has a singular category of horror reserved all its own: boring. Boring evil. When was the last time you watched a boring horror movie? Not a boring horror movie that was poorly made.  I'm talking about a boring movie that struck your eye bleeding from terror? So much so that you couldn't take even five minutes of  boring horror before you had to bolt out of the theater?

Ok, so grab a pint of your favorite brew and drink a ton of it. Cause your going to need that drink for this next blog post here on Irreni.

What is this unspeakable horror of a word I dare not dredge distastefully from my mind to your, as yet, untroubled neuro-pathways? Brace yourself!

The most evil word is "bureaucracy". Notices it is not even a really good French word. It is more like a German word where the Germans smush words together; bureau crazy! be u r oooh crazy!

To be fair the word "bureaucracy" is not totally alone in a class of boring horror, it has a step-sister word companion, "systemic".

I can make all your hair fall out by putting both of those words together: systemic bureaucracy is at the heart of our political failures.

Bureau crazy is our human nature and second only to marriage. Every culture has marriage. Every culture has bureau crazy that is not tribal. Bureau crazy is in our genes.

Bureau crazy is a systemic problem that Irreni World Scale solves.

I like you, dear reader. So I will not go into the discussion of why systemic bureau crazy surpasses  even corruption as a root cause for our political demise these days. No, I leave researching bureau crazy to your discretion if you want to torture yourself reading up on empire building, waste, fraud and abuse. Suffice it to say that bureau crazy is a natural human grouping artifact from top down politics.

Irreni World Scale builds large groups of people from the bottom up, not the top down.

There is a fun little anecdote involving Richard Nixon and bureau crazy. When Nixon first took office as President and as a conservative he wanted to make an impression of cutting excess government. So he asked his cabinet to find a fool-proof useless government program for a quick victory. They soon came back with the Tea Tasters program. Since this country had been founded there was a Tea Tasting federal program whereby all tea sold in the U.S. must first be tasted and approved by a federal Tea Tasting agency. It served no purpose. Consumers should be deciding what tea tastes good and that's good conservative, libertarian politics. So Nixon said "cut it". Which was not long after followed by his now famous quip, "If you want immortality then become a government program." He said that, of course, because he failed.

Bureau crazy is a problem of scale. The more people a single social group serves like the U.S. government then the bigger, more inefficient and less effective bureau crazies become. Bureau crazies eventually choke to death eating their own excrement.

And it is not just government. Corporations that grow too large cannot innovate. They cannot innovate. In Silicon Valley almost every large corporation such as IBM, Apple, Google or Microsoft buys small company innovations or they "spin off" small company like incubation departments or subsidiaries. Once a corporation bureau crazy gets too crazy then it is game over ever having creativity. Bureau crazy is boring evil.

Large bureau crazies are a huge source of failure for governments and corporations. And arguably bureau crazy is a far bigger source of US political failure than corruption even though the two go hand-in-hand. Since large corporations fail due to large bureau crazies then large corporations buy themselves immortality by, you guessed it, becoming government programs. Microsoft will never die because 90% of the US government is using Microsoft Windows.

How does Irreni World Scale meet the bureau crazy challenge head on? Bottom up of course. The fundamental building block Irreni is a tribe of thirty people. From there then tribes-of-tribes are grouped, then tribes-of-tribes-of-tribes and so on. With Irreni the shortest lived organizations are the largest organizations. The hardest groups to hold together are the largest ones. The "immortal" groups are the base tribes themselves.

So Irreni does scale to the entire world population because there is no limit on bottom up grouping like there is with top down.  Irreni builds from the bottom up. Large groups such as "countries" are not the beginning, they are the last grouping to build from grouping groups of groups.

Irreni uses the very latest in cutting edge communication technology to enable building groups from the bottom up and the center piece is the V.E.R.Y. or virtual environment reality you.

Okay, enough boring horror for today!

Cheers!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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, August 5, 2015

Boiling Frogs

Hi! Happy Thursday!

When I was a kid we had a saying: you can't fight city hall. Someone commented on my blog post yesterday that reminded of this quote. They said it was kinda nice that someone actually thinks there is chance to fight corruption with new bottom-up politics. The implication being realistically, though, you can't fight city hall. You can't fight corruption. The corrupted power brokers hold all the cards.

There are two things at work here:
  1. We don't want revolution. Revolution means destroying an existing government. Destroying the US government would have catastrophic effects on millions if not billions. 
  2. We want to boil frogs. You can boil frogs alive if you raise the temperature slow enough. Frogs won't jump out of the pot. 
We need to take a very long view on fixing our current government. Our government is not going to be fixed instantly, or overnight, or over twenty years and perhaps it will taken even longer than one-hundred years.

What we  should do is make slow, no-sudden movements. Corruption will die a death by a thousand cuts...or in the Irreni case...death by a thousand improvements.

Talk is cheap. Is there any evidence today that boiling the 1% by gradually raising the political temperature slowly will work?

That, my friends, is what today's blog post is all about. Boiling frogs.

The first boiling pot is Bitcoin.  Bitcoin prints its own money. Now, you may be thinking to yourself printing their own money sounds familiar. That's because it is one of the 20 big fancy pants ideas of Irreni. Bitcoin has been around over ten years now and the Federal government is allowing it. Eventually Bitcoin is going to meet its demise by the IRS though. Why? Because eventually it is going to raise the temperature too much too fast and the IRS frog is going to jump out of the pot. Irreni has a different take on money managed outside of the Federal Government control. Irreni promotes that everyone get's their own currency. Bitcoin is a single target, easy to take down. Everyone is not. What if there were thousands and millions of Bitcoins? That is what Irreni is promoting.

The second boiling pot is Bittorrent. Bittorrent is a person-to-person file sharing protocol that is hard to shut down. Why? Because person-to-person can happen anywhere, at any time. Bittorrent is slowly boiling copyright tyranny to death. The frog, or MPAA and RIAA, have jumped out of the pot many times. Only to go back in. Bittorrent is still around today. People now feel it is a expected to share music, TV and video.

The third boiling pot is open source software. Open source software undermines every tenant of Capitalism. If the capitalist philosophy were even remotely correct then open source shouldn't exist, at all. According to the capitalist no one works for free. Further, according to the capitalist, things produced for free are of inferior in quality to those things paid by money. Yet today every Internet site uses open source software. Every single one. People every day write software without pay and then share the IP with everyone Oops. Open source software is slowly boiling Capitalism to death. Closed source software like Microsoft Windows is dying. Long live Linux.

The biggest boiling pot is simply the Internet itself. All ideologies and politics are based upon lies. Christianity, Islam, Intellectual Property Rights, Capitalism, Democracy, Republicanism, Socialism, Communism, ad nauseum are all based on claims made without evidence. Or lies. The Internet is allowing people to connect and expose these ideologies as the falsehoods that they are. One of the reasons why we are so paralysed doing nothing about political failures today is that historically a new ideology rises up to replace a previous ideology. However, any new ideology that gets floated today is immediately exposed on the Internet as a fraud. So, we are paralysed.  A new set of lies replaces the old set of lies doesn't work any more. The new boss is the same as the old boss is shut down ASAP.

For sure, the American revolution ended the tyranny and oppression of monarchies and church-state. Absolutely not all ideologies are the same. Democracy is superior to monarchy and church-state. But at the end of the day, Democracy is still an ideology and has now failed, just like monarchy before it.

Irreni switches gears. Irreni is founded on innovation replacing revolution. Every idea stands on its own merits. Of course ideas can be grouped together but these groups will be as rivers; ever changing flowing water with new ideas replacing old ideas continuously.

So the idea of believing in bottom-up politics being introduced today is already happening with Bitcoin, Bittorrent, Open Source and the Internet itself. Irreni formalizes what are now a haphazard set of boiling pots of marginal efficacy. But make not mistake about it: bottom-up politics is happening already.

Cheers!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!













You Need To Start Making Political Decisions

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

Yesterday Jimmy Carter was interviewed where in essence he was saying the US is no longer a Democracy, but an oligarchy. But that is actually being nice. It is corruption plain and simple.

The US has become like Mexico, China and most other countries around the world. Corruption rules.

I posted Carter's interview on Facebook yesterday and made two important arguments yesterday regarding Carter's observation:
  1. Root cause was scale. Our success has become our failure. Our success has been since WWI the US has become the richest country in the world, by orders of magnitude. In Silicon Valley we say that your success becomes your failure when something "goes viral", or the scale of growth quickly overwhelms either the company or the technology. Internet start ups fail because ten, twenty or even one-thousand times more web visits can bring down a site. Going viral means scale grows orders of magnitude too quickly to manage. This is called "going viral". Going viral can also mean the company needs to grow personnel overnight and hire rapidly to meet demand. Netscape, back in the day, was hiring 700 people/month. Who can manage that kind of growth? The US went from people starving during The Great Depression in the 1930s to shooting the moon 30 years later in the 1960s. That kind of financial success overwhelmed the political system. Our cash went viral too fast. 
  2. Irreni World Scale does scale out. Irreni scales out to the entire planet. 

Here is a question: how can the claim be made that Irreni scales out planet-wide? The answer I've stated before and I will state again, as one sentence.

Irreni scales out by plugging into our current top-down only political process the missing bottom-up political processes for tomorrow.


Irreni borrows ideas from Silicon Valley. In Silicon Valley we have known for as long as I've been in the software since 1993 that top-down, or waterfall design doesn't scale. Our politics today are fundamentally flawed because they only take a waterfall approach to political design. The bottom-up approach to politics today is a.) one-person one vote an d b.) jury trials. In the US both the jury system and the voting system have been rendered useless. What little bottom-up political power once existed in this country has been diminished to almost non-existence whereas the top-down political system has grown-out-of-control.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Irreni World Scale makes 20 big fancy pants claims, without evidence, about new bottom-up systemic approaches to politics. Do I have any evidence they will work? No. So the claim that the 20 big fancy pants ideas scale out planet-wide is unproven, untested and a lot of talk. Those 20 big fancy pants ideas represent just one of potentially infinite number of bottom-up designs we can choose from.

However, the design objective of adding a bottom-up approach to modern politics is proven where a waterfall approach to design doesn't scale. Our politics today is of a waterfall design. The solutions to fixing the failures of any waterfall design come from iterating between a bottom-up approach and a top-down approach, switching back-and-forth which view to take. The upshot is that this means you need to start making political decisions in your daily life. You need to exercise political power. Most people do not like politics. Too bad. We all need to suck it up and be responsible for our contribution to bottom-up politics. Calling this your "civic duty" is weak tea. It is a design necessity.

So bottom-up politics it is then. That is the solution to corruption.

 You can Google "top down bottom up design" to further explore how this works in Silicon Valley today. 

Here is a nice graphic I found:

I choose this one because there is a strong emphasis on simulation. In Irreni World Scale simulation means role playing. I have seen simulation work well whenever it companies have taken the money to invest in it and I'm recommending it for bottom-up politics.

I have a couple other of blog posts that talk about scale out:

High Tech Politics

"If there is only one lesson you learn from Irreni World Scale then let it be this: a bottom-up feedback loop needs to be inserted into the politics today. But Irreni offers so much more than a single lesson that we've learned here in Silicon Valley about how to scale. Why not apply all that we have learned?"


and

How To Scale, 101

"So the one true lesson from Irreni to learn above all others is not just that politics in 2015 needs new bottom-up systems as I stated yesterday, but rather that designs that work at one degree of scale do not work at larger degrees of scale. All designs need to be changed to scale."


The future is coming. Technology, population growth and climate change are dead ahead. Do we have the collective will to meet these challenges head-on for ourselves and future generations? If so this means  You Need To Start Making Political Decisions to inject bottom-up design into politics today. We need a new political system for bottom-up, a design for bottom up, a design for we the people governing best by the government governing least because we the people govern ourselves. This means we need Irreni World Scale.

Cheers!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!












Monday, August 3, 2015

Rights As Assumptions

Hi! h A p P y  M o N d A y !

Lately I've been blogging about conversations, you and I, getting it together so we can govern ourselves. The government that governs best governs best governs least because the people govern themselves, cheek-to-cheek. Dancing cheek-to-cheek. Because that's like the song I'm listening too today. Today is Tony Bennett’s 89th birthday and I'm enjoying Tony and Lady GaGa, singing cheek-to-cheek.

Today I want to go on about rights. Irreni redefines rights.

Rights have traditionally been thought of as self-evident truths. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ten years later in the Bill of Rights we get the right to free speech and bear arms.

But, self-evident truths? What does that really mean? It smacks of religion, of dogma. Self-evident doesn't pass the science test either: claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Irreni World Scale redefines rights as assumptions. And, as with science, the fewer the assumptions the better because assumptions are unproven.

Rights are awesome! Rights for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Precious! And free speech? Why rethink rights? At all?

Why? Because self-evident truths do not lend themselves to change. Rights are meant to connote never ending and never changing. Rights are seen as something that are immutable and can't be improved. But we all know that is not how rights are implemented.

Free speech? Limits. The limits started with yelling fire in a crowded movie house.  The right to free speech is curtailed ever more every day. Threaten the life of a President then you go to jail.

Bear arms? Congress passed a law after the advent of the atomic bomb that limits your right to weapons of mass destruction. That's huge.

Free speech and owning firearms are two rights that demonstrate the underlying problem with rights as self-evident truths: they are not. The minute a "self-evident truth" is cracked open like some walnut shell so as to get at the nut of it then all self-evidence becomes suspect. What is the nut? So, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie house and you can't own weapons of mass destruction. What is self-evident about what is a weapon of mass destruction? or yelling fire? What is an assault rifle? Something strictly defined or whatever we say it is?

It is precisely because rights are assumptions and not self-evident truths that Irreni treats rights as assumptions. This flips the sacredness of rights on its head turns rights into our weakest feature: assumptions. Assumptions are just the best idea with no supporting evidence. We get rid of assumptions where possible in science. The notion of a right as an assumption is that one is always looking to minimize rights because they are claims made without evidence.

Irreni flips the notion that the more rights the better off we are on its head. The fewer rights we need the better off we are.

Rights have a purpose. Generally that purpose is guarding against oppression and promoting freedom. This purpose is a spectrum of negative protecting against being a slave to the positive of getting a public education. If rights are doing their thing then they prevent tyranny by promoting opportunity and empowering everyone and balancing power.

Why minimize rights? Because, just as with assumptions in science, the fewer assumptions  means a better model. Rights and assumptions are chains, binding restrictions that can lead to erroneous outcomes due to those limitations.

For example, I do not agree that right to bear arms should be a right. The argument that the right to bear arms is a defense against tyranny is a baseless claim with no evidence. Factor into that baselessness the fact that we can no longer own weapons of mass destruction to defend against government tyranny really undermines the whole defense against tyranny argument. However, any argument I make is moot because the right to bear arms  today is unassailable.

Irreni World Scale rethinks what rights are by streamlining. The purpose of Irreni rights is the same as the rights we have today; guard against oppression and promote opportunity. However, instead of enumerating rights individually like the right to free speech, right to bear arms or the right to marriage then Irreni simply states 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. Whatever right you can think of immediately is a right for everyone.

Irreni World Scale rights and assumptions:
  1. Gnab Gib Principle.

    Our collective objective as humans is to survive until the universe ends. Preferably at Milliways.
  2. The Human Quality Principle.

    The human race is over! We won! The information age marks a new era of human objective: quality of life.
  3.  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.
  4. Right to Individual Currency

    Everyone has the right to print money. Governments can only tax currency that the government issues. This represents a new franchise in addition to voting that allows people to indirectly influence government.
  5. Right to Public Education and Information.

    In 1789 we recognized the right of public education in order to have an informed citizenry. In the information age we extend that right to include public information.
  6.  COx Principle of Human Quality.

    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

    Contradictory Oxygen principle is an allusion to an expression oft uttered where someone sucks all of the "oxygen" out of the room by talking over everyone else. In this case of COx I am referring to the dead stealing all of the oxygen from the living. Of course the dead do not breathe and ergo the contradictory oxygen principle. This principle states that no generation of living folk can obligate the next generation of folk after passing on...especially to the point to where someone is born into a completely proscribed, planned and obligated situation brought about by the dead. This is tyranny of the dead for the living. We are building out planet Earth materially, legally and culturally and that should not presume any obligation on the living because of what was built in the past. 
  7.  69 Principle of Human Quality.

    Today a number cannot be copyrighted or otherwise given intellectual property standing in law. The 69 Principle of Human Quality says we should have as a goal to make as much information free from intellectual property standing as possible, just like with numbers.

Now you might be asking then what happens to free speech? Free speech is now like any other idea and ready for experimentation. Free speech is undergoing experimentation already today. However, Irreni gives license to experiment and where free speech joins any other idea people want to promote in society. To whit, there is a difference between recognizing a social desire that we all have like say a freedom to speak freely and the implementation of that freedom. Most things involve risk and costs that need to be weighed against a body of competing social desires. And that's what experiments are all about, continually finding implementations that balance risks and costs. Rights as fixed truths are almost impossible to balance because they are immutable.

Tyranny and oppression grow in the stagnation made possible by social gridlock that results from opposing forces of competing rights we have today. Irreni breaks the logjam of stagnation of opposing rights  by promoting experiments to resolve juxtaposed social ideals, social ideals we call rights today. 

Cheers!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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, August 1, 2015

Empathy, Consensus and Role Playing

Hi! Happy Saturday!

Soon, hopefully within a month, I plan on bringing Irreni to life via something other than this blog: role playing.

Role playing for Irreni World Scale will serve as a platform for iterating on empathy, conversation and consensus. Irreni big fancy pants technology such as the Vote Bank will be implemented, tested and refined. How exciting is that!

Irreni World Scale is fundamentally about people governing themselves first and foremost. This requires empathy, conversations and consensus. After we have consensus comes experiments. The first level of experiment then is role playing. 

Role playing has another name: simulation. Pilots use flight simulators to train for flying. Role playing is simulation for enacting social policy, building empathy, conversations and consensus. Role playing then is the defacto starting point for social experiments. 

Role playing is a great way to socially experiment. Irreni is all about experiments and science. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This one sentence invalidates every single religion to date. Religion makes claims with no evidence. Therefore all religions are irrelevant. Irreni World Scale is a scientific social system whereby all claims about social efficacy require scientifically backed evidence  authorizing real-world experiments based upon passing simulation standards.

Time to throw out all of religion because 100% of religion is bullshit without evidence. Religion represents claims made without evidence. Time to flush religious bullshit thinking down the toilet of history. Prove it or lose it.

So what next? What comes after religion for society? Funny thing is we already know the answer: science. We simply apply science to society the same as we apply science to anything else.

We need to learn to experiment socially. Experiments such as Obamacare can be hugely expensive if they fail in the real world. Lives are at stake.  Every single one of us knows that we've should have rolled Obamacare out at a much smaller scale before we launched a program for 300 million people. Why did we?

Why did we? Incompetence. Rolling out a new program nationwide shows how incompetent and totally useless are the people in Washington D.C. They rolled out Obamacare to all 300 million before scaling up. It is impossible, and I mean impossible, to be any more incompetent than our politicians are today. We have hit rock bottom of incompetency.  Is it any wonder only the incompetent are running for office and for President today? Who in their right mind would want to be a part of that level of incompetency other than the incompetent?

Social science is an inexact science because there are so many unknowns. Thus the progress will be one step forward and two steps back. When we govern ourselves we can expect more failure than success. In science this is known as trial-and-error working with unknowns. This is also known as a feedback loop.

Social science requires we  start with the best facts of the day coupled with empathy or a shared common cause. Then we have conversations and arrive at consensus. Then after consensus we start experimentation with role playing. Then we jump into reality with small group experiments and if successful then we  scale out by magnitude orders of ten. At any given step of progress there may be one step forward followed by two steps back. Sometimes I think our reluctance to conduct social experiments is not so much due to religious dogma but rather due to our shame for failing. We need to overcome that. Failure is just a step towards success.

The most critical or common failure point will be moving from design to implementation. Role playing represents the design phase of social experiments. A design is cooked up out of people's imagination for the first time. This design gets its very first trial run in simulation via role playing. When role playing checks out then a design leaps into the real world. Failure will be most common when a design is first put into implementation. Science requires that we document why something failed and factor those reasons back into the next design. That's the difference between science and dogma of religion. We go back to the drawing board so to speak and innovate. Innovation replaces revolution is what Irreni means. Going back may even include fixing fundamental assumptions by going all the back to our empathy basis or the decided consensus depending on why something failed.

If you have made it this far into the post then you may be thinking, "that's a lot of work. We don't do that today." And right you would be. And that's the problem. We want instant answers to everything. We can't wait. So politicians roll out Obamacare to all 300 million people without experimentation. Even if Obamacare ultimately succeeds the path taken will have been the highest risk path to take, all 300 million people now.

I leave you with this thought. A feedback loop that scales out to 7 billion people will take many generations to fully roll out. We need the collective patience to stomach hundred-year long projects. Considering the objective is for humans to be around millions if not billions of years then this time period is reasonable. We just need to get out of the mind set of living for today and into a mind set of realizing we are part of an ongoing continuum story that will span millions of years. This is why there are two seeming opposite tag lines below, "Innovate at a rapid pace!" and "Slow speed ahead!" These juxtaposed tag lines are meant to convey we need to experiment at a massive scale in quantity of experiments but contrarily these experiments will take possibly hundreds of years to mature. Therefore we innovate at a face pace of millions of experiments,  but we will only realize their completion over hundreds of years, a slow speed.

Cheers!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus! 

Welcome to the 21st century!

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!