Saturday, November 11, 2017

Let's Talk About The M Word

Hi! Happy Saturday!



Louis CK just may be ruining the M word and I would like to take a moment to rush to M's defense.

Masturbation may be a word with even more social stigma than just telling someone to "Go Fuck Yourself."


I fuck myself when needed. You should too if needed. Even when you are married. No, especially when you are married.  Masturbation is just one of a bezillion things where it is easy to prove you can lump all religions into the same bucket and stereotype them all as evil. All religions get the morality of masturbation wrong. Every. Single. One. Therefore,  all religions are evil. See how easy that is? In fact the basis for stereotyping all religions as the same is that they simply pre-date science and therefore get things wrong from just making crap up.

One could make the argument that monkeys flinging poo and doing M in public may just be onto something. :P

I need to explain my definition of atheist  just to make clear here about what I mean about evil . My definition of atheist is a much broader than the dictionary version. When I call myself an atheist I mean to say that there is no evidence of anything supernatural and therefore all claims of things supernatural are false from a lack of evidence; including the meaning of evil and the concept we call god. For me, then, the definition of the word 'evil' has no supernatural component. My definition of 'evil' just means knowingly harmful.

Evil by illustration:

  • A tree in the wild falling on you and killing naturally from a failing root system is not evil.
  • A tree falling on you because someone deliberately knocks it onto you is evil.
  • A tree on your property falling on you and killing naturally from a failing root system is evil. We scientifically know that trees need to be inspected regularly for rot. You have a responsibility.  If you die from your tree falling on you then  you neglected to take care of the problem and you knowingly killed yourself when the tree came crashing down on you. 
I've been a feminist my whole life, similar to being an atheist. My feminism comes in two forms: a.) women deserve equal treatment of fellowship, dignity, respect and opportunity and b.) educating myself about systemic inequality due to religion and patriarchy. The M word falls into this category. If M were encouraged today the way it should be then the sexual abuse women today receive would be reduced, not eliminated, but reduced.

I say something in all of my Irreni World Scale blog posts and I will repeat it here as well: Irreni is about solutions and not punditry. The solution here is promote healthy M. What Louis CK did was not healthy but don't let that ruin M for ya!

One solution to solving the rampant abuse of power by men of women sexually is to normalize M. Let me be clear what I mean about normalize.



M is a natural body function. Just like Eating. I'm not ashamed or proud of eating.  Just do it. Any feelings you have about M are on you.

From a scientific fact view M is healthy. It is much healthier to M than to be sexually repressed. Sexual repression leads to all kinds of unwanted behavior...no good behavior...and is one component of men abusing women. Reject every religious teaching on M. They are all wrong.

Religions pretty much get every claim about human nature exactly wrong, but the claims about human sexuality are particularly evil. Sexual repression has been known to humans long before science ever came along to study what we already knew, one of those self-evident truths. So the religious have always been knowingly harmful to women by espousing something they know causes women harm: sex is only moral within marriage between a man and a women. That's about as evil as evil gets. M should be encouraged whether single or married

And M is not just for single people. Most of the aholes in the news for abuse today are married. Dr. Ruth is a scientist famous for evangelizing M for married couples. One way not to stray is to enjoy M! M is healthy and normal. Have fun. Buy some toys. Enjoy yourself. And if we do this as a soceity, promote M, then by and large we will sexually be a much healthier society; especially from a feminist perspective of reducing male sexual repression and thereby reducing abuse due to sexual repression.

Time for humanity to grow up and throw off the burdensome shackles of failure of all religions regarding shaming M. Be free, free at last, be free at last to manage your sexual energies with M so as to encourage fellowship, dignity, respect and opportunity for women and us all.

Be in control. Of your sexual energy. M.

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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!
















Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Loving Gun Debate

Hi! Happy Tuesday!

Just a reminder that "I want ____" or "I don't want _____" is sufficient justification to vote. In addition, couple this notion with the fact that the only requirement for amending the U.S. Constitution is a set of majority votes of no justification then it is possible to have a loving gun debate.

Just a reminder that Irreni World Scale is about solutions, not punditry and today's solution is about having a loving gun debate.

I don't like guns. For me this is enough justification to amend the US constitution to  repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment. For me I want an amendment to ban private ownership of guns and then to dump all the privately owned guns into either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. This is my gun position. If you feel differently that's great, see you at the voting booth.

And this works as a loving gun debate.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says a priest, preacher or otherwise holy person has to pronounce religious justification of  a God given right. Nope. Votes about law require no justification in our government. Legal changes require a majority vote of no justification and those voting in the majority can do so for any reason or whim, up to and including amending the constitution. This means arguments regarding God-given rights are made moot by the process required for changing rights being unjustified. 

So a political debate can be loving by just stating you vote as you want, not for any particular reason.

It is not irresponsible to vote about  guns simply based on want. Why? Because social science just does not exist for definitive policy about guns. Arguments regarding self-defense, citizens defending against tyranny, etc. have no concrete social science backing them.

Science is not reason by-the-way. Reason is a poor substitute for science. Many facts of life defy intuition and its sister, reasoning. For example,  the notion that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction fails with the electro-magnetic force: the reaction  is equal and orthogonal, not opposite. Then again, there is the intuition defying fact that electrons have no size. We know this because 100% of the change in direction when colliding two electrons is attributable to the electro-magnetic force; no kinetic rebound energy is detected due to collision of mass size. Saying something has no size is not reasonable based on our intuition but it is a scientific fact.

So being firmly fixed in voting about guns based simply on what you want is not being anti-intellectual.

So why debate at all if the science is lacking? Because we still have to make public policy and successful public policy of this nature requires people's cooperation.

Gun arguments are all scientifically specious but sound good on the face of it, i.e. are reasonable.  For example, on the pro-gun side there exists the argument of owning a gun for self-defense. Sounds reasonable. However, the science of the NYPD says otherwise. The NYPD has decades of data showing home-owners who possess guns are far more likely to be injured or killed during a home invasion than those who don't. Why:
  1. The criminal is ready and prepared to shoot-to-kill, the victim is startled and mentally unprepared.
  2. The victim is woken from sleep and not mentally alert.
  3. Loved ones are at home. Criminals are not hesitant about randomly shooting but the victims are thinking about who is sleeping in the next room.
  4. Non-gun owners do not threaten.
  5. Non-gun owners run away.

Then there is the pro-gun, guns defend against tyranny argument. If in fact an unarmed citizenry were the only thing keeping tyranny at bay then modern day United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and Australia should all have fallen to tyranny long ago.

The pro-gun control arguments are just as scientifically specious as well. The background check argument presumes that a single point in time is a meaningful mental health check.  People can have mental health breaks at any time during life. Further people with mental health issues can make a recovery and our current permanent life-time ban due to failing a single mental-health check is unfair.

Acknowledging the above makes it obvious that agreeing to disagree is easy. There is just not enough science to assert public policy with any degree of certainty and so wanting or not wanting something is an equally responsible way to vote.

I always start out debating gun rights, abortion rights or other such political topics of weak social science stating I vote what I want:

  1. I don't want guns.
  2. I want there to exist access to abortions.
  3. I want universal health care. 
The above positions are how I will vote. Any debate on these topics is then made clear to be just argument for educational purposes and thus diffuses any emotional expectation of disproving or proving intellectual arguments to convince someone of something.

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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, September 28, 2017

The Amercian Anthem: Drawing Cartoons of Muhammed

Hi! Happy Thursday!

Irreni World Scale is about solutions, not political punditry. This solution presented is how to think about the current national turmoil about NFL players taking the knee during the playing of the national anthem.

No one can disrespect anyone unless someone lets them.

That's worth repeating:
No one can disrespect anyone unless someone lets them.

What is the correct morality with respect to this national outrage? What is good?

The Good:
No one can disrespect anyone unless someone lets them.
The Evil:
Anything else.
When I was but a wee young lad I read a couple of books that brought this point home to me. One is a book by Piers Anthony, "Xanth", 

Worthless people's opinions are worthless.
-Piers Anthony, "Xanth"

Another book with a positive spin on the same message is, "Dorsai!", by Gordon Dickinson.

I respect those people's opinion whose opinion I respect.
-Gordon Dickinson, "Dorsai!'

The good versus evil line is clear: allowing someone to control you simply by disrespecting you is evil. Let's call this pushing buttons. That's evil. When you allow someone to push your button and perhaps spark a subsequent action based upon that button pushing then you are being evil by allowing others to control you with your permission.

That's it. Personal responsibility means you are not given a free pass to get angry, get pissed and condemn others because of perceived disrespect. That's on you, you are evil. Period. People condemning others for flag burning or taking a knee during the nation anthem are evil. They are evil because they are the ones not in control of their emotions.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg

Weinberg's observation can be observed with today's killing of people who draw cartoons of Muhammed. Some Muslims feel they are given a license to kill due to some perceived disrespect. Killing people for drawing cartoons of Muhammed is evil. The person doing the killing is doing evil.

The American flag and the national anthem are America's version of the Muslim world's cartoon drawing of Muhammed. Nationalism and religion are alike in this regard.

The moral good is that no one can be disrespected unless they let someone. If anyone let's someone disrespect them then the evil begins with them. They are handing over control of themselves to someone else. That's evil. If you allow yourself to feel disrespect by someone that's on you.

As for myself, no one can disrespect me except those people whose opinion I respect. The circle is very small and certainly does not include strangers.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names (disrespect) will never hurt me.
-Childhood proverb
But how much can we really control our emotions, you might wonder?  For example, shame is a powerful form of human control. One of my favorite quotes from Christopher Hitchens came from when he was asked why he so vociferously shamed the religious when his expressed agenda was not to ban religion? His answer?

I refuse to unilaterally disarm.
-Christopher Hitchens
Emotions are a powerful tool for controlling people, for controlling all of us. However, ultimately, we define civilized society today by holding a person solely responsible for their actions independent of outside emotional forces influencing ones emotional state. For example, an enraged husband who kills his wife's lover when he finds them in bed together is the only one charged with murder; not the wife and lover who created the emotions that lead to the action.

And so it is with disrespect or shame. You are responsible. So if someone feels disrespect due to an NFL player taking a knee during the playing on the national anthem then the evil person is the same evil person in the husband killing the lover scenario or the Muslim killing the person drawing cartoons of Muhammed. It is the person who cannot control their emotions.

On the flip side, speaking personally I can attest to the power of not having buttons, i.e. having a thick skin.  Anyone with a plan will run into competitors and enemies looking for the easy out so as to derail us by pushing our emotional buttons. By not allowing yourself to have buttons you are impervious to emotional cheap shots. Yes you will feel emotions, but you control if outwardly acknowledge them. If you feel uncontrollable outrage from disrespect you are being controlled.


No one can disrespect anyone unless someone lets them. Allowing someone to disrespect you is on you. Allowing someone to control you by disrespecting you is on you and you are the evil one if you let it happen.

This is why religion and nationalism are so thoroughly and totally evil as a concepts: symbolism disrespect is used to emotionally control the masses.

Down with symbolism. Do not acknowledge symbolism. Nothing good has ever been attributed to symbolism, but all kinds of evil has, primarily by condemning, dehumanizing and ultimately killing.

Christopher Hitchens had an unmet challenge that he was running up to the time of his death:

Name me one good act a religious person can do that an atheist cannot.
-Christopher Hitchens

Here's the symbolism version:

Name me one good act a symbolism person can do that an atheist cannot.
-Symbolism challenge.

Religion buys you nothing. Nationalism buys you nothing. Symbolism buys you nothing. Feeling disrespect by strangers buys you nothing. 




As Christopher Hitchens famously proclaimed, "Name me one good act a religious person is capable of that an atheist is not. You cannot think of any. Now name me an evil act only a religious person is capable of and you can immediately name a few."

Blaming others for you emotional reactions is irresponsible and immoral. If a sexy woman is walking down the street and a man harasses the women or touches the woman then the evil, immoral actor is the man, not the women for what she wears. It is the same here. Blaming others for your emotional reaction about the national anthem is irresponsible and immoral. You chose to feel any disrespect for yourself or others and then you condemn someone or otherwise act on the feeling  you are the evil one. Respect those people's opinions whose opinions you respect. Worthless people's opinions are worthless. Sticks and stones may break my bones but symbols will never hurt me.

Are you going to feel something if some random person calls you a name? Maybe. Do men feel urges when they are in the presence of an attractive women? Maybe. In any case we are civilized people. And by that I mean we are responsible for how we ultimately act on our emotions and are responsible for showing and controlling our emotions.

And we can train ourselves to limit unsolicited emotional reactions via emotional exercises. In fact, this is one reason I have far more respect for Eastern philosophy than Western philosophy: Eastern philosophy works. Meditation, visualization and other Eastern practices work in limiting emotions and removing emotional buttons. Western philosophy does the exact opposite, just burdens one with a never ending, growing burden of guilt born of original and "natural" sin. All Abrahamic religions fail in managing emotions, but instead create a preponderance of new irrational buttons where none would otherwise exist. This is why I have been and always will be an anti-theist as well as an atheist: religion is evil because symbolism is evil by breeding buttons of group control. 

No one can disrespect anyone unless someone lets them. You are responsible for your emotional being or you will be out of control.

Have no respect for disrespect. Have no respect for any symbolism:
  1. Holy
  2. Profane
  3. Sacred
  4. Blasphemy
  5. Nationalism
  6. Flags being a symbol of respect and not just identity.
  7. National Anthems
  8. Pledges of allegiance.
Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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 13, 2017

How To: Women in Science

Hi! Happy Sunday!

Okay, I'd like to provide a handy reference for discussing human nature and public policy.

Yesterday the white nationalists were protesting the removal of Confederate statues in Charlottesville, North Carolina. Then there is the internal Google memo about the human nature differences between women and men when it comes to science.

How does one think about these things? I want to compare these two events for a specific reason: in one case differences in human nature are considered, in the other they are not. Most of us find the moral arguments of white nationalists morally repugnant without any need for a scientific debate on the superiority of white people. Even if white people are naturally superior that fact is irrelevant morally. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is human nature blind, everyone should treated as equals independent of human nature advantages.

And yet with the internal Google memo the biological differences between men and women are deemed a worthy topic for moral policy? What?

On one hand a discussion of the scientific analysis of human nature and white nationalism is not relevant and yet on the other hand a discussion on scientific analysis of human nature for affirmative action is?

I find the public commentary to be quite confusing.  How should we think about this?

So I've taken it upon myself to provide an easy quick reference of four guidelines for you to use. After the guidelines I'm going to apply the guidelines to analyze four scientists who wrote about the internal Google memo. We  will  apply the guidelines as a tool to analyze people with PhDs, two of which we'll find are scientifically pedalling snake oil.

Quick Reference:

  1. Nature is not a standard for morality.

    The argument is more-or-less self evident. I'm going to quickly argue by example if you need motivation. For example, there is a nature argument against homosexual behavior being moral. The argument goes that homosexuality is not natural and therefore is immoral. Additionally the argument goes that since homosexuals cannot reproduce then they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Both of these natural arguments have been claimed by the religious to be planned by God. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. However, the very people arguing for using nature as a moral standard designed by God themselves argue against it when it comes to monogamy within marriage. It is human nature for men to commit adultery and to seek out multiple mates. One could argue the heart of any religion is to support the family and that one of the fundamental functions is to keep men monogamous.  Men are told to resist natural urges and religious texts are replete with commandments requiring men to go against their nature. Fast forward to today and in 2017 our common morality is that if a man touches a women because she is dressed provocatively then he is being immoral, although there are still hold-outs in the religious communities that still blame the woman.  These simple examples illustrate that a big responsibility of society is to train humans to not act like animals, but instead that to act morally is to act counter to our nature. To always act solely on animal impulses that go against society's moral standards is immoral. So the Google internal memo arguing taking into account human nature to determine moral policy is immoral.
  2. We do not have free-will, but limited will. 

    In the nature versus nurture wars of parenting then a nurture parenting program treats children as blank slates. If parents do the nurturing correctly then children will come out as designed. Nurture at its core treats humans as computers and nurturing parenting as the software needed to bring about the expected result when raising kids. The reality is children cannot accept training the same way, children react differently given the same programming and clearly we are not blank slates and do not have free will, but limited will. We are not blank slate computers, but instead limited in our choices given our specific nature. We all commonly accept this with drug addicts and alcoholics having a nature problem, not a free will problem. Still though, we are just now coming to terms with obese people having an nature problem and not a free will problem, although there are many who still believe that eating is strictly free will and therefore shaming fat people for making bad choices is okay. 
  3. Deviations within a group are larger than between groups.

    We've all heard ye ole addage that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Whenever scientists are making claims about women and men they are using statistics. What's really sad though is not a single person on this planet believes for a single second that the human nature of women and men are the same. We are faced with the difference everyday in our lives. What gets lost in the shuffle is that our deviations as individuals are far greater than our deviations based upon gender. Let us take, for example,  the science reporting men have better spatial reckoning capabilities. Statistically it is insignificant regrading computer science jobs because the spatial reckoning capabilities across the set of all men is much greater than the deviation between women and men.
  4. Social science confidence is low.

    The most disingenuous scientific analysis of the internal Google memo is that today's scientific confidence in  social science is high. While there may be very strong confidence in biological science that indicates men have better spatial reasoning capabilities than women, there is no such scientific confidence about the social science. There is no social science correlating someone's spatial reasoning capabilities with the gestalt of the millions of women and men writing software today as being statistically relevant. None. Life is a feedback loop socially with hundreds of thousands of variables going into why we make social decisions. In fact to this day we have very little confidence in any well studied social science such as whether capital punishment deters crime. Anyone claiming high confidence with respect to social science is lying. The current state of social science is weak tea and most of what we use for public policy is based on trial-and-error and experiments.

Using the Guidelines By Debunking the Scientists

Now let's take the four guidelines and debunk scientific arguments by people who should know better.

I'm going to refer to an article on Quillete that sites four scientists, two that claim the science of the internal Google memo was 100% or mostly correct and therefore they support the memo writer.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

The scientific correctness

  • Lee Jussim, "The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right."
  • David P Schmitt, "Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not."
  • Geoffrey Miller, "For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate."
  • Debra Soh, "I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership. I believe it’s important to speak out, because if we can’t discuss scientific truths, where does that leave us?" 
Let us apply our guideline principles.  The principle that separates the wheat from the chaff the most  is principle 4.) social science confidence is low.

David Schmitt is the only scientist getting that right with "maybe, maybe not".  I would continue reading what he has to say.

Debra Soh's argument denies our confidence in social science correlation to biological science being low. Debra promotes an air of social scientific certitude that does not exist. Social science truths are anything but black and white and on this topic I would dismiss her outright for portraying social truth as certain.

Lee and Geoffrey are both confidently asserting not just the biological science  but also the social science. Avoid these two scientists like the plague on any topic, they are selling snake oil. Social science is never high confidence.

The science perspective 

Science supports morality, it does not define it. Why? Because science is about modeling human nature. Given human nature is no standard for morality then neither is the the science about human nature.

Every scientist should espouse this as easily as every doctor can espouse the Hippocratic oath.

David Schmitt's perspective on this is about right:
"Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes."
The reason I say about right is that David does not clearly state for the reader moral imperative is not derived from natural behavior. If we morally decide that in fact gender affirmative actions is what we want then the proper role for science is to support the outcome using biological science. 

I think advocating morality using science is best illustrated by the original affirmative action case.

The original affirmative action case took place in California. A man applied to medical school at a public university in California. He sued because he claimed he was being discriminated against due to affirmative action and that this was in violation of the equal opportunity clause of the 14th amendment.

The judge's ruling in favor of affirmative action, I think, reflects the proper role of using social science for public policy. In summary the judge stated that the systemic discrimination of the black community had taken place over the course of 400 years. Further that since cultures change slowly then he didn't think it was fair to the black community that they should have to wait yet another 400 years for fair treatment while culture slowly changes without affirmative action.

I like this argument because it clearly demonstrates a low confidence in the social science. We know that cultures change slowly over time, but we don't know in any way precisely how slowly. So, he declares it a moral imperative to work against the slow change and affirmative action was born on a threadbare understanding of social science: cultures are naturally slow to change.

And it is a proper moral burden.

Thomas Jefferson was once asked if the Federal Government should engage in public charity, spend people's taxes on charity, and if so how much?  Jefferson's reply was, "yes, and as much as the public can stomach".

Shame on the people who are against affirmative action albeit the black community or with women. The western patriarchy culture oppressing women has been around thousands of years longer than than the centuries of slavery and in both cases neither group deserves to wait as cultures slowly reverse entrenched systemic prejudices and so affirmative action should be our moral imperative.

There is a scientific argument, just to be clear. Affirmative action is an experiment of trial-and-error. No clear science exists today for modeling culture and reversing a culture's bigotry and prejudice with certainty. It is an experiment. Knowing this then we should not put all out eggs in one basket and limit the experimenting to just one kind of affirmative action. New affirmative action  experiments that are informed by biology should be tried. However,  treating people as individuals is not an affirmative action experiment. That's like saying bald is a hair color or turning the TV off is a TV channel. 

Separating the players: the moral advocates,  the scientific advocates and the outliers. 

Geoffery Miller writes:

"Weirdly, the same people who advocate for equality of outcome in every aspect of corporate life, also tend to advocate for diversity in every aspect of corporate life. They don’t even see the fundamentally irreconcilable assumptions behind this ‘equality and diversity’ dogma."
Morals are not assumptions or dogma. Morals are wilful social policies advocated by a people in a society so as to promote a society desired.  Ultimately I believe fundamentally this is why Google fired the memo writer. Sadly, Google lacked the public relations to make the argument clear.

Feminism is a social movement that is misunderstood due to confusion about the moral advocates, the scientific advocates and the outliers:
  • Feminists that argue men and women are naturally the same are outliers just as scientists like Geoffrey who argue against people who believe women are men are same are outliers. No one in life or the scientific community argues women and men are biologically the same.  Geoffrey's argument hints at scientists who do argue they are the same by stating, "Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history." This kind of scientific argument is like lies, damn lies and statistics. No one, no one, with any credible scientific background claims the sexes are the same. The argument is not necessary.  The only reason to state it this way is to imply there might be such credible scientists. How this should have been stated is like this, "while the scientific community has long accepted the biological differences between men and women , how these biological differences play out in society is scientifically poorly understood, if at all." To whit, Geoffrey is an outlier arguing a straw man that people exist who believe the sexes are the same. The same is true with the internal Google memo writer.
  • Feminists conflate moral arguments as being scientific arguments. The Disabilities act passed in the 1960s and it was not passed using scientific argument's about human nature that corporations will have better or equal outcomes providing handicapped services. Further, environmental and safety regulations are also not put in place as scientific arguments for equal and profitable outcomes for corporations. Quite the opposite, corporations that cannot meet handicapped and environmental standards may very well go out of business, too bad. As a society we have decided the moral imperative is to provide handicap services, safe work environments, and clean air. The same applies to any moral argument, about affirmative action. The moral argument  is not about equal pay for women providing equal profits for corporations. The moral argument is based on conducting an experiment to reverse the patriarchal cultural biases due to millennia of patriarchy in western civilization. When they say Democracy is messy this is one of the fundamental reasons why, social experiments of dubious outcome. 
  • Feminists assert polices as being effective and do not acknowledge that social experiments are risky and fail. The outcome of an experiment is not scientifically known. That's why it is an experiment. Experiments fail. Failures are part of science when we lack proven models because if  we are scientifically adept we can use failed experiments to better inform the next round of trail-and-error. Because our confidence in social science is so low then the reliance on social experiments of dubious risk are high. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take those risks. At the end of the day I think this is why I personally agree with Google's firing of the engineer. Risky social experiments are rife with peril, and even more so when nay sayers add nothing but state the obvious that the experiment is dubious, risky and rife with peril. Predicting failure is a self-fulfilling prophecy when the prophecy requires everyone be invested. And treating individuals as individuals is a diversity experiment the same way bald is a hair color. Feminism sold programs and policies as assured outcomes and when experiments failed people have been turned off. The better approach is to acknowledge that affirmative action plans like those implemented at Google are high risk experiments but are still worth trying.

Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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, June 15, 2017

Evidenced versus Atheist

Hi! Happy Thursday!

This is an open letter to David Silverman, President of American Atheists.

First, a couple of atheist videos of a 2016 David Ruben, Ruben Report  and a 2012 Cara Santa Maria, The Point. Both hour-long videos are well met discussions about atheism today.

If you are not an atheist and are curious about atheism today then these two, one-hour-long interview videos are a good start in understanding atheism today. The videos are not debates with religious folk and do not include religious folk. The videos are interviews of atheists talking about atheism in the modern era.



In this letter I argue the campaign for labelling the non-religious should be for the term "evidenced" and not "atheist".

The two videos are included because I'm going to reference each.

The title of the Rubin Report episode is "Atheism Deconstructed" which is my topic here as well.

First off I do not believe anyone can reverse the pejorative connotations associated with the word "atheist". From a marketing perspective I do not see any financial or other benefit for reclaiming the word "atheist". Of course I'm not the President of the American Atheists either.  :)

But that is not my argument.

My argument starts with something I heard first from Sam Harris,

"The word atheist should be struck from the dictionary because lack of belief in something defines nothing."
As Sam Harris argues, lack of belief in the Easter Bunny defines nothing about a person. Not a single claim can be made about someone lacking belief in the Easter Bunny. Or anything else. Therefore atheists have nothing common, literally. Which is why, contrary to your claim in the Rubin Report, atheists will never be a voting block. Anti-theists? yes. Atheists, no.

But the religious aspect of the term "atheist" is much stronger than just lack of belief, it is absence of the supernatural. The religious argument goes that a supernatural force guides moral behavior and therefore lack of supernatural force means depravity. That is why we hear the much hackneyed argument that without god then atheists will rape and kill with impunity because there is nothing [supernatural] stopping an atheist. Moral objectivity from the Christian point-of-view comes from god.



If lack of the supernatural force of one particular god means moral depravity then all non-Christians would suffer the same moral depravity.  It is either being non-Christian that defines objective, supernatural morality or all gods have the same supernatural affect: Allah, Buddha, and Ganesha, etc. And we know that Christians do not believe Allah, Buddha and Ganesha equate to the Christion god from the first commandment of Old Testament. Therefore, the word atheist is meaningless to Christians because all non-Christians suffer the same damnation, the same moral inferiority.

So far the arguments put forth are that lack of belief defines nothing and then again that being non-Christian means the same thing as being atheist, making the word atheist a moot point.

But wait, there's more!

Michael Shermer in the "The Point" interview linked above makes the case in a different way. He states that religion is just one form of superstition and supernatural belief. He cites more people in the US who believe in astrology than believe in Christianity.

Which brings me to my next point: atheists are not just against religious supernatural belief, but in all supernatural belief. Shermer's point about astrology should not be taken lightly. Nancy Reagan used an astrologer to influence a President. In this I agree with Shermer: the case against non-existent supernatural is much larger than religion.

I experienced the reality of this recently when I visited Guangzho, China and much to my chagrin this 50 year communist country was steeped in the supernatural in ways far more profound than religion. I was kinda prepared for the degree Buddhism I found. What I was not prepared for was the amount of superstition. They even have superstitious holidays regarding numbers like "8". Also, Chinese medicine is homoeopathy far more entrenched and dangerous than anything found here in the US. The degree of supernatural belief in China has nothing to do with belief in god and the term atheist by definition is constrained only to a supernatural god.

To whit, an atheist can be superstitious. See China.

But wait, some more! There is some more?! s'more? lol. 

Then there is the Christopher Hitchens' argument regarding ignorance. Hitchens never argued against the term "atheist" and used it all the time. I don't want to mistakenly give that impression. But, Hitchens' take on combating ignorance was even broader than Schermer's.

Hitchens was often asked as such an outspoken anti-theist if he being anti-religious then he was advocating eliminating religion. His answer was always the same, No. Why? Because Hitchens equated religion with ignorance and one cannot eliminate ignorance. Therefore, Hitchens' solution was to educate women world-wide because wherever women are educated then secularism prevails. The point hidden in Hitchens' view is that belief in the supernatural is fundamentally linked to ignorance. This is in addition to the childhood brainwashing that you correctly identify in the interview linked above. 

If we combine Schermer's view  with Hitchens' view then it becomes clear that belief in any supernatural is the battle and not just "god" in the definition in atheist.

So if the word "atheist" is deficient  then what label should be used?

Evidenced.

Labelling ourselves as "evidenced" dismisses all supernatural because there is no evidence for anything supernatural. In addition evidenced does define something: the evidence requirement. We require observable, reproducible, quantifiable evidence. No evidence, no belief.

The term "evidenced"  gives people a true mental handle on who we are. We require evidence. This stands in stark contrast to "atheist".

Calling ourselves "evidenced" also broadens the audience. How so? It does so in the same way "pro-choice" broadens the audience for abortion rights. One can personally be anti-abortion but publicly be "pro-choice".  In our case someone can be personally "supernatural" but publicly "evidenced".

As you point out very aptly in the Rubin interview belief in the supernatural is deeply engrained in someone's identity. Sam Harris was being interviewed by Dennis Prager on a call in radio show I listened too once. Someone called in and pleaded with Sam that while he found all of Sam's arguments against god compelling, the caller had a life-long relationship with Jesus, what to do? Sam's reply was that no one is coming take your imaginary friend away. Just realize that Jesus is just that.

If we use the term "evidenced" then this gives people who want to publicly be on the evidenced side an "in". They can be publicly "pro-evidenced" but personally still believe in the supernatural in those cases where they cannot bring themselves to change their identity.

So, these are my arguments for shifting from "atheist" to "evidenced":
  1. Lack of belief defines nothing. (Sam Harris)
  2. All belief in the supernatural should be the cause. (Michael Shermer)
  3. Supernatural belief correlates strongly with lack of education. (Christopher Hitchens)
  4. Personal versus public policy. (Pro choice)
Cheers!
-Mybrid

Monday, May 22, 2017

MakeLoveNotPorn

Hi! Happy Monday!

This post is a response to a podcast that I just listened to over at TechCruch.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/21/makelovenotporns-cindy-gallop-talks-about-the-future-of-love/

Hi! Cindy!

Below I argue:

For SexTech to thrive then women need to have full education world-wide. To whit, your ambitions are not large enough. I believe your ambitions should include nothing less than the full and complete education of every single woman on the planet.

This is an open letter to Cindy, or rather extended comments regarding the podcast on TechCrunch.

Well done! and Well met!

Bravo on the SexTech cause and the energy. Your enthusiasm is a warm welcome.  My comments here are a response to a couple of points made in the podcast:

  1. Sex funding as a taboo in Silicon Valley is the only taboo.
  2. "All The Sky" fund name for a SexTech fund. 

Silicon Valley Taboos

I briefly perused the MakeLoveNotPorn web site and verified what was seemingly apparent in the podcast. It seems your MakeLoveNotPorn has taboos as well. In particular two taboos that haunt me with respect to getting Silicon Valley's interest: politics and religion.

In order for sex change to happen in our world then  religion and politics need to change. And yet I did not see on the web site or hear in the podcast a single mention of new laws or comments condemning religious sexual fallacies.

Which brings me to my next point:

All The Sky Fund

In the podcast you mentioned the name of your fund, "All The Sky", being a reference to Chairman Mao Zedong's quote, "Women hold up half the sky."

This is clearly a political statement. A statement about patriarchy and how you believe the patriarchy cannot build SexTech. You said that SexTech must come from women to meet women's needs. This is juxtaposed to porn which is strictly for men's needs.

Contrary to what I just said, undermining the world's patriarchy is a political statement, just not directly.

And that's the rub.

It seems you are perfectly comfortable publicly discussing sex and not politics. You seem publicly uncomfortable with politics and religion. Thus you are being passive aggressive with the name "All The Sky"? Pushwaw. Be like Christopher Hitchens.

Christopher Hitchens

I believe you need to be as open, bombastic and polemic about disposing of the patriarchy, its religion and politics as Christopher Hitchens was.

Hitchens was last decades pre-eminent anti-theist in my view. No one did it better. In being such a public figure Hitchens was often asked if his agenda was to eliminate religion. His response was always the same, "No".

Why not? Because religion is ignorance. Ignorance will always be with us. We'll never eliminate religion because we'll never eliminate ignorance.  The only way to overcome ignorance and religion is through education. Hitchens rightly pointed out that anywhere women are educated then patriarchy and religion crumble. And women enjoy sex better.

So Hitchens' solution of educating women is the same as yours for MakeLoveNotPorn.  Science agrees with Hitchens that the full education of women promotes secularism. Establishing the full education of women world-wide should also include SexTech education.

For SexTech to thrive then women need to have full education world-wide. To whit, your ambitions are not large enough. I believe your ambitions should include nothing less than the full and complete education of every single woman on the planet.

Irreni World Scale

Irreni is to politics what SexTech is to sex. Irreni means "innovation replaces revolution, engineering not ideology."

Irreni includes many political technological innovations to prime the political innovation pump:

  •  The Doll (Device of Loving Life). Every person on the face of this planet is given the equivalent of today's iPhone or Android phone for life. We've already manufactured more the seven billion cell phones. This is logistically easy.
  • The Vote Bank. Votes are no longer cast, but banked. Votes are deposited the same way we deposit money today. There exist vote accounts for every political position. Votes are on deposit always and made public for solidarity reasons, solidarity not patriarchy.
  • The Right to Individual Currency. This one will be especially valuable to SexTech. The Doll will enable individual currency by providing instant currency exchange of seven billion currencies. Remove the power of the purse from the exclusive right of the government and women will be enabled to sponsor SexTech. Government control of currency is patriarchal control of currency.
These are just three of twenty initial innovations that I'm offering for politics in the 21st Century.

Enthusiasm

I'd like to conclude with a comment about enthusiasm. Your enthusiasm and your goals go hand-in-hand. They are the same  scale. They are both grand in scale.

My hat is off to you because enthusiasm is my weakness. My goals are as large as my enthusiasm is small.

Perhaps then we can be of use to each other? I can provide the political and religious aspects to the sex aspects of MakeLoveNotPorn.

Irreni World Scale represents solutions and ideas that positively focus on changing laws that run roughshod over religious immorality, including sexual immorality.  However, I do think one needs to take the gloves off and have the polemic rows with religion and politics. Don't be afraid.


Cheers!
-Mybrid

Friday, April 7, 2017

The Innovation Will Be Typewritten

Hi! Happy Friday!

This is a fun post. The title of the song is "The Revolution Will Be Typewritten." Of course we here at Irreni World Scale don't advocate revolution, but innovation.




Sunday, January 29, 2017

We The People Are Accountable

Hi! Happy Sunday!

Today's topic is we the people are accountable. To this end we need modern communication tools, tools provided by Irreni World Scale.

Irreni World Scale is about solutions and not punditry.




Today's solution is about communication actually. Irreni World Scale is founded on the principle of practiced communication to resolve moral relativity differences in order create effective public policy. Specifically the communication tool solutions are the Device of Loving Life (DoLL) and the Vote Bank.

Donald Trump is not the problem. We are. We the people are accountable in a free country. How do we exercise and communicate our accountability? Traditionally the answer to that question was the media.

From its inception the Fourth Estate has always been suspect. Thomas Jefferson had his own newspaper that had an unfair advantage as it was published in multiple languages. The publisher was a Frenchman and a linguist who spoke seven languages. Boom!

Our foregoverners in the 20th century responded to yellow journalism by enacting the Fairness Doctrine. They also regulated media ownership where a corporation or person was limited to owning only three media outlets in any market. These regulations were not some liberal conspiracy to promote Democrats, but rather were media regulations put in place to combat yellow journalism, i.e. fake news  that is running rampant today. We removed these regulations.  We removed the regulation that news must be non-profit; and we are paying the price for forgetting lessons learned.

We the people are accountable for this. Our politicians either speak for us or we are not free.

Irreni World Scale replaces the media as our platform for moral compromise and public policy with the DoLL and the Vote Bank. Everyone on the face of the planet is provided with a smart phone. Every single one of us. One of the applications that makes this smart phone a DoLL is the Vote Bank. Direct voting takes place of polling. Why poll a sample when everyone can deposit a vote?

How would this DoLL and Vote Bank help out today?

Because the root cause for our political problems is us, we the people. We the people are accountable and yet we have no we defined civil way to communicate. Civil, by the way, just means "to live in cities", which by extension means "to live as large groups" as opposed to hunter-gatherer small tribes.

You and I need to have conversations, directly, no media in between. One way to accomplish this in a civil, large groups way is a vote bank. A vote bank is a place to deposit votes. Votes are public and permanently on display until they are changed.

By way of example I give you exhibit A, a chart showing terrorist deaths since after 9/11.



Many of us said after 9/11 that the War on Terrorism was mistake. We said the correct response would have been a police response, arrest those involved.

If we had the DoLL and Vote Bank back in 2003 then our votes would still be on display.

What the chart shows is that George Bush was correct. And by George Bush I mean George H.W. Bush and not his son, W. The first President Bush wrote a book after leaving office. In that book Bush wrote about why he did not overthrow Saddam Hussein. The reason was because their best intelligence had indicated that doing so would create such chaos that it would be "opening the gates of hell."

And opening the gates of hell we have, just look at the chart.

We have lost the war on terrorism. We have sent our soldiers to die and not only failed miserably and lost the war on terror, we have created a much, much, much worse problem. We disbanded the Iraq army, sent them home with all their weapons and they eventually became ISIS/ISIL. All that Syrian crap is on us. We destabilized the region by overthrowing Saddam. And Iraq? Iraq is hell. Not only did we open the gates of hell, we created one.

And we the people need to admit we failed.

The first step to healing is we the people need to admit we failed, completely, totally and irreparably. What is happening in Syria is a Sunni vs. Shiite war where the Sunni minority that once ruled Iraq is now at war with the Shiite.

George Washington encouraged us to restrain ourselves from foreign entanglements. Sadly, this has politically cast him as an isolationist. How could he be? Washington more than anyone knows it was the French who saved the day and won the war for us in Charleston. Washington was also personally heavy in foreign trade. What Washington was warning against was the kind of situation that existed between the British and France, perpetual war. What for us today has become a perpetual war on terror.

What Washington offered as advice turned out to be prophetic. Since WWII our foreign entanglements have been disasters of death. North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Somalia are just a few. The recent 50,000 Latin American children refugee crisis was a direct result of Reagan's meddling in Central American affairs.

My personal moral opinion after 9/11 of using police to respond was informed by America's 20th century history of military interventionist disasters after WWII.

We the people need to heal. We need to come together and admit we have failed, totally, in the war on terror. We need to admit this to ourselves and to the world. Then we need to decide what we want to do about it.

Punishing those who were caught in the crossfire is not a moral answer. What Trump is doing halting immigration from countries we destabilized is immoral for us as a people and is unconscionable. We created that disaster by letting loose the Iraqi army with all its weapons to become ISIS; a Sunni minority looking to regain power from the Shiite. Just last year the Sunnis slaughtered 600 Shiite prisoners in Iraq.

Yet we the people will never have this discussion in today's current media environment. We are in sore need of an upgrade. Facebook has proven two things: 1. we want to talk to each other directly and 2. Facebook fails at this.

We need a non-profit vehicle where the primary objectives are to communicate, not to make money off of ad revenue.

We need the DoLL and the Vote Bank, we need Irreni World Scale. We need to communicate and come together about who we really are.

We need Irreni World Scale!

Cheers!

Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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, January 6, 2017

Not Agreeing Better!

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

Irreni World Scale is about solutions, not punditry.



Today's solution is how to "not agree" better by use of "I don't know."

We are all only human. We are all each others keeper. We are all humans sharing in the experience of denial, cognitive dissonance and group  think. Therefore we depend on each other to pull back the emotional curtains so we can accept reality as it is and not how we wish it to be. By accepting our shared human nature we can "not agree" better.

Q: "Did Russia hack purposely influence the Presidential election?"
A: "I don't know."

You might be asking, "But what about the stories being reported in the news?"

What about them?

When I read the news the first question that I use to evaluate the news is this:

Does the information rise to the level of decision making?

If the answer to this question is "no" then I form no opinion which means any subsequent question about my opinion is "I don't know."

Russia hacking the election is not something in my life I will  be making any decisions or acting on in any way. There is no upside to forming an opinion. There is a huge down side though: emotional investment that leads to denial, cognitive dissonance and group think.

A lot of people claim to be just about the facts. I don't. I don't even though I claim to be evidenced base where personally I do not refer to myself as an atheist, but evidenced.

Human nature means we aren't computers. We don't just work on facts. We are emotional creatures. This means that every single one of us is susceptible to denial, cognitive dissonance and group think. Every single one of us.

The use of "I don't know" is the best defense against investing wasted emotional energy and thereby getting into denial, cognitive dissonance and the confirmation bias of group think unnecessarily.

Emotions aren't a zero sum game but neither are they free. If you invest your emotions in something that you do not have any control over, or  interact with then you will stress out because the emotional energy has a nowhere outlet.

Today's politics do not stress me out. Nor has politics ever stressed me out. Because on almost every political question I answer, "I don't know."

A healthy respect for using "I don't know" has been a great benefit to me in managing stress and conversely investing energy correctly to care about the things I can control or influence. In some ways using "I don't know" reflects the the Serenity prayer.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference.
The irony here is that "I don't know" replaces "God" and actually manages our human nature.

Using "I don't know" defines being an atheist. Atheism as the topic is always typically depicted as an opposition arguments against religion. That is not the case. Atheists today use "I don't know." Ask any atheist if the following statement is true for them:

I don't know how the universe was created and so how the universe was created has an infinite set of possibilities.

What I do know as an anti-theist is that all of the supernatural claims made by every religion are false because there is no evidence of the supernatural acting upon the natural world. None. Every religion ever relies on belief in the supernatural . For me this means 100% of all religions are false for one simple reason: the supernatural has no evidence.

The distinction between being an atheist and an anti-theist is atheist is defined by  "I don't know" and being an anti-theist is based on lack of evidence.

The Serenity prayer needs an update then:

The humility of using "I don't know" grants me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, allows me to focus and concentrate Courage to change the things I can, and the pursuit of knowledge gives me the Wisdom to know the difference.

We are all only human. We are all each others keeper. We are all humans sharing in the experience of denial, cognitive dissonance and group  think. Therefore we depend on each other to pull back the emotional curtains so we can accept reality as it is and not how we wish it to be. By accepting our shared human nature we can "not agree" better. 

I don't know  if Russia hacked the election and hopefully neither do you unless you are actually involved with managing that problem.

Cheers!

Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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!



 






Monday, January 2, 2017

Thinking Smarter

Hi! Happy New Year!

First blog post of the year 2017 is a simple tip: think human nature.

Remember, Irreni World Scale is about bringing you solutions, not punditry.



Tip: Think human nature not free will.

  1. It is human nature that corruption is politics. Plato in his book "The Republic" describes this nature. Good people won't compromise their ethics and because of this good people will not enter politics. This was true in 60 BC and 2,000 years later is still true today. Good people in politics is an anomaly that has to be promoted. Cicero wrote about it, John Adams adopted it, this philosophy, and created a system of checks and balances that allows corruption and enables good people. This system, however, has finally been overwhelmed and is failed.
  2. It is human nature that the US government has been overwhelmed with corruption. Financial success breeds greed which breeds corruption.  The middle class in the US is on the decline. There has been a massive shift in wealth from the middle class to the ultra-rich since 2000. The collapse of Enron in 2001 in a single year, which had been a Fortune 3 company, was the financial shot heard around the world. Enron represented the harbinger of corruption things to come.
  3. It is human nature that desperate times call for desperate measures. Trump would have never been elected by any other previous generation of Americans, he is too disrespectful. But it is not about Trump. Not at all. It is about an act of desperation by a middle class that sees no alternative. Which considering Star Wars and Rogue One's message of hope is rather telling that we are slowly coming out of our denial that the US government no longer functions. It is time to move on.
  4. It is human nature for those in power to distract with shiny things. The French revolution, off with their heads!, is the exception not the rule. Generally speaking political distraction works and the rich stay in power. Keep the population distracted with religion, partisan politics or some combination of both and this allows the rich to keep on keeping on. They take no consequential blame. We can expect deepening partisan politics with  deepening religious issues in 2017 and years to come. It is human nature. There is a direct correlation between the amount of government corruption with political distraction in corrupted systems.
  5. It is human nature to project our behavior onto others. The golden rule has been found to be common in every society in anthropology. The problem with the golden rule is that while it works okay for small homogeneous culture tribes up until about oh, say the year 1900, the golden rule quickly falls apart with wildly varying demographics. Today the Internet exposes us all to the entire spectrum of human cultures and behavior. Do unto others by projecting our behavior onto others is much too simplistic. The golden rule needs to be replaced with the new Irreni, information rule:  do unto others as they are, not as you are.
  6. It is human nature to be us versus them, insider versus outsider. My brother is a devout Christian, a Jehovah Witness. He is not a back seat Christian. At one time he was on track to be a church leader. His best and only argument against my atheism was human nature itself: religion has been found to exist in every culture known to humans. Touche. Now the question is why? There is no one, single reason people are religious. But one thing all religions have in common is the notion of  insider versus outsider, us versus them. It is in our human nature. Today's partisan politics is programmed to exploit us-versus-them human desire. People want to belong to groups. Yeah! for our sports team!  It is our nature. The question with any nature behavior is what's healthy? Has our new found love of hyper-partisan politics been healthy for America?
  7. It is human nature that intellectual capacity varies. It is true that intelligence requires intellectual capacity, but it is not true the intellectual capacity means intelligence. Intelligence requires education.
  8. It is human nature that birds of a feather flock together. Science fiction writers have long speculated the those with both intellectual capacity and correlating intelligence will flock together. They will also be a minority by simple human nature math: the top 1% in capacity can do exception things but only as 1%. This causes tension in any government like a democracy that is dependent on the popular, average intelligence vote making decisions as opposed to the best intelligence decision. The book "Dune" by Frank Herbert  is one such excellent book on this topic. Science Fiction writers are supposed to speculate on possible solutions. However, even Frank Herbert couldn't find a way out of this particular quicksand. Most science fiction writers end up at dystopia as a sermon warning us of the outcome of the human behavior but not supplying us with any speculative solutions, ergo Irreni.
Irreni World Scale for your Happy New Year works with human nature and manages it. All of our current political problems today are simply a result of human nature. The current US Constitution and government today is not equipped, adequate or sufficient to the task. We need to admit it is time to change, we need to admit our human nature at play and find better solutions for our changing world.

We need Irreni World Scale!

Cheers!

Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!

Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism!  

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!