If only the better argument counted for something.


Why not make it free?

I would be nice to make everything free, but some things are defined by their resistance to distribution.


Still, that being said we can acquire a high degree of ubiquitous material wealth if we do three things:

1. Reform IPL to make all code free as in speech and beer. Privacy could still easily be respected. In fact copyright enforcement and privacy of correspondence are mutually exclusive. (To program the robots.)

2. Deploy nuclear reactors quickly to provide the bottom of an anthropocentric materials economy food chain. (To power the robots.)

3. Develop an open source humanoid robot, recharged by the reactors, and instructed by ever evolving shared open code above, to automate any labor task we need done yet are unwilling to do personally. (To have the robots.)

With those things accomplished, essentially everything would be free. Certainly anything that could qualify as a basic human need.

In the mean time we absolutely could deploy a UBI and give everyone a piece of their human inheritance.


Islam, Xenophobia, and France

It has been suggested a lot recently that there’s a big difference between Islam as a faith and the violence of some of it’s practitioners. I used to lean in that direction as well, but now I don’t know. I’m starting to lean with Sam Harris on this one. It really seems that to whatever degree Islam is a religion of peace is directly proportional to it’s adherents deviation from the original text.

That’s partly why so much Islamic violence is aimed at other Muslims. It’s because the “fundamentalists” also believe that a peaceful version of Islam isn’t an accurate interpretation of Islam if you measure accuracy by behavioral parity with the source text. With us against us mentality.

It’s almost like asserting the possibility of an inclusive tolerant version of the KKK. You can’t really do that without making it into something other than the KKK. Sure, some skinheads aren’t violent, but that’s just because they ignore the logical conclusions of the core idea. If you really believe X you must at least be in favor of Y.

Religions are like nations in that they place their own existence at the apex of importance. Again like the KKK they are intrinsically supremacist. Well above ethical considerations when you get right down to it. (I’m quick to add that nationalism itself is essentially/behaviorally/psychologically/etc a religion.)

Islam in particular seems intrinsically violent on balance expressly because it seems remarkably self aware of its nature and true objective. I think it is this very honestly and consistency that grants it lasting appeal actually.

Contrast Saudi Arabia with the Vatican. Not exactly apples to apples I realize but still, you see my point. It seems like the mental flexibility required to twist Islam into a murder/torture justification isn’t very demanding in relation to the other major religions.

Because really, we need to admit that some religions are more violent than others. (Maybe develop an objective way to measure it. Perhaps by counting the separate instances of justification for murder?)

This is obvious when you think about it. I mean just look at the Aztecs. You have to admit that wherever Islam is politically ascendant, relatively more overt religious barbarity follows, and this isn’t the case with all other faiths.

The solution is to undermine what makes a violent faith practical. People aren’t stupid actually, nor are they robots. As hard as that is to believe at times. It is not upbringing and training that sustains this madness. It’s more basic than that. It’s about food and water and shelter and communications. Secularity triumphs mostly in areas of prosperity.

I’m quick to add that prosperity doesn’t just mean money. It means physical and cultural wealth.

Terrorism is contextually emergent. It springs up like puddles in rain. To fix it you need to change the underlying context. You need gutters and storm drains if you don’t want to see puddles. Bombing a puddle just means a deeper puddle next time it rains.

The refugees in this context are going to teach us an important lesson. How to include people. If we master that. If we get our shit together to the point that we can ethically and practically recruit better than our enemies, we will win. This entire political sphere depends on the existence of poverty and the dismissal of suffering.

That’s why the problem seems so intractable. Because the only solution is a root solution, one which we don’t even apply to ourselves yet. Essentially we have to kill poverty at home and then invite others into that home. The 1% and their minions aren’t having that.

Their solution is variations on a gated community which is just a passive spineless version of concentration camps. We need to be honest about that as well.

Paris is going to get it’s own patriot act before long. :/ But it’s understandable. ISIS is not like the other terrorist threats. It’s real and different. It’s more like actual legitimate war. :(

Also looking at the French attacks you can see the uniqueness of ISIS in living memory.

ISIS is something atrociously special. I can’t think of anything like it in modern history. It’s going to make for a decade of great action movies. Like the chinese curse, may you live in interesting times. And a little bit of be careful what you wish for.

I feel that much of our terrorism thing has been manufactured and exaggerated. Allowed to happen. Intentionally cultivated. Baited even. So let’s just hope this doesn’t turn into the boy who cried wolf.

We haven’t had such a legitimate enemy since the Nazis. These people aren’t like typical terrorists with legitimate grievances. They are a nation state death cult that has openly declared war that they intend to fight forever.

They actually expect to lose it by our standards. (See link below.) They’ve made it clear how to crush them militarily, and are begging for it. Literally begging their god for it.

So I’m curious how France will look in 10 years. I think this is their 911. I think they’ll never be the same. But it’s not like ours. They didn’t need it like the 1% needed 911. None of the cultivation I mentioned on our part applies to them. I think the official story is essentially accurate.

France is an extremely reasonable country in my view. I don’t expect them to go hysterical like we did and surrender to fear and baseless irrational war mongering. And unlike some of the shittier elements of popular culture, I have zero illusions about their lethality.

ISIS is completely foolish (from my perspective) for attacking France. But like I said: Death cult. Thinking about their desire to be crushed, it was actually really wise. Indeed more wise than attacking us.

We can’t really bring them the epic stomping they want. That’s what we get for crying wolf twice and putting said wars on the credit card. No one would rally behind us, or Russia for that matter. But France? Yeah.

That was the wrong (or right as I said) move. They are going to discover that picking a fight with France, a real fight, is a bit like trying to invade Switzerland. Just about the dumbest plan ever. I think we’re going to see some true social Darwinism in action in the coming years.

See Also:


He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

The Just Ice Department

The psychopathy of police, prison, judges, lawyers and vengeance are right there, in the very word.

There’s nothing warm or helpful or human about any of it.

Criminals are either desperate or mentally ill. The entire concept of there even possibly being a criminal worthy of sadistic torment is absurd. It’s literally equivalent to outlawing poverty and mental illness. The obviously insane idea that we can cure those things by simply hurting “offenders.”

By closing the asylums and leaving the prisons open we doubled down on torture as a cure. Every bit as backwards as calling in an exorcism priest to deal with epilepsy.

Norway is doing it right. Prison and asylums should be pleasant social quarantine at worst.

We as a species need to grow the fuck up.

It’s Just Fiction

1682cae91918693a88c05c380c7ed798I’m so tired of that argument.

As if all the propaganda in the world that directly leads to death and pain is fine just because it’s fiction.

Pandemic ignorance of how the mind works is the greatest threat to human freedom ever invented.

Neither your conscious or unconscious mind knows how to separate fiction from reality entirely.

For example, imagine a scene of two people fighting to the death. Look at the scene detail by detail. Where exactly is the fiction? We are looking at two flesh and blood human beings. The materials are real, the sand is real, the sunlight is real, the words are as real as words can be.

The entire concept of fiction is too complex for the majority of the human brain. When your brain goes to encode a memory it doesn’t know the difference. And as I just pointed out, how could it? When it goes to remember the scene, 99% of the parts are real. Ok so the steel might be aluminum, the blood might be dye, but does your hippocampus know that? Can it know that? Of course not. It’s a machine chunk. It doesn’t understand what it’s recording any more than a camera does.

It’s insane to expect each part of the brain to have all the functions of an entire brain. And that’s why this wrecks people. The vast majority of your brain processes fiction as if it’s truth. Especially if it’s well made and convincing on a detail for detail basis.

This isn’t about me being pedantic, or needing to lighten up, it’s about you and so many others being oblivious. Oblivious to how your mind processes fiction and how much of your memory is actually fabricated.

Unless you have a degree in archaeology and a particularly vivid imagination you can’t even come close to picturing what this kind of thing was really like, if it ever even existed at all.

Your entire memory barring actual first person events is a series of comparisons between fictions. When people speak of events you create the mental picture in your head like a cinematographer.

I bet even your dreams have movie and TV elements, maybe even games. Why? Because your brain physically can’t tell the difference.

For 200,000 years, what you saw was what you got. We are not adapted for this.

You’re all blind slaves. Perhaps the greatest irony in history is the fact that it is your conviction of freedom that enslaves you.



Liberal Hate


To be fair, I do see a lot wrong with the progressive movement, just ask me about gun control, GMO hate, and nuclear power, but that makes a lot of sense since progressivism is forced to be a single party event in this country.

You have two general approaches to political change, the desire for something new or the desire for something old. Conservatives are by definition regressive. They wish for stasis or regression. Progressives are the other side, they wish for change and progress towards something new.

The problem is that there are many possible futures but only one past. It makes sense to have a single conservative party, but in order to counter that you need a concerted effort to balance it, but again that’s a problem because progressives can’t agree as easily as conservatives because many possible futures.

For example, I want to see a future with nuclear reactors and the freedom to own weapons. My reasoning isn’t relevant to this comment.

My point is to prove that it isn’t logical to lump “liberals” together like it is to do so with conservatives, because of the shared past, divergent future, dichotomy. Admitting there are general differences between two groups thus making total equality impossible or nonsensical is ironically something also relevant at the gender level. It’s insane for example to ask for breast equality among the genders and we all understand that. The difference in breasts is not an oppressive conspiracy.

8765786076That said, if any party is more guilty of ignoring facts it’s the conservative party since there are reasons we abandoned elements of the past when we did so. Granted not all of them were valid and good reasons but for the most part we had good cause, at least at the time.

The right wing in this country is completely fact immune on a whole slew of issues ranging from economics to climatology to sociology. When they aren’t simply lying for power on behalf of their 1% owners.

Basically we need a depth of process reform that simply isn’t going to happen prior to the singularity. And what I am hoping for is internal changes to the one party that overtly stands for change. Since currently the ship of state is headed for a waterfall.

1336153857475Letting the 1% try to keep ALL the money is just insane. It will destroy the country. Though of course they can just fly away. Realizing that they are a pathology at the systemic level is the first step towards finding an ethical cure.

As opposed to merely executing them, French revolution style, which is perfectly possible given how few people we’re talking about here. And I should also point out that if this ever becomes the position of the government, there’s no where to run as our drone strikes have shown.

Policy Triage

Basically we need a species threat/opportunity triage system that includes prioritized lists of possible actions/mitigations and their cost benefit ratios.

This is how I arrive at my policy positions. I essentially put myself in the position of global emperor and think about how to do the most good for the most people with the least cost in the shortest amount of time while averting or preparing for situations of threat with a similar but inverted criteria.

Climate change for example is actually an easy problem.

Just roll out mid-scale nuclear power as fast as we can till the carbon curves break.

Another easy solution is a UBI and a wealth cap. By bookending the global economy with those elements you can achieve the best of both worlds of planned and free market economies. Again, that problem’s solution would solve a whole series of other problems.

Those root issues are the best things to focus on, the right things to worry about.

It’s a simple matter really to determine them if we are rational. Of course as baseline humans we never will be. We don’t actually change over time, only our environment and technology does. However, we can make ourselves aware of our emotional limitations, and of the fact that those emotions are stopping us from behaving in this rational way.

At the species level we seem to have a kind of pandemic phobia of facing problems rationally. This 0.2% sanity score tells us something about our own nature that should be factored in to policy choices.

It’s perfectly possible for us to decide to give power to rational goals in the abstract without falling into emotional traps. But we first have to decide that’s a good idea. Mostly people seem to reject that. They obey their emotions consciously, almost on principal. Never realizing that makes them puppets of whoever can best manipulate them.


Underlore © 2013