Category Archives: money

Origin of human rights

While usually difficult to view, the collective conscience is civilizations shield.

How behavioral pairs work

Both human intelligence, and civilization is in critical part created by behaviors.  Behaviors that are unique to humans who are not psychopaths, and all animals as they are, in the natural world.  These behaviors are not simply very fast rational thought.  “I think therefore I am” is inadequate.

This can be seen by comparing unique human behaviors to their closest animal kingdom counterpart.  This comparison provides another critical service.  A science based foundation for human rights.   Beginning with the most basic building block of society, the sovereign self.

Self Sovereignty – Behaviors unique to humans in nature,  following a path least intrusive to other humans, forms civilization.

CORE RIGHTS

The conscience is comprised of emotional metadata which is a fast risk engine that has emergent behavioral properties. Humans display testable (falsifiable) behaviors, that form a subconscious wisdom of future good, not expressed by other animals (or psychopaths)

Property – Identity of an place, object, or accomplishment belonging to a being or a group. Honored and understood as a provision of autonomy to a distant time.
Territory – Control of a place, object, or role by a being or group. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Currency – A convenient object or idea, representing and interchangeable with property or caloric expenditure, held with expectation of said returns upon exchange.
Favour – A treaty, a yield of territory to display deference to hierarchy.

Freedom – A cooperative model of non interference. The perpetual expectation of non-interference in exchange for a return of the same.
Treaty – A stalemate, a mutual temporary cessation of conflict to avoid over exertion.

Friendship – The expectation of continued freedom between parties, despite periodic violation of it, for the purpose of communicating risk subconsciously in diminished samples of harm.
Alliance – A temporary teamwork towards and depending on a common goal. Restricted to roles.

Investment – Dedication of time and calories into a being’s or a groups creative development. Requires property and currency to realize return.
Assignment – Dedication of time and calories into another’s territory with the expectation of favour.

Justice – Revocation of the rights of someone who curtails the rights of others, for a time reflecting the loss. A corrective act to shape societies conscience, to lower the risk of loss of rights.
Fairness – Enforcement of equal outcomes for individual by role. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Insight – Subconscious messaging describing super-sense attributes not previously connected. Instantaneous like instinct, but presenting novel information, so selection pressure or experience can’t program them directly. Emergent.
Instinct – Instantaneous recall of appropriate action to reach/avoid emotional primitives (despair, bliss, and will to action). Based in direct or genetic experience.

.
Civilization – An organization including insight, property, freedom, friendship, investment, currency and justice. Characterized by trust. Allowing investment (manufacture, farming, storage, trade), and subsequently specialization, and it’s side effect, economy of scale.
Pack – An organization based on instinct, territory, treaty, alliance, favour and fairness. Structured by assignment of roles. Role based equality(fairness). Transient.

DEDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Faith; Knowing something you can’t prove: Insight, Freedom
Ignorance; Reacting to something you don’t know: Instinct, Treaty

Money; Liquid property: Currency, property
Debt; Mobile territory: Favour, territory

Specialization: Investment, freedom, insight
Compliance: Assignment, treaty, instinct

Markets: Freedom, property, currency
Subsidies: Treaty, territory, favour

Free speech: Friendship, currency, justice
Directives: Alliance, favour, fairness

Sexual preference: Freedom, property(of self)
Provisional autonomy: Treaty, territory

Innocent until proven guilty: Freedom, friendship, justice
Continuity: Treaty, alliance, fairness.

Right to exit; Moving away from oppression: Justice, Investment, Freedom
Banishment; Rejection from hierarchy: Fairness, Assignment, Treaty

Right to fork; Creation of new competing hierarchies: Property, Investment, Freedom
Deposal/Regicide; Temporary ascension to top of existing hierarchy: Territory, Assignment, Treaty

Religion: Faith, investment, property(of self)
Cult: Ignorance, assignment, territory

Beneficence; Serving human rights: Freedom, Justice, Friendship
Utilitarianism; Appearing good: Treaty, Fairness, Alliance

INDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Threats in absence or conflict(waste) of core human rights. Threats include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster.  These threats present a danger to civilization and other rights.

Self defense: Property, currency, freedom, friendship, investment, justice
Fitness; (natural selection): Packs enforce their fairness, territory, favour, assignment, treaty, and alliance, through violence

Economy of scale: Investment, markets, faith
Stagnation: Assignment, subsidies, instinct

Privacy: Property, currency, freedom, investment
Narrative: Territory, favour, treaty, assignment

 

This version 2.  See ‘Behavioral pairs‘ for it’s origin and version 1.

Update v2.1:  Unpacked conflation of ‘The right to fork’ and ‘the right to exit’   More accurate.

The death of facts

trusted

 

Them’s the facts jack. Facts are facts. Or are they. Fact checkers love to write their own checks, but who checks them? Other fact checkers? That’s a tangled web, and at any scale sovereignty, and then authority, begins with you. As always the most important question isn’t who, but how. How we determine what the facts are, determines the quality of our reactions.

Many people care about facts as weapons. A way to zing their enemies. The repugnant selfish theater better known as politics. They don’t contemplate broader risks. Absurdities enable atrocities. The fields of facts are filled with Pyrrhic victories. Battles won at cost of humanity’s common war against risk. The truth and the broad shield it provides us is damaged. What does truth shield us from? Many interim horrors, but ultimately, mistakes we can not come back from.

Inherently, there can be no greater risk than irreconcilable error, should facts go awry. All risk ends there. Facts are important, possibly the most important to a shared social system. The only thing that can correct irreconcilable error is externalities. Waiting for some black swan to save you is inherent failure. Not because saviors don’t exist, but because you learn nothing and therefore accomplish nothing if you strictly wait for them. Trying and failing to understand still often makes progress. You need to act even if the facts do not favor action.

Unknown unknowns

How do you act without or in the face of apparent facts? The temptation may be to vette the facts further. It seems like a positive action, and it could be. But as the earliest politician showed, fact finding can become a fool’s errand. If your premise, or other contributing facts are flawed your result will be skewed, possibly multiplicatively. A trace of poison can ruin the whole water supply. Finding facts objectively, at a glance, seems improbable.

There are a few structures by which to find facts. Only in rationalism can facts be found objectively through strictly logical constructs. Empirical evidence depends to a degree on perspective, and attributes and quality of the senses. A rubber ruler at best. Skepticism can never create a test it can pass, because it’s nature is to doubt everything, including the test itself. You can’t create a useful system of rules, you inherently can’t trust. Determinism can indicate there are immutable facts, but you can’t measure inevitability, only likelihoods approaching inevitability. It may be true, but we can’t measure it completely, so we can’t create a fact with it. So rationalism it is.

Determinism while maddening can be useful. There are no determinists. There are only people who think determinism is the most likely explanation for events and attributes, by a very wide margin. They can’t know every quantum outcome at the sub-atomic level that create the molecules in their brain cells, they can only imagine the parts at that scale working together on an impossible to simulate universal scale. It’s too big for simulation or calculation. Which reveals our final opponent to rationalism, pragmatism.

While many people treat facts as deterministic, they can be, and are pragmatic.  What actually performs and gets good results?  Based in an incalculable world, all things deterministic are in fact an odds game and actually pragmatic. This presents a problem for rationalism. Scope. Just like determinism can only approach the probability that it is true, rationalism can only approach the totality of relevant facts. It may, and mathematically will, miss facts. But don’t just take my word for it, rationalism died with the renaissance man. Once humanities best minds determined the entirety of human knowledge is not knowable to any one person  more than a century ago, it follows that nobody can have or even honestly claim to have, all the facts. The concept of incontrovertible facts died, when the scope of human knowledge exceeded one very smart person.

As this is Civgene, I can’t help but present a second argument. The real way I knew to look for the death of facts. I know all the most intelligent human behavior is partly driven by rationalizing subconscious impulse. Our conscience, indicated by our lack of psychopathy, is a probability engine. Churning out likely answers to puzzles by comparing unlike things in our memories and nudging us. We then in turn rationalize or externally explain these insights. Reason without conscionable  impulse is just rationalism, and that psychopathic fashion of seeking truth is, incomplete at best.

Known unknowns

So we know facts can be false, and can’t be proven completely true, but we have to act. What to do? We should use facts, but we should encourage competing facts. How can they compete? By shrinking the scope of society so that sets of competing facts can play out. Experiments when possible, but predictions when not, can scientifically vette facts. It is healthier to act, than to simply wait for a system of incorrect facts to grow large enough to induce a catastrophic failure. By letting people choose their own results, you prevent moral hazard to truth, or disintegration of the idea of objective truth. Whether it’s distortions originate from gaslighting or subtle errors, top down facts chip away at the viability of approaching objective truth.

An idea oriented fact finding process should be encouraged, not a blame based one. Since all people with imagination have ideas, consensus facts should be shared. Consensus is when the vast majority of people see a fact as true, not only people whom you agree with. Some ideas may conflict. To progress materially or spiritually, you may need to limit the scope of people who are considered for your consensus. People outside this technocracy’s scope should not be considered when achieving a local consensus, but also should not be indoctrinated by the technocracy. Attempting to achieve broader consensus through ideas can expand your scope, but if blame encourages a faux consensus, it damages the viability of objective truth. Smashing anyone, much less your political enemies, in the face with truths they can’t understand hurts the viability of future consensus, and creates castes or classes, the quick road to oppression, oligarchy, and massive inefficiency.

Again as this is Civgene, I must point out civgene had predicted this. Behavioral pairs (consionable humans compared to the animal kingdom) indicate that human rights originate from the differences between humans and all (possibly most) other animals and psychopaths. Primarily adding a time component, future, present, and past to current animal social structures. Property, investment, freedom, friendship, currency and their derivatives, money, markets, specialization, and economy of scale all indicate a right to fork. Allowing hierarchies, like oligarchy and technocracy to interfere with these rights, denies people the opportunity to act naturally human, and benefit maximally from it. Faulty (or false) facts compete with and even eliminate these behaviors. Bringing us closer to psychopathic simple animal behaviors as cumulative distortions grow.

Known knowns

If faced with opponents to your facts, approach them with ideas of process for resolution (ideally scientific), or don’t approach them at all. If a fact is rejected, the blame lay with the explainers understanding of the fact, not the challenger. Many things can be, and have been wrong with specialized and local consensus facts. Deception or defection for power or political gain, scope errors or missing information, empirical errors, or simply low intelligence actors may have forced superficial consensus before a broader population could be brought in through understanding. The highest orders of industry, government, science, and other hierarchies have been disastrously wrong about facts for centuries, before. Destroying public trust. Pushing a fact you can’t explain can have subversive results on our very ability to agree on anything, and possibly our health and safety. An obscure fact is safer for the social fabric than a profound distortion. An obeyed dictate, posing as fact, is possible, but comes at difficult to reverse cost. Destruction of trust.

Much good has been done by small groups of technocrats using a common base of facts to discover new truths. Find like minds. Mankind’s greatest discoveries languished for decades in obscurity, even when in common use, or while enjoying tremendous financial success. All based on facts that still to this day do not share a public consensus. Who, what, when, why, and especially how, can all be wildly changed by the tiniest change in the underlying facts. The truth does not suffer from a lack of attention. Only you do. You can not conquer this problem alone, so seek like minds to build on your facts and compare your performance to other societies technocrats, with different assumptions, I mean ‘facts.’ The public mind is a contest of ideas, and the only sure way lose it is to attack the contest itself.

Avoiding nuclear cascade failure

plant-evolution

Civgene is the theory that human beings are genetically two separate behavioral sets, psychopaths and empaths (non psychopaths.)   Empaths are far more populous and their behavior is largely (if not entirely) responsible for civilization as we think of it.  Anyone can bear a child who is a genetic psychopath.  Psychopaths breed more quickly than non psychopaths (ignoring moral consequences allow psychopaths to have more children) with a higher likelyhood of bearing a psychopath.  Their proportions grow, and eventually they collapse their civilization by collapsing trust based mechanisms, through corruption and graft.

This presents a technological problem for the modern world.  Economic collapse or rapid simplification was a simple enough solution in the past.  Suddenly economies could no longer support the psychopaths, and they died off reducing their portion of the population, with collateral damage.  Like a fever in your body fights a flu.  Now there are 400+ nuclear power plants which as Fukushima demonstrated, could rapidly destroy the planet.  A fever so severe it kills the host.    The key is they need constant attendance by educated workers, which will be difficult to maintain when the basic supplies no longer flow.

There is new hope.  There are quite a few generation III+ nuclear power plants going up next year in 2017.  While these do not hit the ideal target of one month unmanned operation, they can remain unmanned without power or supplies for 72  hours, and a skeleton crew can keep them operating indefinitely.  A defining feature is the plants finally use natural forces like gravity and condensation, to circulate cooling water making meltdown far less likely.  This is great news.

Generation III+ may be the good enough to survive an economic collapse in conjunction with some onsite family relocation and stockpiling of basic supplies for that key skeleton crew of workers, but that work is just beginning.  The hundreds of existing plants need to be shut down and replaced ASAP.   We need the global economy to survive until that work is complete.  Unfortunately the economy is already collapsing in uncontrolled localization and simplification.  Collapse is already in progress.

I suggest citizens consider legal distribution as a solution to a limited and controlled check on destructive corruption.  Both in perception and efficiency, legal distribution can provides a check valve, away from power centers, on the most flagrant and arm folding corruption.  Corruption so severe it outweighs economy of scale at it’s current scope.  Rather than destroy entire governments, citizens can set up a soft but functional landing for the components of government they trust the least.  Creating a framework of negotiation to prevent critical economy of scale from shrinking smaller than it is while subject to the waste, while cutting the most egregious bower brokers off from frustrating and impoverishing the public.  This will preserve trust and avoid another disaster caused by multiple supply lines cut to near zero by sudden credit seizure and poverty.

Today pervasive new technologies abound, and can solve real world problems like potential nuclear reactor cascade failure.  Many of these technologies are slowed by those power brokers because of disruptive properties that benefit market participants, but not non-obvious taxing beneficiaries.  If we get out of the way enough for the market to get a footing, it can keep local economies and their power plants in good health, long enough to upgrade them to a system that will not bring the earth to sudden radioactive ruin.  The point of no return.

Alliancism

choice

There is a problem with political progress today.  There is no word but fascism to describe a  change of government into a system of always putting subsidies for corporate profit ahead of freedoms, markets, or property, controlled by one person.  A trivial point, an oligarchy as the fascist is possible here too.  While the properties of fascism appear on a regular but limited basis, it’s absolute properties (absolute control) may not be present.  The transition can take place at any speed.  Freedoms can be lost for temporary profit, one freedom at a time.

Alliancism to fascism is much like socialism to communism.   In small doses both can have good short term consequences, but only for a temporary period of time.  Bringing in fractional banking in where there was none before, but cannibalizing the money supply to do it.  Growing economy of scale by ending trade disputes via hard power and eroding citizen rights to reach that goal.  Masking the tragedy of the commons with consumerism and gentrification.  Incrementally replacing debate with marketing, public relations and ultimately propaganda.   Replacing war with police action (conquest by peace).   Meant as a staged scale like socialism, alliancism is a partial implementation of fascism in a capitalist democracy (including republics) as it transitions between the optimal psychopathic cooperative (rights AND shortcuts) to rapid simplification and localization.  Ultimately, collapse.

I’m naming it after the alliance.  The closest relationship a person without a conscience (a psychopath) can have to a friendship.  Temporary and transitory in nature alliances can only exist while at each party thinks they are using the other to their ultimate advantage.  Where fascism immediately assumes all rights to it’s leader class, alliancism can erode rights one at a time.  Cashing in freedoms for temporary pricing advantages via market distortions.   This continues until the faith in currency and property are lost, and trust and investment ceases.

Open source and the complexity horizon

event-horizons

Open source really embodies three changes from typical hierarchical human social systems.  Gift culture, the right to fork, and perpetually increasing levels of complexity.  But these pieces are not all new, what changed to make open source happen?  What problem is it actually solving?

Gift culture is not new.  It is as old as currency.  Currency predated coinage as barter and skills and tasks.  So why did open source happen if not for gift culture?  What did change?  GPL.  A new kind of copyright license establishing the right to fork.   That’s how Linux, the trial of a hard right to fork based in law, succeeded.

The right to fork is not new.  Clearly established by the Christian reformation, and enabled by Gutenberg, the right to fork, until the 1980s was only established against ultimate authorities by war.  Civil rights in the freest countries acknowledged it and derived their rights from it, but did not explicitly establish as a basic rule of engagement and existence.  In politics threats of an ultimate fork were often sufficient to deter one.

What is new?  Complexity at modern levels is completely new.  Where is the complexity?  Not in tasks or problems to solve.  They are still simple to explain.  In communication.  In language.  What does language indicate?  Respect for stature and respect for others time.  Not always based in the currencies of accomplishment and skill, but as a product of many parallel societies.   A focus on the importance of social structure undermines ideas, there for innovation, and ultimately investment.   The social structure becomes impassible and no problems or tasks are solved.

Repairing social structure becomes a second level trap.  Meetings are held.  Seminars attended.  No, a fork is needed.   The problem needs to be solved in order to be assigned sufficient language to solve it.  The language to solve the problems have no parallel and therefore no linguistic identifiers for needed concepts.  The industry tries to solve this by pumping out new names and acronyms, but they are often the property of someone and useless for general progress.  This is a distraction.   Undeveloped ideas are slowed by the work needed to name them.  In the computerized, Internet connected world, the source code is language of progress.

The complexity horizon is reached when the task is so complex that less efficient top down problem solving can no longer function.  No amount of time spent can solve the problem from the top.  ‘Leader’ understanding doesn’t scale language fast enough.  The client can solve the problem better if administration doesn’t block him.  No right to fork means the client no longer invests.  Trust (predictability of future trends) is lost because their personal experience is impassible.  Future investment is diminished.

The perception that the ability to understand a problem and articulate it are always equal is a lie.  Therefore the complexity horizon occurs when comprehension of tasks outrun articulation of it.  False cooperation becomes apparent (bogus reciprocity) and destroys trust.  How can understanding outrun articulation?  The subconscious must participate in solving the toughest problems.  That is imagination.  Rationalization of conceptualization is being outstripped.  The metamind is doing the work but the rational mind and the mouth can’t keep up.  If a fork can be had, the solution can employ more minds at the task of articulation.  If it can’t the relationship between solver and the client grinds on failing to economize and destroying the trust needed for investment from both.

This would have been impossible to decipher without first exploring Civgene’s explanation of the metamind and it’s subconscious roles.  Based in fundamental behavioral contrasts between humanity and the animal kingdom, and the implications for economics.  Please explore those ideas at your leisure.

To help grasp this here are some practical applications of open source and roughly when their complexity horizons were reached.  Note that the open source alternatives begin to gain momentum at the complexity horizon but are not accepted as inevitable until some time later.

Linux: 1993-1995

The original, complete, experiment.  Operating systems are a software layer between varying hardware and the programs people are really trying to run.  Commercial operating systems were plagued with bugs and suffered from declining stability.  The cause was the non linear growth in variety of hardware a computer could be built with.  Communicating in code eliminated grafted societies and their cumbersome verbal language.

Bitcoin: 2008-2010

Currency looses it’s value to a client as quality of transactions become less visible.  The increasing non linear complexity of derivatives makes understanding any market impossible, ultimately damaging trade.  By solving they Byzantine generals problem the complexity of language is eliminated.  A small collaboration of solvers can write code to track and transfer currency for clients at a global scale in a transparent way.

Devops: 2013-2016

Internet applications are a way to handle reliability and scalability problems.  The non linear expansion of global cyberwarfare, and the non linear expansion of the internet of things (ultimately internet connected computers in all equipment) requires management of operating system functions at the network level or a systemic scale.  This seems to be the first multi-factor complexity horizon.  Devops holds another distinction as well.  It is a new system.  Not drawing on errors from past attempts to breach the horizon.

3d printers:  Soon, perhaps some breaches now.

An epic confluence of complicating factors defy description and add complexity for manufacturing in on demand customization, trade, natural resources, security, and in the race to the atomic scale.   3d printers are likely the first multi-factor complexity horizon with more than two vectors of complexity.  We have likely passed some of the factors already.

Who is in contol? Banking vs new technology

banking-vs-technology-v3

Thank you for your feedback an patience! Perhaps these new images will shed some light on how pack vs social topologies effect human economic behavior.

Here are the individual images, but they loose something without the dimension of time.  Just click on them for detail.

Inherent-technology-all-behaviors-fiat Inherent-technology-unique-behaviors-fiat Inherent-technology-common-behaviors-fiat

 

Feedback is welcome.  Thank you for your help!

Edit v.2 :  minor repairs.
Edit v.3 :  After some consideration realized fiat is a substitute for coinage.  The animation helped with perspective..

Note:  I have deleted the earliest post and version of this graph.  Not trying to be revisionist, it’s all up on github, but this graphic is so much more clear cut and understandable.

 

What is happening to the global economy?

Econ-tech-subsitute-v2

Psychopaths are exerting disproportional influence on the economy.  Some empaths have been captured  either by cult or by  political ideologies, becoming temporary proto-psychopaths.  This  leads to collapse, and a  rout of genetic psychopaths.   A brutal but effective means to reversion to a trust and metamind based economy.

We broke that mechanism when we split the atom.  If we let that happen again, the nuclear power plants could melt down, as they will fail disaster not fail safe when their daily mechanizations are no longer attended by knowing employees.  Perhaps this was by design as part of MAD, but it’s guillotine hanging over the planets head now.

Green loosely matches the Adam Smith model.  As we approach the red psychopathic supplements for trust behaviours, (substituting debt for money for example) we approach the dystopia Marx and Engels observed but lacked to data to understand.   Just in time, open source has demonstrated the vital importance of the right to fork.   If we support that right through systemic changes we can back away from the edge of the cliffs of collapse.

Discuss this with your families this Thanksgiving and perhaps we can make a change for the better.  Please share your ideas and comments.

EDIT: I left this post up for completeness but there is a newer superior 3d graph.

 

How does legal distribution work?

Legal distribution is the right to veto laws passed by representatives by popular vote, not by abolition, but by moving a law to next smallest legal jurisdiction.  The distribution (federal United States of America for example) means 50 copies of the law are made (one for each state) and the funding is divided 50 ways as designated by percentage by the original bill.  Now each state can change and adapt the law to suit their needs and the funding stream is secure.  Even in the case of state abolition funding flow is guaranteed unless the original now distributed law is abolished by lawmakers at the federal level.

This can be undertaken at any scale and be reduced down to the next smallest jurisdiction.  Including the sovereign individual.

A legal distribution would trump all contracts with the state.  Contracted works would have to be rebid by each distributee.  Contracts with individuals would be exempt as no jurisdiction can be lower than a single sovereign individual.

This attacks centrists, power seekers, and the corrupt would be oligarchs who would raid the treasury without the people.  It discourages secret deals in lawmaking by greatly increasing the risks as works bribed in secret can no longer be delivered reliably.

It suits the goals of 3 of the 4 sectors on the political compass including the majority of republicans and democrat populations (only the statists suffer)

It addresses the problems of the inevitable collapse of government due to growing corruption, corporate lawmaking outrunning civic players, lack of market data in government regulation (state level competition), it solves scapegoat populism driven by propaganda, and if proven as fact it solves growing psychopath populations hijacking the political process to destruction for short term personal gain.

It is based on the human right to fork, which derives from the inherent human rights (property, currency, freedom, friendship, and investment), which form civilization and from which markets derive.  In this it is a direct antidote to the form of propaganda known as the Hegelian dialectic, by always offering a third choice (bad, less bad, localities compete to produce better data) in civic decision making.

It appears superficially socialist, but is actually is a localist antidote to socialism’s observed inequity and graft.  It respects and preserves the hard the hard won balance of rights and common good of distributed laws, but returns the power to oversee that law to a smaller more manageable scale.

The reduction of waste and the restored economy of scale should make voluntary type one civilization participation significantly more feasible.  The right to veto means unexpected corruption in global agreements can be rapidly retracted, and reworked in a competitive fashion and in time a new law can be passed with the data resulting from variation of the distributed competing implementations.

This does not solve the tragedy of the commons directly but instead solves the problem that causes it, aversion to corruption.  The risk of unexpected (to the population of citizens) consequences is near negligible as laws with purposely or unintentionally hidden results can quickly be revoked.  In other words the risk that state defectors will do more damage than defectors at large.  Power as an end to itself is far less feasible at any scale.

Legal distribution should be compatible with any government type like republic, monarchy, technocracy, communism, etc.  Two notable exceptions are theocracy or anarchy.