Category Archives: money

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.

When is money just favour?

cash

Money is currency with the additional simultaneous attributes of property.  Inherent value and therefore purchasing power beyond the lone trust of either set of attributes.  An insurance policy against corruption of either.  It likely came about from attempts at corruption from psychopathic forces.  Creating a dual trap of the conscience to block animalistic regression back to territory or favour.  Each element protecting the other.  Money was invented to make both property and currency resistant to corruption from short term thinkers.

As discussed property and currency are derived from the conscience.  This stems from our discussion of the behavioural differences between animals (and psychopaths) and conscionable human beings.  As a a result we can assert what property and currency can not be.

Property can not be a territory.  Currency can not be favour.  The primary difference between both is the internalized will of the conscionable human being to respect both ownership and accomplishment in the present and future without further work.  In the case of property and currency, if you add the work of defense back in the result is, territory and favour.

This is why debt based money is a fallacy.  It functions on the premise that any currency can be made into money simply by promising it in the future.   ‘Money’ is created by saying the property is the promise of future human labor.  Money can never be debt because it completely undermines a conscionable construct and replaces it with it’s psychopathic social structure.  Debt based money is based on the concept that human beings, or at least their labor can be property.  Unreasonable on it’s face.

A debt based money turns property into territory.  Currency into favour.  Property and currency, which long term risk weighs as beneficial to the whole, becomes more subject to the whims of nature and man.  They are no longer the pillars of investment and economy of scale, but a transient permission to persue them.  A favour.  In a way debt-money is psychopathic commentary on the conscience itself.  The lender with a short term jealousy based risk management borrows the wisdom of a holistic conscience long term risk management system in exchange for the only thing they can give, territory and favour.  ‘You may continue to produce widgets to pay off your business debt.  You may continue to maintain the banks house.  You thought you were so smart about risk.  I don’t care what happened, your labor is mine.  Pay me.’

Systemically the reason the self contradicting nature of debt as money is not detected earlier is the competition it inspires.  During the transition from property and currency to territory and favour society can benefit from the attributes of both cooperation and competition.  Guiding and applying each to a perpetually lessening degree.

Eventually cooperation fails.  The mechanism is simple.  Compound interest, once introduced, demands growing competition.  Investment itself becomes no longer wise and eventually no longer possible.  Currencies and property begin to evolve outside of the system.  The debt-money loses trust, and the economies of scale, which need some degree of systemic cooperation, collapse.

I know of the properties that couple well with currencies now, but can’t imagine what they will be in the future.  I do know they need little defense.  I know true currency forces no hierarchy, and fiat can never be money.  I know people, and their labor can never be property.  Money was imagined to resist reversion to an animalistic society.  The day we discover the perfect money, will be the day we no longer need it.

Edit 6/10/15: Added a link.

Nature is cruel, and it costs her.

Darwin

Nature is a series of random genetic accidents with winners and losers.  That is evolution.  The observed evidence is insurmountable.  I can not discount that evolution could be incorrect, but it is the most viable explanation at this time.  It stands out in a way that describes other views not as theory but as faith.

Faith as critical to the human condition.  Faith is how the conscious mind receives and considers messages from the subconscious one.  Those messages not only comprise your ability to integrate into civilization, but protect you as long term risk management.  Together rational, logical thought, and messages of faith from the conscience form reason.

Reason’s initial advantage to pure logic is speed.  We can quickly asses risks in ways we can not on a purely factual basis.  Logic is complex as the facts are many.  As computer simulation demonstrates, eventually too complex to calculate.  We have a flawed but mostly effective method to quickly get the same results.  The conscience is a probability engine.  It is characterized by cooperation, at a level I do not observe the effects of in nature.  Systems of cooperation emerge between species, but by the same random genetic events that characterize all of nature.

Here are some examples of cooperation I do not see elsewhere in nature.  For contrast I compare their closest analogy .  Not coincidentally the closest simulation of the conscionable behavior a psychopath can offer.  It is important to note these do not require intelligence, just subconscious awareness of risk based on experience, and the rational ability to acknowledge the warnings.  All conscionable elements extend beyond kin or pack structure.

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

Freedom – A cooperative model of non interference.  The promise 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.
Alliance – A temporary teamwork towards and depending on a common goal.

Currency – A convenient object or idea representing and interchangeable with other property.  A promise of property. 
 Favour – A treaty, a yield of territory to display deference to hierarchy.

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.

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

Civilization may look intelligent, but it need not be.  The concepts are simple.  No more or less formulaic than pack structure.  Other animals may demonstrate fleeting glimpses of the aspects of civilization, but there is a cost in energy they are not interested in paying.  Why?  Because they can’t calculate the risk.  If they could, choice is clear.

In case you didn’t notice I included only the most simple tools.  There are  plenty of cases in nature where animals farm, store or even trade.  Many animals (not just primates) use tools.  The components are there, but the conscience is not.

There are animals that outstrip humans in vision, memory, hearing.  Not intelligence, but they can come very close.  Especially when considering our worst mean cases and their best.  That should be sufficient in isolation to create a civilization, but it doesn’t.  This is meaningful.  Intelligence may be important to a civilization, but is not the only component.

The definitions have a common attribute.  All of the conscionable cases have a future time component to them, while all of the pack ones only consider now.  I strongly suspect this is related to how the conscience works.  It seems the case that humans are alone in their ability to use emotional metadata, to dial groups of memories backward or forward in time without habit.  The very thing that makes us kind, makes us smart, as a group.  Humans can use how they feel to reference their entire memorable history for clues how to survive.  The very fortunate side effect of organizing by emotional memory for assessing risk, is the compassion needed to work in a group.  To build more than a pack, but a whole civilization.

We struggle with our role because it is a dualism.  We are psychopaths at the rational level.  In this way we are the children of nature, and our ability see future risk makes us it’s master as well.

Edit: Added investment.  Minor change to currency.

Edit 2: Changed ‘Invention’ to ‘creative development.’  Both words are needed for the right concept here.   Both work and invention, where the sum is greater than the parts.  Some spelling errors.  Included accomplishment or role as a property.