You cost too much.

So many things to say and they all must pass through these tiny fingers.

As technology begins to automate more and more of the tasks we feel are so crucial to our lives, people are beginning to notice the kinds of things that folks like Bucky Fuller were pointing out decades ago: automation is obsolescing jobs.

This is happening.

Now what to do with all these "left over" people?

But first, before traipsing any further down this merry and utterly tragically hallucinatory path, let's pause and examine some of the typically unspoken underpinnings of this sort of thinking.

Let me start by asking you, in all seriousness, "Do you feel superfluous to yourself?"

I don't mean to inquire about your estimation of your value to some theoretical employer or to "the Economy", I mean are you valuable to yourself?

All estimations of value must perforce carry or imply (or have imputed to them) some criteria or measurement of some kind of utility, and that utility is perforce tied to some agent's goals!

Insensate inanimate Nature has no person and so can have no goals and so provides no basis from which to evaluate (assign a value to) any given phenomenon, such as a human person.

To speak of the value of a human always and automatically implies that some agency is evaluating that human according to its metric(s) of utility.

In discussions of "What to do with the surplus population?" it is very very typical for the people discussing to omit entirely the examination and analysis of the agent or entity doing the evaluation.

I always find it disturbing when people assume the stance of having the right to decide matters of life and death for other people. I especially hate it when folks unconsciously adopt the stance.

I recognize no human authority as having the right to decide matters of life and death. The fact that historically abrogation of that power has been an all too common past-time of "power-possessing beings" has no bearing on the fact that it is utterly and obviously wrong to kill.



One of the grossest manifestations of this mental and emotional error is in the worship of a nominalization called "the Economy". This purely imaginary deity is useful but when people forget that it's just a made-up phantom and start making decisions based on such a logical error we tend to find absurdities.

Unlike philosophical absurdities these bite.

So we find people saying things like "part of why so many people can't get jobs -- their costs do not exceed the value they deliver." [comment on http://www.aeonmagazine.com/living-together/james-somers-web-developer-money/]

This is an extraordinary statement. It is logically meaningless, just noises, but infected minds will treat such statements as though they convey meaning that is valid in the "real world".



Really I can't blame people, the hallucinations run deep and are bound up with how people have learned to get their needs met, but it certainly time for those who don't know what they are talking about to heartily shut the fuck up and start hearing the new hottness.

So, to begin with, what is your value to yourself? How much money would you accept to die? (And I don't mean that you get to give it to your kids or charity or something. I will give you money and then you die, the money reverts to whoever finds it next to your corpse or something.)

Would you take that deal?

You don't get to keep or spend or give away the money, just have it for a moment before you drop dead. How much? A million? Ten million? A trillion dollars!?

It is absurd, right?

Your life has infinite value (to YOU) according to this simple thought experiment. (And, conversely, when "pressed up to it" money is valueless no matter how much you pile up.)

This has been established over and over again.

So, if some bastard were to come along and tell you that your "costs exceed your value" and so climb into this oven here we don't need you, you can suddenly see the error in the stance taken, yes?

Who are you costing? These "costs", what are they exactly? How are they accounted? And by whom?

If I am going to be murdered or left to rot and starve in the street because I "cost" too much I would like to understand the situation a little better, y'know, before I go quietly to the reclamation plant.

Because, see, the necessities of life are free (if you don't fuck it up too badly.) The sun and the rain and the air and the land will naturally and of their own natures bring forth plants and animals that can supply all my needs.

I am a Permaculturist and I know that any spot on earth not ice-locked can be made to bear the necessities of life quite easily (I don't mean to disrespect the farmers, it's not their fault, but normal agriculture is actually about the stupidest way to try to grow food that is possible. If agriculture were any stupider it would actually degrade the land it is practiced on, which, in fact, as practiced today it generally does. Stupid beyond understanding or belief. But that's a different rant...)

So if I can be dropped on a patch of barren desert with a few tools, a water source, seeds, and a flock of chickens, and live comfortably the rest of my life, who am I "costing" and how?

"Women can't drive! My mom told me so!"

I had a roommate once who actually said that, as if his mom saying it made it true, or somehow un-sexist.  "Your mom saying that makes her sexist, it doesn't un-sexist the remark!"

I'm writing in response to the startling and apparently earnest missive by the members of "Chicks for Douchebags" titled "Open Source Is Not A Warzone. Not Every Man Is A Dick."

I imagined this to be written by some misogynistic man pretending to be a woman but the "sign off" at the end seem to indicate that it was composed and posted by a group of women, which makes it slightly less offensive, but all the more bizarre.

Wow, ladies, what the entire fuck?  Do the douchebags really need your help?

No one should be a dick to you at all, ever (regardless of your gender even!)

Certainly if a person can't understand and accept and practice basic courtesy (that we teach children in kindergarten and that has been commonly known and accepted in every even somewhat civilized society) then we shouldn't encourage them to show off their misfortune in public.

There is an eternal contest of the nice people against the ignorant or stupid or thoughtless or careless or shit-headed, and we do not need to grant quarter to the douchebags.  They deserve to lose, they deserve to feel uncomfortable, and the non-douchebags in the room can take just a little bit of extra care in the quest to make public life free from, say, unwelcome groping!


Here is a passage from the post:

Yes, we encountered dicks in our lives. Yes, we have been assaulted in our lives, maybe in broad daylight, in public. Yes, we've been hit on tastelessly and repeatedly and we have been disgusted and annoyed and sometimes we have been near panic. Some of us have encountered violence. We've gotten grabbed our asses, gotten felt up our boobs, have been stared at, wolf whistles at us and had some drunken moron hang in front of us. Yes, some of us have hit the proverbial glass ceiling in our careers.

This is (a bad) part of our lives and yes, we judge social gathering and human encounters by how comfortable we are and how safe we feel and by their level of open or veiled dickishness.

But this is only ONE aspect of being a woman and we do not like to let this aspect dominate how we live and behave within the tech communities of our choice.

Okay, let me try to be very clear here: the crap identified in that first paragraph of the quote is NOT an "aspect of being a woman"!  It is an "aspect" of people being douchebags!

You have the right to live free from unwelcome advances, uninvited physical contact, demeaning remarks and even staring!  Staring is rude and you have a right to expect to be able to call someone on it and have the good people around you back you up!

This isn't even really about gender at it's basest roots: it's just civil society.

It is the responibility of each and every one of us every day to set and maintain the standards of public conduct that allow us to have basic comfort and safety.

This is an ongoing struggle and there is no reason to yield!

How does one feel "victimized" by a formal written policy that states, in effect, that assholes who can't understand basic human social interaction and courtesy and cooperate to create a safe and inclusive enviroment for everybody will be sternly and soberly dealt with?

If you happen to be the sort of person who can deal with dicks and douchebags and who feels she can "stand up against dickish behavior when it happens" that is really great, and I am glad for you, I am!

But it also means that the policies you describe are not written for YOU!

You are perfectly correct when you say that you don't need them!  But you are being an insensitive asshat to then proclaim that people who feel less strong and powerful than you are not worth supporting, publicly and emphatically.

Is that really what you meant?

The Guardians Riddle

The Guardians

You have been captured by an evil wizard and imprisoned in a room.  There are two doors leading out of the room and in front of each door stands a mighty Guardian.  The wizard has informed you that one Guardian always tells the truth and the other Guardian always lies.  He has also informed you that one door leads to freedom while the other door leads to certain doom.  He didn't tell you which door is which, nor which Guardian is which, nor which door each Guardian is standing in front of, but he did tell you that you are allowed to ask one of the Guardians one question to figure out which door to go through..

What question should you ask?

Let us name the door that leads to freedom (O) and the door that leads to certain doom O, and let us name the Truth-Telling Guardian (O) and the Lie-Telling Guardian O.

If you were to ask the Truth-Teller what door he is standing in front of he will tell you the truth. If he is standing in front of the door leading to Freedom he would say (((O))) (which is Void-valued) and if he is standing in front of the door leading to certain doom he would say ((O)) (which is the same as O).

The liar would say ((O)) (which is the same as O) if he is standing in front of the door leading to Freedom and (O) (which is Void-valued) if he is standing in front of the door leading to certain doom.

That doesn't help much, but what if you asked one Guardian what the other Guardian would say if you were to ask him?

The Truth-Teller would tell the truth, so he would say the same thing that the Liar would say, but the liar would lie.  If the Truth-Teller is standing in front of the door leading to Freedom the liar would say that the Truth-Teller would say ((((O)))) (which is the same as O) but if the Truth-Teller is standing in front of the door leading to certain doom the liar would say (((O))) (which is Void-valued.)

This is a little confusing so let's draw a little diagram:

    Door   Guardian   Guardian   Answer
    O      O          (O)        (((O))) -> _
    O      (O)        O          (((O))) -> _

    (O)    O          (O)        ((((O)))) -> O
    (O)    (O)        O          ((((O)))) -> O

It seems that, no matter whom you ask, and no matter which door is which, you can find out the opposite of the answer you want by asking one Guardian what the other would say about his door.

In effect, by asking one Guardian what the other would say you are forcing them both to answer, and because one always lies and one always tells the truth, and it doesn't matter in which order they go, you can always know the right answer, the door to Freedom.

Programming Languages Considered Harmful

Computer programming "languages" were always a bad idea.  We never should have abandoned math.

The Turing Machine is a bit-rattle, an analytical mess.

The Lambda Calculus is a rude hack.

The Combinators have a grace and elegance, but are lotus-eaters.

The Laws of Form...   are themselves.


My father used to say, often enough that I internalized it, "A fool never learns, a man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others."

For my part, I took this advice to mean that I should use what I think of as the "ratchet effect" which can be put into words as: use the best thing you can find, until you find something better, then use that.

In mathematics (and computers properly understood are "only" mathematics) if a given structure is simpler and more elegant than, and serves to explain or re-create, some other more complex or less elegant system, then it is common to consider the first structure in some way more primal or fundamental than the later system.

But this breaks down when people are confronted with the Laws of Form.

They are too simple.

People tend to "sniff" audibly and say things like, "well, it's just another notation, isn't it?" and "it doesn't add much to the existing literature."  Which, of course, is exactly missing the point:  it adds nothing and takes away much that is then seen to have been unnecessary.

Eventually, if you stick with it, it takes away everything and "you" are back in the un-distinct Void.





The fact that the Laws of Form provide the best system for thinking and constructing mechanical thought are their least-interesting application.

Selah

We can say without fear of embarrassment or contradiction "The Laws of Form provide the best system for thinking and constructing mechanical thought", because we know that if some one were to come up with a better system it would be shown to be, in fact, the same system as the Laws of Form.

Two beings calculating Pi will arrive at the same value regardless of their circumstances.  In other words, their "circum"-"stances" (the stance of the Universe that surrounds one) would be identical in that way.  Likewise, the considerations here collected under that title "Laws of Form" are the same in all possible Universes, all Universe begins with the making of a distinction.


In the absence of distinction nothing can be signified.


Try to find the distinction between "you" and the contents of "your" awareness.

Economics, What's That?

With the rapid advent of 3D-printing people are starting to be open to thinking through the obvious consequences.  Let's try it.

If you hang out with plants and help them then you are a Grower.

If you are making something with your hands that involves protons and neutrons then you are an Artisan.

If you are making something that can be transmitted through photons and electrons then you are a Designer.

If you are helping people to feel better then you are a Healer.

If you are helping people to grow then you are a Teacher.

I think that just leaves Artist and Scientist?  I'm going to say that both of those roles are concomitant of the others to a greater or lesser degree per ones own personal tastes and nature.

• Grower
• Artisan
• Designer
• Healer
• Teacher
• Artist
• Scientist 

Every other role will be eliminated or fulfilled by machinery.  Go take out the phone book, if you still have one.  Flip though it and see what I mean, nearly everybody in there is about to made obsolete by automation.

As for the structure of the economy I foresee three "levels" or "strata".

The first layer is made up of locally grown and consumed food and other wholesome organic products.  We'll soon come to our senses and stop messing around with GMO's and other insane techno-fetishes (or we'll all die. It's that simple and stark.)  On the primary physical level we'll live quite close to the way our "stone-age" ancestors did (and no, billions will not have to perish to let it happen) only with nice houses.

That original organic economy will form the basis or substratum for the other two layers.

There will be an "information" layer where most economic activity takes place that involves people creating wealth in digital form.  More than enough has been said about that.

The last layer is relatively sparse and consists of whatever physical transactions are needed to support the two other layers but that are not strictly "of them", meaning non-purely-digital and not ecological or organic.  This involves things like extracting particular elements from the Earth for specific experiments and projects.

My Favorite Superpower

Look, I don't make a big deal about this. In fact, normally I wouldn't mention it.  (It's a bit like having a third nipple: not really embarrassing but one doesn't tend to brag about it.)

The fact of the matter is that I have super-powers. Now, what do I mean by that? Am I being metaphorical, or telling a story for some fictive purpose perhaps, or do I really mean that I have "magical" powers?


It is the latter. I really do have "magical" powers.  I can fly, teleport, turn invisible, all that shit.  I'm immune to poison, disease, fire, cold. I don't need to eat or drink or even breath. I can dissolve my body and re-materialize it, etc., etc., yadda yadda.

Now, none of this matters. The only important thing to know about these "powers" is that they are a distraction.

That is so important that I'll repeat it: Magic powers are a distraction, leave them alone, never-you-mind.

As a side-effect of spiritual attainment you do actually develop crazy cool powers, traditionally called "Siddhis", but they are just another part of Maya (illusion) to be overcome!

And besides, they aren't useful for anything!

(Did you see the movie "Loopers"?  Some people in the future develop telekinesis but all they can do is levitate quarters and such. It's pretty funny.  This is sort of like that but not really.)

What do you think, that I fly through the air down to the corner store to get milk?  People would go ape-shit.

No. I never use any of my super-special mystic abilities.  Except one.

Out of all the fantastic amazing things that my attainment permits me to do, all the wonderful magical powers and fantastic journeys I might undergo, I stay here on Earth and do just one thing, use just one "power".

Love.

Inside and Outside

I originally thought of this as part of a fictional "Future History" that I've been toying with for years.  I don't know if I'll ever get to making anything with the stories but I thought this concept was worth enough on it's own to merit a blog post.

This is fictional, obviously, but I see it as very likely and even perhaps inevitable.

In the future (goes this story idea) the surface of the Earth has been divided into two kinds of zones or areas: "Inside" and "Outside".

Inside: Artificial, Safe, Immortal

There is a single city but it's discontinuous, not connected. It's like islands and archipelagos of built area embedded in a "sea" of wild land and water.  The city is ultra-tech, nano and beyond.  People there do not age, or age and rejuvenate as they please.  All the transhumanist techno-utopian dreams are come to fruition within the City.  Barring accidents you live as long as you want and it is Christmas every single day.

Outside: Real, Dangerous, Reproductive

The rest of the world is one giant Nature reserve. All of the oceans and the great majority of the land masses are kept in a Natural state and evolution is permitted to continue without interference from our human institutions within the City.  People live Outside too, in tribes and homesteads, and although there is first aid and basic medicine and surgery, they voluntarily endure the "slings and barbs of outrageous fortune".  Transhuman modifications and forms are not "worn" Outside.  This is also where all new people are conceived, gestated, and born. If you want to have a baby and raise a child you have to go Outside.


This is Humanity's grand compromise with our technology.  In order to maintain a normative baseline, a "control group", for our wild forays into the Transhuman realms Inside we have to permit our own natural evolution to proceed Outside.

Graduation

I hadn't figured out what form it would take (it's an ongoing story idea I'm still playing with) but there would be some sort of "intake" or "graduation" process for bringing new humans into the City for the first time.  I have no idea, I'm just mentioning it. ^_^