In an interesting video I recently watched about quantum noise and mathematics, a mathematician jovially commented in passing that maybe the reason we don’t notice information transmissions from other advanced civilizations is because their communications are encrypted. He said it as a playful joke, but I don’t think he realized how profound this was. What would encrypted radio (or light) transmissions look like in that case? They would look precisely random. Exactly like background radiation.
WOW. This is far more profound than (I believe) this mathematician realized. After some more thought, I believe this is the solution to the Fermi Paradox. (The Fermi Paradox questions why we cannot see intelligent radio transmissions Continue reading
(If you haven’t read the Sapiocracy.PDF file, just do it. I want your feedback.)
I’ve written here about how the rules have changed. I believe the human species has entered a phase change. I’d like to dive into one aspect of this change – communication – and guide you through a thought experiment to underscore just how disruptive this communication innovation is. I think you’ll be surprised.
Please consider two factions, naturally at war with each other since slightly less than 13,000 years ago. The events at Gobekli Tepe led to a new era of human behavior – the sedentary life. (Screw Egyptologists; they’re wrong.) These events separate the hunter/gatherer times from modern times. The two factions are those wielding power in large human populations – the elite – and the rest of the population – the masses.
Imagine a chess board. On the left, we have the elite. On the right, we have the masses. The rules of the game have gradually evolved as technological advancements compounded over the millenia. In the last 200 years, the discovery of the use of fossil fuels accelerated these changes radically with the industrial revolution. About 10 years ago, the advent of the wireless smart phone gave communications to the masses in an unprecedented way.
Today I had a bit of free time so I thought I’d ponder the concept of taxation. This includes types of taxation, are they necessary, how they may be viewed ethically, etc.
This isn’t about Sapiocracy – these are just my own personal thoughts and I’m happy to revise them if presented with information persuasive enough to do so.
All of this (I hope) is based on rational deduction, so I don’t believe this will be too controversial.
In general, my feeling is that taxation is necessary and should be levied in such a way that those who pay are those responsible for the problem whose solution needs funding.
Taxes should always be levied in the best interest of the collective. In other words, if a tax doesn’t provide a collective net win (or loss prevention), then that tax is unfair. If one demographic gains more or less than another group, then the tax is unfair. It may be impossible to achieve perfection, but it can certainly be done better than the current systems.
I’ve just uploaded an overview document describing Sapiocracy.
You can find the PDF file by clicking here. (Updated 4/16/2016.)
To discuss, please join the forums (here) and post a message.
Today I’ve had an epiphany about a possible solution to a problem I’ve called “The Committee Problem.” How committees are performed technically doesn’t affect Sapiocracy’s function (as long as they do function), but having a clearly described candidate method makes the whole concept more digestable.
Rather than post the detail here, I’ve posted it to the forum here. Please click this link to read about it. I’m quite interested in feedback, so please join the forum if you’d like to discuss it.
EDIT: It turns out this new crowd-sourced committee solution appears to be optimal. Quite remarkable really. Read the Sapiocracy.pdf file in the header for more detailed information.
KUDOS to Hedgeless Horseman
Today, Hedgeless Horseman of ZeroHedge.com posted an encouraging article (“hedgeless_horseman’s Revolutionary Call to Arms“) with a list of things one can do to advance us all toward solving problems. While I applaud the ideas, I think I can add some clarity and adjust the way people think about it in the interests of causing meaningful change.
You should read the article, but briefly, Mr. Horseman suggests reading some very good books (most of which I’ve read) and doing some things that pressure the system in which we find ourselves disgusted. These are good things to do.
Contrary to its title, the article isn’t really a call to arms per se. He’s not asking us to actually do anything that would change the system much – only things that would increase the public acuity and put pressure on the system. The things he’s asking will make it slightly more difficult for those in power to continue their corruption quite as successfully, but it doesn’t address the fundamental structural problems in the system. For example, it doesn’t address any way to prevent corruption in governmental systems.
Mr. Horseman said we should “Hold three fallacious posters accountable on www.zerohedge.com by citing their fallacy.” OK – I’ll bite.
Mr. Horseman, here is my response.
In meandering through the jungle of the interwebz (a series of tubes), one can clearly see that the din of commentary is chattering incessantly about what’s wrong with the world. Well meaning intelligent people write their opinions, offer their evidence and proclaim their suggestions.
I recently read A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All: The Future Belongs to Work That Is Meaningful, the courageous book by Charles Hugh Smith about his solution with his very well made points, especially about the structure of implementing money. I highly recommend this book if you’re at all interested in novel thinking. It is a good set of thoughts. Although I think Mr. Smith has some great points and ideas, he presents his solution as a root solution that he believes will solve larger problems and I must disagree. He claims his system would solve the majority of problems he sees. I assert it would not.
Briefly, the user George Washington of ZeroHedge just posted this article, asking for solutions. Here is my hurried response.
First, I must commend Mr. Washington for his query. Most people don’t realize that sitting around posting messages bitching about problems doesn’t actually solve problems. In fact, it can make them worse. However, it does (sometimes) raise awareness. This is why I rarely post – I am focused on solutions and could give a rats ass about bitching unless it is a catalyst to bring forth new information or ideas that make sense. I am only interested in solutions.
After a few weeks being distracted by other priorities, I ran across this article in the Intercept describing the work of I.F. Stone. Here’s a telling video to set the context of this post about the corruption of human decision-making and how it relates to the availability of truth to the individual.
This notion that the powerful will always [eventually] lie is a very powerful thing to realize about human behavior in general. It doesn’t just happen at the very largest scale of governments or mega-corporations. It happens between any factions of people – even between individuals. It is an innate part of human behavior. The ability to deceive is at the very core of what it means to be human. But just because you (and every other) person has the ability to deceive doesn’t mean everyone always deceives. What drives that decision is the perception of the odds of a positive outcome for the person contemplating applying the deception and the morality of that person. Large organizations get excessively corrupt when the people in control have very weak morals. At that point, they’ll employ deception at every turn if there’s a small payback – just look at large business and politics.
Business investors take special care of the possibility of losing their money on a bad investment. When they’re wrong about a hunch (a prediction), they can lose whatever they put into it. When it is someone else’s money, people are not as prudent. If a failure will hurt, it is referred to as having skin in the game. Without skin in the game, people can and will do stupid things without having to pay for their personal failure.
It occurred to me today that it is possible for Sapiocracy propositions to be structured such that voters must have skin in the game. Imagine a proposition that, if it fails, will end up costing a lot of money to clean up. In all current systems, this cost is borne by society through increased taxes or fees.)