the future

It’s really deeply unclear to me how the model we’ve been living in since the industrial revolution will work now.

If I were to recommend a strategy for the nations of the world, it would be to continue to preserve international strength, but to de-tune the domestic economy in ways that make the entire course of life more human.

While humans are remarkably adaptable, I think adapting to a world where nothing needs to be done is a bit of a stretch.

I would heavily pursue de-centralization of all matter of production to keep people involved and busy.  It seems this is somewhat the case already, as YouTube follower count seems to be emerging as a fundamental social status symbol.

Perhaps the cultures that will thrive in this century, are ones that understand how to mitigate the corrosive impact of Internet culture, and how to impose an alternative rule-set, to keep people functional, and buy us time to evolve our cultures and ourselves, to handle this new reality.

please let the devs in

H1-B system is all rogered up.  Silicon Valley is imploding.

Local companies are trying crazy things, like offices in the mid-west.

Because they can’t outspend Google on hiring, and leased office space here is so expensive, we’re sitting on each other’s laps.

In a way though, that’s how America works.  That’s how America stays in business: by mindlessly creating disaster after disaster, we continuously generate economic activity.  We have enough space to write off entire cities due to planning mistakes, and everyone who can move, just goes somewhere else.

The poor people stay until the place becomes enough of a gang-infested hell-hole that it becomes trendy to move back in.  Then they have to move somewhere else, because they can’t afford the rent any more.

But… seriously though, please let the people in that want to program.

This just in…

Given up on humanity.

It’s not you, it’s me.

Still, I love the Japanese. They’re okay in my book. I give them all my money, because they make the best things, and can still think, and dream, and cooperate with each other, and work hard.

I am so very stressed out.


My favorite game lately is “Spintires: Mudrunner.”

No time limits, no competitors.  Just a bunch of really cool trucks, mostly Russian military tractors, with the goal of moving logs from somewhere to somewhere else.

It’s the first time I’ve played a game where the physics engine really made the game.  It helps that it’s almost always overcast in the game world, often dark, deep in muddy forests.  I don’t like direct sunlight, even in games.

My anime is 100% escapist.

I have a lot of worries, lately.  I really like open space.  This place has been slowly driving me insane.  I pace a lot in my apartment.  I have felt trapped since I got here, with frustrated, and angry humanity impinging upon me from all directions.

In order to take a vacation to try to relieve some stress, I booked air travel, before I heard about the government shutdown.  So now even my vacation plans are just more stress.  Will ATC still be alive then?  How much pizza can Canada spare?

I’ve fought myself constantly to keep me here.  I’m not a city girl.  In fact, I’m only slightly non-feral.

Leaving would bring an end to one kind of stress, and the resumption of another.  But that’s how it goes.  It just depends on what kind of stress you prefer.

the apple and the cookie

You walk into room with a table.  On that table, on a silver plate set out for you, are a cookie and an apple.

You will probably eat the cookie first.

The cookie is far easier to eat, and sweeter.

In fact, if you walk into the room and there’s only an apple, you may not bother eating it at all, unless you are particularly hungry.

As long as there are cookies around, Apples don’t seem so great.

But there’s something important lurking here: cookies don’t make you any happier.  If anything, in the long run, they cause problems vs. apples.  Despite knowing this, you’ll preferentially eat them, anyways.

If cookies disappeared from the face of the earth, it really wouldn’t affect your long term happiness.

Now… suppose you walk into a room, and on the table is an interesting book… and a game console…

Technology is a jealous god.  An invisible force that controls our lives.  A global tyrant.

Technology destroys our societies from within.  Yet, without it, we are weak and defenseless, and would be destroyed from the outside.

If you are interested in the long-term outcome of a society, that is the situation you must face.


Geographical elites

The only actual elites of a modern nation are people who were born into power, or fought their way into power.  Either way, they have to fight every day to stay elite, and by necessity are specialists.

They live and breathe money and influence.  They are extremely socially intelligent.  They become high-level government officials, lobbyists, board members and executive officers of powerful corporations, diplomats, etc.

This model tends to hold, in a fractal manner, down to lower and lower scopes(state, regional, city, school/workplace).  Those most skilled and dedicated to social influence and status occupy the most secure and prestigious positions, within any given geographic scope.

Subcultural elites: elites in the general case.

Given any arbitrary grouping of individuals into a group G, there exists a function B(defined by consensus) which maps individuals into a “belonging” score, based on their attributes.

With a very high degree of probability, anyone aspiring to be a member of G, will want that function to assign them the highest possible belonging score.  This is pretty core to how social creatures work, and a good percentage of our evolutionary energy has gone into this.

They do this in many ways:

  1. Optimizing their actual attributes such that the function(or more specifically, the function as they perceive it) assigns them a high belonging score.
  2. Find ways of portraying their relevant attributes in a more favorable way than is real, or portraying the relevant attributes of others in a more negative way than is real.
  3. Attempting to change the function to better suit their attributes(real or inflated), and more poorly suit the perceived attributes of others.

Method 1 is fairly innocuous.

Method 2 is neither fair, nor legitimate, in the general case, but is incredibly common.

Method 3 is pretty common in arbitrarily-defined groups, since the belonging function itself is often somewhat arbitrary.

Using this general framework, it seems possible to me, at the moment, to understand and predict social behavior and change within the context of subcultures.

Defining Elitism

Elitism within this framework then, is perhaps, those people who are not satisfied with merely being within the herd, but want to be at the center of the herd, and(by necessity) to push others further from the center of the herd.

Subcultures are quite often populated by people who were unable or unwilling to belong in the natural, geographical culture, at any level.

They may be simply looking for a group to belong to, or they may be looking for a group they can dominate(a game they can win).  It depends on their nature.

The elitists want to win.

Whether winning at that particular game even makes sense, given the varied nature of subcultures, is uncertain, but it is certain that many people want to win at all costs.

In every breath

Why am I saying what I’m saying?

Is it inescapable?  Can I say anything unbiased by the desire to belong?  To persuade?  To, in some way, manipulate?

It seems there are rare people who don’t care, but I am certainly not one of those people.

But, in any case, I think this is one of those things that hurts less when you understand it.

I would like to be honest.  I want to be someone who would rather lose than play dirty.

Maybe because I still want God, who I don’t believe in, to like me.

the seed

I think that if you:

  1. Believe in the existence of other people, and that they are creatures who experience pleasure and pain just like you.
  2. Believe that you are no more worthy than anyone else.
  3. Feel bad if others feel bad.

that all other essential morality can be logically derived.

If you have this essential seed, and you are able to correct your behavior as you gain knowledge and experience in different kinds of relationships with people, you will grow into a good person in many different ways.

1 is kind of a bridge between emotion and reason.  It’s axiomatic, in that it’s something that must simply be accepted, but it’s easy to accept.  If you strongly feel 2 and 3, it’s definitely the safest choice.

As for 2 and 3, I suspect primary caregiver before the age of 5 is probably the most significant factor, followed by genetics.

If you don’t feel 2 and 3, then it’s logically acceptable to conclude that morality is silly.

If you feel 2 and 3, and still believe that morality is silly, then you have probably rationalized something you should not have, or simply haven’t thought things through all the way.

If you feel 2 and 3, then the realization that others often act immorally and get away with it really shouldn’t affect your morals at all.  You inherently do not, and can not, derive pleasure in winning something at the expense of others.

There are a few things in life that are inherently competitive, like getting a job, or fighting a war.  In times like those, you can still take comfort in doing so fairly, though you may take no pleasure in winning.

There are times and situations where people who do not follow 1-3 can be safely relied upon to do specific things: they have something to gain by doing so.  But they cannot be trusted for anything else.

Maybe the moral ground isn’t high or low ground, and maybe morality isn’t quite the right word for it then, either.  But it is certainly a different ground.

I feel it’s a beautiful ground.  Not of perfect people, but of people who strive to be perfect.  It’s permanently under siege, and it doesn’t seem to last forever, but it’s wonderful while it lasts.