Form: Mini Essay
-
“Doctors are paid way too much”— Robin Banks That’s not true – if anything the
—“Doctors are paid way too much”— Robin Banks That’s not true – if anything they’re underpaid. Doctors are (empirically) the most talented subroup in america, spending an absurd amount of wealth on their educations, and their cost per patient is trivial. The problem is the overhead administration costs of regulation placed upon doctors and the vast army of clerks that are needed to support them. (that’s the deal, really). A doctor takes four years undergraduate, four years medical school, and three to seven years of internship, before they are eligible for a license. And they are in control of your life and death. A doctor’s average salary is 180k (round up to 200k). Thats 15 years of training. They have huge debt to repay – usually around 170k. Now, if you are say, a computer software engineer with the same or higher IQ than a doctor, you need little or no university education, although it helps dramatically, and if you work equally as hard, you can make as much as a doctor does for fifteen more years than a doctor does. So 15*200,000 = $3m + 250k for medical school, + 100K for university degree = $3.35M. Now, a resident for – let’s take an average of four years – is paid an average of 55K per year. So that’s 200-55 = 145k * 4 years = 580K. So 3.35M + .58M = $3.9M. Now, that means that a 30 year old MD has accumulated an average of 170k in debt before he can earn that income, despite being one of our top performing people. But can work 45 to 50 years once obtaining that – while paying an average of 20k liability insurance per year. Now, a software developer cannot (and need not) work that many years, but by his late 30’s has earned millions of dollars. The principle benefits to being a doctor are social and long term financial, for the simple reason of ever-increasing demand, and persistent shortage. The primary threat to your income is not the market but the government. -
NON PROBLEMS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE As far as I know, the binding problem is
NON PROBLEMS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem.
(a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI).
(b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of.
(c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so).
(d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral.
(from a previous post)
There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss:
1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence)
SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits.
Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases.
vs
2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence)
GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally.
Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry)
vs
3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence)
CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality.
Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-03 17:29:00 UTC
-
Non Problems In Artificial Intelligence
As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem. (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI). (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of. (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so). (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral. (from a previous post) There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence) SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits. Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases. vs 2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence) GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally. Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry) vs 3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence) CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality. Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above) -
Non Problems In Artificial Intelligence
As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem. (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI). (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of. (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so). (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral. (from a previous post) There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence) SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits. Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases. vs 2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence) GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally. Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry) vs 3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence) CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality. Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above) -
ORIGINS OF ELVES AND GOBLINS (GREEN MAN) A Goblin is a monstrous creature from E
ORIGINS OF ELVES AND GOBLINS (GREEN MAN)
A Goblin is a monstrous creature from European folklore, first attested in stories from the Middle Ages. They are ascribed various and conflicting abilities, temperaments and appearances depending on the story and country of origin.
They are almost always small and grotesque, mischievous or outright evil, and greedy, especially for gold and jewelry. They often have magical abilities similar to a fairy or demon.
(Similar creatures include brownies, dwarves, duendes, gnomes, imps, and kobolds.)
English “Goblin” is first recorded in the 14th century and is probably from unattested Anglo-Norman gobelin, similar to Old French gobelin, already attested around 1195 in Ambroise of Normandy’s Guerre sainte, and to Medieval Latin gobelinus in Orderic Vitalis before 1141, which was the name of a devil or daemon haunting the country around Évreux, Normandy.
It may be related both to German kobold and to Medieval Latin cabalus, or *gobalus, itself from Greek κόβαλος (kobalos), “rogue”, “knave”, “imp”, “goblin”. German Kobold contains the Germanic root kov- (Middle German Kobe “refuge, cavity”, “hollow in a rock”, Dial. English cove “hollow in a rock”, English “sheltered recess on a coast”, Old Norse kofi “hut, shed” ) which means originally a “hollow in the earth”. The word is probably related to Dial. Norman gobe “hollow in a cliff”, with simple suffix -lin or double suffixation -el-in (cf. Norman surnames Beuzelin, Gosselin,Étancelin, etc.)
An elf (plural: elves) is a type of human-shaped supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore. In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves seem generally to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them. The word elf is found throughout the Germanic languages and seems originally to have meant ‘white being’.
The Green Man is a god of vegetation and plant life. He symbolizes the life that is found in the natural plant world, and in the earth itself. Consider, for a moment, the forest. In the British Isles, the forests a thousand years ago were vast, spreading for miles and miles, farther than the eye could see. Because of the sheer size, the forest could be a dark and scary place.
However, it was also a place you had to enter, whether you wanted to or not, because it provided meat for hunting, plants for eating, and wood for burning and building.
Several other ancient cultures also had green deities, often with some features in common with the Green Man. These include: Humbaba, the ancient Sumerian guardian of the cedar forest, as well as Enkidu, the wild man of the forest in Sumerian mythology.
As far as i know it begins with the deluge.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 15:58:00 UTC
-
Origins Of Elves And Goblins (Green Man)
A Goblin is a monstrous creature from European folklore, first attested in stories from the Middle Ages. They are ascribed various and conflicting abilities, temperaments and appearances depending on the story and country of origin. They are almost always small and grotesque, mischievous or outright evil, and greedy, especially for gold and jewelry. They often have magical abilities similar to a fairy or demon. (Similar creatures include brownies, dwarves, duendes, gnomes, imps, and kobolds.) English “Goblin” is first recorded in the 14th century and is probably from unattested Anglo-Norman gobelin, similar to Old French gobelin, already attested around 1195 in Ambroise of Normandy’s Guerre sainte, and to Medieval Latin gobelinus in Orderic Vitalis before 1141, which was the name of a devil or daemon haunting the country around Évreux, Normandy. It may be related both to German kobold and to Medieval Latin cabalus, or *gobalus, itself from Greek κόβαλος (kobalos), “rogue”, “knave”, “imp”, “goblin”. German Kobold contains the Germanic root kov- (Middle German Kobe “refuge, cavity”, “hollow in a rock”, Dial. English cove “hollow in a rock”, English “sheltered recess on a coast”, Old Norse kofi “hut, shed” ) which means originally a “hollow in the earth”. The word is probably related to Dial. Norman gobe “hollow in a cliff”, with simple suffix -lin or double suffixation -el-in (cf. Norman surnames Beuzelin, Gosselin,Étancelin, etc.) An elf (plural: elves) is a type of human-shaped supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore. In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves seem generally to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them. The word elf is found throughout the Germanic languages and seems originally to have meant ‘white being’. The Green Man is a god of vegetation and plant life. He symbolizes the life that is found in the natural plant world, and in the earth itself. Consider, for a moment, the forest. In the British Isles, the forests a thousand years ago were vast, spreading for miles and miles, farther than the eye could see. Because of the sheer size, the forest could be a dark and scary place. However, it was also a place you had to enter, whether you wanted to or not, because it provided meat for hunting, plants for eating, and wood for burning and building. Several other ancient cultures also had green deities, often with some features in common with the Green Man. These include: Humbaba, the ancient Sumerian guardian of the cedar forest, as well as Enkidu, the wild man of the forest in Sumerian mythology. As far as i know it begins with the deluge. -
Origins Of Elves And Goblins (Green Man)
A Goblin is a monstrous creature from European folklore, first attested in stories from the Middle Ages. They are ascribed various and conflicting abilities, temperaments and appearances depending on the story and country of origin. They are almost always small and grotesque, mischievous or outright evil, and greedy, especially for gold and jewelry. They often have magical abilities similar to a fairy or demon. (Similar creatures include brownies, dwarves, duendes, gnomes, imps, and kobolds.) English “Goblin” is first recorded in the 14th century and is probably from unattested Anglo-Norman gobelin, similar to Old French gobelin, already attested around 1195 in Ambroise of Normandy’s Guerre sainte, and to Medieval Latin gobelinus in Orderic Vitalis before 1141, which was the name of a devil or daemon haunting the country around Évreux, Normandy. It may be related both to German kobold and to Medieval Latin cabalus, or *gobalus, itself from Greek κόβαλος (kobalos), “rogue”, “knave”, “imp”, “goblin”. German Kobold contains the Germanic root kov- (Middle German Kobe “refuge, cavity”, “hollow in a rock”, Dial. English cove “hollow in a rock”, English “sheltered recess on a coast”, Old Norse kofi “hut, shed” ) which means originally a “hollow in the earth”. The word is probably related to Dial. Norman gobe “hollow in a cliff”, with simple suffix -lin or double suffixation -el-in (cf. Norman surnames Beuzelin, Gosselin,Étancelin, etc.) An elf (plural: elves) is a type of human-shaped supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore. In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves seem generally to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them. The word elf is found throughout the Germanic languages and seems originally to have meant ‘white being’. The Green Man is a god of vegetation and plant life. He symbolizes the life that is found in the natural plant world, and in the earth itself. Consider, for a moment, the forest. In the British Isles, the forests a thousand years ago were vast, spreading for miles and miles, farther than the eye could see. Because of the sheer size, the forest could be a dark and scary place. However, it was also a place you had to enter, whether you wanted to or not, because it provided meat for hunting, plants for eating, and wood for burning and building. Several other ancient cultures also had green deities, often with some features in common with the Green Man. These include: Humbaba, the ancient Sumerian guardian of the cedar forest, as well as Enkidu, the wild man of the forest in Sumerian mythology. As far as i know it begins with the deluge. -
IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME. The capitalis
IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.)
In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity.
In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals.
The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’.
An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves.
We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment.
Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying.
So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military).
So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in.
SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples.
Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 13:42:00 UTC
-
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.