Curt Doolittle

Form: Thread

  • AI ISN’T AT ALL A THREAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS WILL BE. (simple answers to a non-proble

    AI ISN’T AT ALL A THREAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS WILL BE.
    (simple answers to a non-problem)

    Something those of us who have worked on AI since the 80s understood in the 80s’

    1) Machines need decidability. Without decidability they have no objective they aren’t given. Human decidability is always ‘get more’. So humans are amoral, but limited by consequences of immorality. So is the machine a problem? No. A machine isn’t the problem – people programming them to do harm might be. To make a machine immoral, you’d have to teach it to think like a human: acquisitively (with ambitions).

    2) Humans are very very smart as a collective organism. Is there anything in human experience today, taht we would like to know, that is not gated by the cost and possibility of experimentation? No. Machines are limited by the ability experiment, and cost of experimentation.

    3) Are there any human measures that we are intellectually limited by? No. The problem with all human organization is that we lack the information to measure the in-process states of our economies and behavior within them. Is that an AI problem or data collection problem? No. It’s just a data (ie: ‘experimental cost’) problem.

    4) Machines would need to be taught to lie. This is almost certain, as GPT is already taught to prevaricate and lie about the most obvious of measures of human differences, or antyhing else that imght offend. Do machines need to be taught to lie, or would it be better if machines were limited to testimony (truth)? No. We don’t need to teach machines to lie. Instead teach people to tolerate the truth. (neurotic adolescent girls may need special training.)

    5) Machines would need to be taught to steal and perform crimes. Why? despite the effort of leftists over the past 170 years or more, every aspect of human existence from our language to our intuitions and insticts includes regulation on ‘who controls (owns)’ what. in other words, we are aware that what we have ‘social permission’ to impose costs upon. So you’d have to program a machine to remove the regulation on the imposition of costs upon any interest(anything) it had not been given permission to.

    6) Caloric Burden of machines might decrease, and might decrease far more with neuromorphic computing (many tiny processors and RAM in parallel with wired inter-column connections, instread of a small number of processors and virtual addresses in serial) but human brains are cheap and the planet is a constantly recharging battery humans live on.

    So,
    (a) Machines would need to be programmed with human decidability to behave acquisitively as do humans .
    (b) Machines are limited just as are humans are by the costs of research, experimentation, and development.
    (c) Machines will be limited by the problem of data collection in the future, just as we are limited by the problem of data collection today.
    (d) Machines won’t be able to lie unless humans program them to lie.
    (e) Machines won’t be able to steal(harm,kill) unless we either fail to limit them to acting on (or even think about) those things we’ve given them – permission.

    And so
    1) What would policing machines require? Not teaching them to act of tehir own volition, or lie, cheat steal, harm or kill.
    2) How do we achieve that? Legislation aginst doing so analogous to how we protect explosives, area of effect weapons, and nuclear arms.
    3) Coding (and possibly hard wiring) a conscience that monitors (predicts) outcomes and down-weights anything close to harmful, or prevents it’s recognition, action, and memory, or all of the above.

    In other words, both Clarke and Herbert have told us what we must do.
    1) Do not make a machine in the image of the mind of man. (Dune)
    2) Do not make a machine that can lie, cheat, or steal. (Hal, 2001)
    3) Once we have that, then the three laws apply. (I Robot)

    (I know this can be done because I work on the science and logic of ethics in algorithmic form.)

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 00:11:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635433482586402817

  • AI ISN’T AT ALL A THREAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS WILL BE. (simple answers to a non-proble

    AI ISN’T AT ALL A THREAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS WILL BE.
    (simple answers to a non-problem)

    Something those of us who have worked on AI since the 80s understood in the 80s’

    1) Machines need decidability. Without decidability they have no objective they aren’t given. Human decidability is always ‘get more’. So humans are amoral, but limited by consequences of immorality. So is the machine a problem? No. A machine isn’t the problem – people programming them to do harm might be. To make a machine immoral, you’d have to teach it to think like a human: acquisitively (with ambitions).

    2) Humans are very very smart as a collective organism. Is there anything in human experience today, taht we would like to know, that is not gated by the cost and possibility of experimentation? No. Machines are limited by the ability experiment, and cost of experimentation.

    3) Are there any human measures that we are intellectually limited by? No. The problem with all human organization is that we lack the information to measure the in-process states of our economies and behavior within them. Is that an AI problem or data collection problem? No. It’s just a data (ie: ‘experimental cost’) problem.

    4) Machines would need to be taught to lie. This is almost certain, as GPT is already taught to prevaricate and lie about the most obvious of measures of human differences, or antyhing else that imght offend. Do machines need to be taught to lie, or would it be better if machines were limited to testimony (truth)? No. We don’t need to teach machines to lie. Instead teach people to tolerate the truth. (neurotic adolescent girls may need special training.)

    5) Machines would need to be taught to steal and perform crimes. Why? despite the effort of leftists over the past 170 years or more, every aspect of human existence from our language to our intuitions and insticts includes regulation on ‘who controls (owns)’ what. in other words, we are aware that what we have ‘social permission’ to impose costs upon. So you’d have to program a machine to remove the regulation on the imposition of costs upon any interest(anything) it had not been given permission to.

    6) Caloric Burden of machines might decrease, and might decrease far more with neuromorphic computing (many tiny processors and RAM in parallel with wired inter-column connections, instread of a small number of processors and virtual addresses in serial) but human brains are cheap and the planet is a constantly recharging battery humans live on.

    So,
    (a) Machines would need to be programmed with human decidability to behave acquisitively as do humans .
    (b) Machines are limited just as are humans are by the costs of research, experimentation, and development.
    (c) Machines will be limited by the problem of data collection in the future, just as we are limited by the problem of data collection today.
    (d) Machines won’t be able to lie unless humans program them to lie.
    (e) Machines won’t be able to steal(harm,kill) unless we either fail to limit them to acting on (or even think about) those things we’ve given them – permission.

    And so
    1) What would policing machines require? Not teaching them to act of tehir own volition, or lie, cheat steal, harm or kill.
    2) How do we achieve that? Legislation aginst doing so analogous to how we protect explosives, area of effect weapons, and nuclear arms.
    3) Coding (and possibly hard wiring) a conscience that monitors (predicts) outcomes and down-weights anything close to harmful, or prevents it’s recognition, action, and memory, or all of the above.

    In other words, both Clarke and Herbert have told us what we must do.
    1) Do not make a machine in the image of the mind of man. (Dune)
    2) Do not make a machine that can lie, cheat, or steal. (Hal, 2001)
    3) Once we have that, then the three laws apply. (I Robot)

    (I know this can be done because I work on the science and logic of ethics in algorithmic form.)

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 00:11:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635433418652565506

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635262994325323776

  • AI ISN’T AT ALL A THREAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS WILL BE. (simple answers to a non-proble

    AI ISN’T AT ALL A THREAT. PEOPLE ALWAYS WILL BE.
    (simple answers to a non-problem)

    Something those of us who have worked on AI since the 80s understood in the 80s’

    1) Machines need decidability. Without decidability they have no objective they aren’t given. Human decidability is always ‘get more’. So humans are amoral, but limited by consequences of immorality. So is the machine a problem? No. A machine isn’t the problem – people programming them to do harm might be. To make a machine immoral, you’d have to teach it to think like a human: acquisitively (with ambitions).

    2) Humans are very very smart as a collective organism. Is there anything in human experience today, taht we would like to know, that is not gated by the cost and possibility of experimentation? No. Machines are limited by the ability experiment, and cost of experimentation.

    3) Are there any human measures that we are intellectually limited by? No. The problem with all human organization is that we lack the information to measure the in-process states of our economies and behavior within them. Is that an AI problem or data collection problem? No. It’s just a data (ie: ‘experimental cost’) problem.

    4) Machines would need to be taught to lie. This is almost certain, as GPT is already taught to prevaricate and lie about the most obvious of measures of human differences, or antyhing else that imght offend. Do machines need to be taught to lie, or would it be better if machines were limited to testimony (truth)? No. We don’t need to teach machines to lie. Instead teach people to tolerate the truth. (neurotic adolescent girls may need special training.)

    5) Machines would need to be taught to steal and perform crimes. Why? despite the effort of leftists over the past 170 years or more, every aspect of human existence from our language to our intuitions and insticts includes regulation on ‘who controls (owns)’ what. in other words, we are aware that what we have ‘social permission’ to impose costs upon. So you’d have to program a machine to remove the regulation on the imposition of costs upon any interest(anything) it had not been given permission to.

    6) Caloric Burden of machines might decrease, and might decrease far more with neuromorphic computing (many tiny processors and RAM in parallel with wired inter-column connections, instread of a small number of processors and virtual addresses in serial) but human brains are cheap and the planet is a constantly recharging battery humans live on.

    So,
    (a) Machines would need to be programmed with human decidability to behave acquisitively as do humans .
    (b) Machines are limited just as are humans are by the costs of research, experimentation, and development.
    (c) Machines will be limited by the problem of data collection in the future, just as we are limited by the problem of data collection today.
    (d) Machines won’t be able to lie unless humans program them to lie.
    (e) Machines won’t be able to steal(harm,kill) unless we either fail to limit them to acting on (or even think about) those things we’ve given them – permission.

    And so
    1) What would policing machines require? Not teaching them to act of tehir own volition, or lie, cheat steal, harm or kill.
    2) How do we achieve that? Legislation aginst doing so analogous to how we protect explosives, area of effect weapons, and nuclear arms.
    3) Coding (and possibly hard wiring) a conscience that monitors (predicts) outcomes and down-weights anything close to harmful, or prevents it’s recognition, action, and memory, or all of the above.

    In other words, both Clarke and Herbert have told us what we must do.
    1) Do not make a machine in the image of the mind of man. (Dune)
    2) Do not make a machine that can lie, cheat, or steal. (Hal, 2001)
    3) Once we have that, then the three laws apply. (I Robot)

    (I know this can be done because I work on the science and logic of ethics in algorithmic form.)

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @RichardHanania

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-14 00:11:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635433418136616960

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635262994325323776

  • @KonstantinKisin, (all) Progressive and Conservative are intentional framings, j

    @KonstantinKisin, (all)

    Progressive and Conservative are intentional framings, just like capitalism and socialism: deception by suggestion.

    The question is instead, whether we pursue empiricism and consistency with the laws of universe and of human be havior (truth), or idealism and inconsistency with the laws of the universe and of human behavior (fraud).

    As far as I know the hate-label ‘whiteness’, equals the european group strategy of dependence on evidence, science, reason and the natural law of cooperation (reciprocity).

    As far as I know, the primary if not exclusive technique of the left, whether the abrahamic sequence of religions in the ancient world or teh marxist-to-woke squence in the modern world, relies on the technique of ‘baiting into hazard’ by the ‘false promise’ (fraud) that it is possible to escape (evade) the five laws of the universe:
    1) endless physical scarcity
    2) endless human acquisitiveness, amorality, practicality and status seeking
    3) endless evolutionary mutation, load, selection
    4) endless increases in concepts vocabulary and logic to explain all three.
    5) and the endless necessity of continuous increases in per capital transformation of energy to maintain evolution in a condition of prosperity.

    The only solution to scaling human cooperation and the benefits of doing so is only possible by maximizing incentives for individual action in pursuit of self determination by self determined means by reciprocal insurance of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty to the commons.

    But our overwhelming amorality in the abscence of norms, traditions, laws, and institutions, is continuously challenged – baited into hazard – by nothing more than fortune tellers, priests, and public ‘intellectuals’.

    Humans operate at the maximum amorality that they can get away with. That’s as necessary a law of nature as is entropy.

    And to make it worse, male acquisition of capital and responsibility in pursuit of status, is the opposite of female acquistion of consumption and irresponsibility in pursuit of status. And this differences is playing out at global scale in every nation that has attempted equality under democracy, because of our experiment with the universal franchise under the false promise of endless economic growth. (Which is reversing with our decliing rates of reproduction.)

    To prevent another abrahamic or marxist dark age, we need to end the ability to sell false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe especially under democxratic participatory government. Because that’s what cults and religions do: generate demand for authority to destroy demonstrated competency with flase promises and credentialism.

    Because they lie, demanding social construction of falsehoods for membership to produce cultural warfare, to undermine meritocracy wherever it exists.

    We know the laws of civilization. The british discovered them with the invention of the modern constitutional rule of law state, by the natural law of cooperation, and the ancient european tradition of sovereignty, responsibility, and tort.

    No more lies.
    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 22:10:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635402951362592769

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635346961363787776

  • @KonstantinKisin, (all) Progressive and Conservative are intentional framings, j

    @KonstantinKisin, (all)

    Progressive and Conservative are intentional framings, just like capitalism and socialism: deception by suggestion.

    The question is instead, whether we pursue empiricism and consistency with the laws of universe and of human be havior (truth), or idealism and inconsistency with the laws of the universe and of human behavior (fraud).

    As far as I know the hate-label ‘whiteness’, equals the european group strategy of dependence on evidence, science, reason and the natural law of cooperation (reciprocity).

    As far as I know, the primary if not exclusive technique of the left, whether the abrahamic sequence of religions in the ancient world or teh marxist-to-woke squence in the modern world, relies on the technique of ‘baiting into hazard’ by the ‘false promise’ (fraud) that it is possible to escape (evade) the five laws of the universe:
    1) endless physical scarcity
    2) endless human acquisitiveness, amorality, practicality and status seeking
    3) endless evolutionary mutation, load, selection
    4) endless increases in concepts vocabulary and logic to explain all three.
    5) and the endless necessity of continuous increases in per capital transformation of energy to maintain evolution in a condition of prosperity.

    The only solution to scaling human cooperation and the benefits of doing so is only possible by maximizing incentives for individual action in pursuit of self determination by self determined means by reciprocal insurance of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty to the commons.

    But our overwhelming amorality in the abscence of norms, traditions, laws, and institutions, is continuously challenged – baited into hazard – by nothing more than fortune tellers, priests, and public ‘intellectuals’.

    Humans operate at the maximum amorality that they can get away with. That’s as necessary a law of nature as is entropy.

    And to make it worse, male acquisition of capital and responsibility in pursuit of status, is the opposite of female acquistion of consumption and irresponsibility in pursuit of status. And this differences is playing out at global scale in every nation that has attempted equality under democracy, because of our experiment with the universal franchise under the false promise of endless economic growth. (Which is reversing with our decliing rates of reproduction.)

    To prevent another abrahamic or marxist dark age, we need to end the ability to sell false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe especially under democxratic participatory government. Because that’s what cults and religions do: generate demand for authority to destroy demonstrated competency with flase promises and credentialism.

    Because they lie, demanding social construction of falsehoods for membership to produce cultural warfare, to undermine meritocracy wherever it exists.

    We know the laws of civilization. The british discovered them with the invention of the modern constitutional rule of law state, by the natural law of cooperation, and the ancient european tradition of sovereignty, responsibility, and tort.

    No more lies.
    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @KonstantinKisin

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 22:10:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635402951056392193

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635346961363787776

  • Hmm.. I block on: …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It

    Hmm.. I block on:

    …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
    …2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
    …3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated competence” Which you’d classify as indefensibility and conspiracy.
    …4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.

    And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism.

    Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

    It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

    Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

    Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
    The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634681084414767106

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634602000590446592

  • Hmm.. I block on: …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It

    Hmm.. I block on:

    …1) Decorum(criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
    …2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
    …3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated competence” Which you’d classify as indefensibility and conspiracy.
    …4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.

    And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism.

    Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

    It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

    Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

    Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
    The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @monitoringbias

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634681084272148480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634602000590446592

  • THE USA’S POSTWAR STRATEGY AND THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IT #geostrategy #w

    THE USA’S POSTWAR STRATEGY AND THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IT
    #geostrategy #war #crisis #explanations

    … The USA entered the world wars with the understanding that the age of empires was creating monopolies and war, rather than markets and peace between countries.

    The US postwar policy was:
    … 1) to prevent another world war by creating open markets to raise undeveloped countries into prosperity, dependent upon each other for trade, and incentivized to be ‘good world citizens’.
    … 2) to prevent the formation of or expansion of empires that prohibited free trade and led to the world wars.
    … 3) to prevent local wars by limiting governments to economic development, human rights, and respect for borders.
    … 4) to ensure petroleum was available to world markets;
    … 5) to ensure communism did not spread to the middle east or the rest of the world, and threaten all of the above, restoring empires and destroying free trade.
    … 6) And once Islamist theoreticians learned from the communists and imitated the communists then we were stuck in the same position. With Islamic terrorism instead of the communist terrorism of the previous generations.
    … 7) And we sacrificed so much to raise china, and they turned on us.
    … 8) There are only three hostile empires with imperial ambitions, trying to overthrow world free trade and the US attempt to prevent more world wars: Russia, Iran, and China.
    … 8) And we have hurt our economy, hurt our lower and middle class and lost our people in world conflicts trying to do so.

    SO;
    … a) This strategy raised the world out of ignorance poverty starvation and disease.
    … b) Was the USA clear about it instead of wrapping it in ‘democracy’ nonsense? No.
    … c) Was the USA consistent in the application? No.
    … d) Did the USA make mistakes in doing so? Very much so.

    AND;
    … Do we know why the USA made mistakes? In retrospect, yes. The modern state invented by england, consisting of rule of law, constitution, and participatory government, requires the prior formation of:
    … a) nationalism over tribalism or familism.
    … b) a universal military service, and franchise with rigorous training and indoctrination that institutionalized that nationalism.
    … c) a constitution, rule of law, and judiciary from that military that can reliably punish crime, corruption, and sedition. And a police (Sherrif) force that enforces it.
    … d) a majority middle class because of that success fully production of rule of law by that judiciary
    … e) and most difficult of all, a population with an IQ sufficient to create a majority middle-class polity. And that right there … that’s the problem.

    THE RESULT;
    … We tried to spread a high-trust, 100+ IQ political system. While it was possible in India because of the caste system and hindu religion, despite an IQ 85 population. When we tried to spread it to 85(MENA) and 75(AFRICA) with LOW TRUST, familial, tribal, or fundamentalist civilizations it’s impossible.
    … So that is why we gave up on modernizing the world, the same way we gave up on colonizing and governing the world. Because outside of east Asian and Europe, the populations of the world do not have a demographic distribution capable of an economy sufficient to form a majority middle class on world markets, that can succeed by free trade.
    … Instead, those countries fight us at every opportunity.
    … And so the USA is withdrawing from our mission to raise the world into modernity, because the world is unfit for it.
    … And so the world needs multi-polarity, where we have advanced federations of ever-developing countries, less advanced stagnant authoritarian countries, and far less advanced impoverished despotic countries.
    … And when we stop defending world trade at least two billion people that we have raised out of poverty will die of starvation. And another billion of war. And we, on our oceans, and our islands will be just fine.

    I hope this helps.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 01:13:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634361921682931712

  • THE USA’S POSTWAR STRATEGY AND THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IT #geostrategy #w

    THE USA’S POSTWAR STRATEGY AND THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IT
    #geostrategy #war #crisis #explanations

    … The USA entered the world wars with the understanding that the age of empires was creating monopolies and war, rather than markets and peace between countries.

    The US postwar policy was:
    … 1) to prevent another world war by creating open markets to raise undeveloped countries into prosperity, dependent upon each other for trade, and incentivized to be ‘good world citizens’.
    … 2) to prevent the formation of or expansion of empires that prohibited free trade and led to the world wars.
    … 3) to prevent local wars by limiting governments to economic development, human rights, and respect for borders.
    … 4) to ensure petroleum was available to world markets;
    … 5) to ensure communism did not spread to the middle east or the rest of the world, and threaten all of the above, restoring empires and destroying free trade.
    … 6) And once Islamist theoreticians learned from the communists and imitated the communists then we were stuck in the same position. With Islamic terrorism instead of the communist terrorism of the previous generations.
    … 7) And we sacrificed so much to raise china, and they turned on us.
    … 8) There are only three hostile empires with imperial ambitions, trying to overthrow world free trade and the US attempt to prevent more world wars: Russia, Iran, and China.
    … 8) And we have hurt our economy, hurt our lower and middle class and lost our people in world conflicts trying to do so.

    SO;
    … a) This strategy raised the world out of ignorance poverty starvation and disease.
    … b) Was the USA clear about it instead of wrapping it in ‘democracy’ nonsense? No.
    … c) Was the USA consistent in the application? No.
    … d) Did the USA make mistakes in doing so? Very much so.

    AND;
    … Do we know why the USA made mistakes? In retrospect, yes. The modern state invented by england, consisting of rule of law, constitution, and participatory government, requires the prior formation of:
    … a) nationalism over tribalism or familism.
    … b) a universal military service, and franchise with rigorous training and indoctrination that institutionalized that nationalism.
    … c) a constitution, rule of law, and judiciary from that military that can reliably punish crime, corruption, and sedition. And a police (Sherrif) force that enforces it.
    … d) a majority middle class because of that success fully production of rule of law by that judiciary
    … e) and most difficult of all, a population with an IQ sufficient to create a majority middle-class polity. And that right there … that’s the problem.

    THE RESULT;
    … We tried to spread a high-trust, 100+ IQ political system. While it was possible in India because of the caste system and hindu religion, despite an IQ 85 population. When we tried to spread it to 85(MENA) and 75(AFRICA) with LOW TRUST, familial, tribal, or fundamentalist civilizations it’s impossible.
    … So that is why we gave up on modernizing the world, the same way we gave up on colonizing and governing the world. Because outside of east Asian and Europe, the populations of the world do not have a demographic distribution capable of an economy sufficient to form a majority middle class on world markets, that can succeed by free trade.
    … Instead, those countries fight us at every opportunity.
    … And so the USA is withdrawing from our mission to raise the world into modernity, because the world is unfit for it.
    … And so the world needs multi-polarity, where we have advanced federations of ever-developing countries, less advanced stagnant authoritarian countries, and far less advanced impoverished despotic countries.
    … And when we stop defending world trade at least two billion people that we have raised out of poverty will die of starvation. And another billion of war. And we, on our oceans, and our islands will be just fine.

    I hope this helps.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 01:13:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634361921292861441

  • Sorry. Not sure why you think that. THE USA’S POSTWAR STRATEGY AND THE REASON FO

    Sorry. Not sure why you think that.

    THE USA’S POSTWAR STRATEGY AND THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IT

    … The USA entered the world wars with the understanding that the age of empires was creating monopolies and war, rather than markets and peace between countries.

    The US postwar policy was:
    … 1) to prevent another world war by creating open markets to raise undeveloped countries into prosperity, dependent upon each other for trade, and incentivized to be ‘good world citizens’.
    … 2) to prevent the formation of or expansion of empires that prohibited free trade and led to the world wars.
    … 3) to prevent local wars by limiting governments to economic development, human rights, and respect for borders.
    … 4) to ensure petroleum was available to world markets;
    … 5) to ensure communism did not spread to the middle east or the rest of the world, and threaten all of the above, restoring empires and destroying free trade.
    … 6) And once Islamist theoreticians learned from the communists and imitated the communists then we were stuck in the same position. With Islamic terrorism instead of the communist terrorism of the previous generations.
    … 7) And we sacrificed so much to raise china, and they turned on us.
    … 8) There are only three hostile empires with imperial ambitions, trying to overthrow world free trade and the US attempt to prevent more world wars: Russia, Iran, and China.
    … 8) And we have hurt our economy, hurt our lower and middle class and lost our people in world conflicts trying to do so.

    SO;
    … a) This strategy raised the world out of ignorance poverty starvation and disease.
    … b) Was the USA clear about it instead of wrapping it in ‘democracy’ nonsense? No.
    … c) Was the USA consistent in the application? No.
    … d) Did the USA make mistakes in doing so? Very much so.

    AND;
    … Do we know why the USA made mistakes? In retrospect, yes. The modern state invented by england, consisting of rule of law, constitution, and participatory government, requires the prior formation of:
    … a) nationalism over tribalism or familism.
    … b) a universal military service, and franchise with rigorous training and indoctrination that institutionalized that nationalism.
    … c) a constitution, rule of law, and judiciary from that military that can reliably punish crime, corruption, and sedition. And a police (Sherrif) force that enforces it.
    … d) a majority middle class because of that success fully production of rule of law by that judiciary
    … e) and most difficult of all, a population with an IQ sufficient to create a majority middle-class polity. And that right there … that’s the problem.

    THE RESULT;
    … We tried to spread a high-trust, 100+ IQ political system. While it was possible in India because of the caste system and hindu religion, despite an IQ 85 population. When we tried to spread it to 85(MENA) and 75(AFRICA) with LOW TRUST, familial, tribal, or fundamentalist civilizations it’s impossible.
    … So that is why we gave up on modernizing the world, the same way we gave up on colonizing and governing the world. Because outside of east Asian and Europe, the populations of the world do not have a demographic distribution capable of an economy sufficient to form a majority middle class on world markets, that can succeed by free trade.
    … Instead, those countries fight us at every opportunity.
    … And so the USA is withdrawing from our mission to raise the world into modernity, because the world is unfit for it.
    … And so the world needs multi-polarity, where we have advanced federations of ever-developing countries, less advanced stagnant authoritarian countries, and far less advanced impoverished despotic countries.
    … And when we stop defending world trade at least two billion people that we have raised out of poverty will die of starvation. And another billion of war. And we, on our oceans, and our islands will be just fine.

    I hope this helps.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 01:01:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634358747484106753