(I know I have a queue of your requests to write, but I’ve been recovering from my emergency room adventure all week, and this is my first day really ‘here’. So I’ll get through the list as soon as I can. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 16:00:00 UTC
(I know I have a queue of your requests to write, but I’ve been recovering from my emergency room adventure all week, and this is my first day really ‘here’. So I’ll get through the list as soon as I can. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 16:00:00 UTC
OMFG. The Libertarians and Right are dominated by coders. Why? Programming operationalizes logic – which is too reductio for real world use – to real world phenomenon and rapidly convinces you of the universal overestimation of undrestanding of human minds. It is very hard to be an idealistic programmer. That’s why there aren’t any. Programming is unforgiving. It has zero tolerance for ‘good enough’.
Evolution needed us to be confident despite our ignorance or die of starvation. That said, we are still confident of despite our ignorance while we die of obesity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 15:56:00 UTC
Everything is easy, and is wit common, in times of regularity. It is those few of us who see the outcome and the great changes that result from those regularities that leave marks on history – not the imbecile who extrapolates trends without warranty then reappears with new pretenses like next season’s fashion designer.
There is good reason to follow trend if you are unable to do otherwise, and every reason to act counter to trend if you are able.
Contrarianism merely identifies outcomes. But betting on those outcomes is the difference between contrarian signaling and contrarian investment.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 15:53:00 UTC
(FUNERALS: Class Effect Not Change?)
EVERY minute more than 100 people die. Most of these deaths bring not just grief to some, but also profit to others. America’s 2.7m-odd deaths a year underpin an industry worth $16bn in 2017, encompassing over 19,000 funeral homes and over 120,000 employees. In France the sector is worth an estimated €2.5bn ($3.1bn). The German market was worth €1.5bn in 2014 and employed nearly 27,000 people, a sixth of them undertakers. In Britain the industry, estimated to be worth around £2bn ($2.8bn), employs over 20,000 people, a fifth of them undertakers.
In the coming decades, as baby-boomers hit old age, the annual death rate will climb from 8.3 per 1,000 people today to 10.2 by 2050 in America, from 10.6 to 13.7 in Italy and from 9.1 to 12.8 in Spain. Spotting the steady rise in clientele, money managers—from risk-seeking venture capitalists to boring old pension funds—have been getting into the death business. Last year the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund bought one of Spain’s largest funeral businesses from 3i Group, a British private-equity firm, for £117m, and increased its stake in a French equivalent. The dead-body business is seen as highly predictable, uncorrelated with other industries, inflation-linked, low-risk and high-margin.
But in some of the world a profound shift is under way in what people want from funerals. As Thomas Lynch wrote in “The Undertaking” (1997), a wise book on practising his “dismal trade” in a small American town: “Every year I bury a couple hundred of my townspeople. Another two or three dozen I take to the crematory to be burned. I sell caskets, burial vaults and urns for the ashes. I have a sideline in headstones and monuments. I do flowers on commission.” Social, religious and technological change threaten to turn that model on its head.
In North America the modern undertaker’s job is increasingly one of event-planning, says Sherri Tovell, an undertaker in Windsor, Canada. Among the requirements at her recent funerals have been a tiki hut, margaritas, karaoke and pizza delivery. Some people want to hire an officiant to lead a “life celebration”, others to shoot ashes into the skies with fireworks. Old-fashioned undertakers are hard put to find their place in such antics. Another trend—known as “direct cremation”—has no role for them at all.
Besides having to offer more diverse services, the trade also faces increased competition in its products. Its roots are in carpentry. “You’d buy an expensive casket and the funeral would be included in the price,” remembers Dan Isard, a funeral consultant in Phoenix, Arizona. The unwritten agreement was that the dead would be treated with dignity and that families would not ask if there was an alternative to the $1,000 or $2,000 coffin, or whether embalming was really needed. The business has something in common with prostitution, reflects Dominic Akyel of the University of Cologne. It is legal (as prostitution is in some places) but taboo, “and certainly not to be discussed or haggled over”.
The undertaker used to be able to rely on a steady stream of customers who asked few questions and of whom he (and it was usually a he) would ask few in return. Protestant or Catholic? Open coffin or closed? And, in some parts of the world, burial or cremation? A new generation of customers, though, no longer unthinkingly hands over its dead to the nearest funeral director. They are looking elsewhere, be it to a new breed of undertaker, to hotel chains that “do” funerals, or—for their coffin or urn—to Amazon or Walmart.
Stiff competition
“It’s happening in restaurants, nightclubs, wedding venues, country clubs and it’s very dangerous,” Bill McReavy, an undertaker from Minneapolis, told his vigorously nodding peers at the annual gathering of the American National Funeral Director Association (NFDA) in Boston last autumn. The NFDA expects the industry’s revenue to stagnate between 2016 and 2021.
One reason for this is a long-term trend towards cremation—both cheaper than burial, and open to a wider range of rituals. “You need two cremations to make the same as one burial,” says David Nixon, a funeral consultant in Illinois. As families move farther apart, relatives are less likely to tend to a grave in their hometown. As people increasingly identify with more than one locality, so they begin to hanker after more than one resting place.
In religious countries, burial is still the norm; Ireland buries 82% of its dead, Italy 77%. But over half of Americans are cremated, up from less than 4% in 1960 (see chart), and this is expected to rise to 79% by 2035. In Boston a Chinese delegation stocked up on free “Bereave-mints” but mainly came to learn about cremation, which rose in China from 33% in 1995 to 50% by 2012. In Japan, where the practice is seen as purification for the next life, it is nearly universal.
Cremation can get cheaper still. In an industrial park just west of Amsterdam, a low-rise building houses the headquarters of several budget funeral websites, all of them routes into the same company, Uitvaart24 (Funeral24), and offering direct cremation: a simple coffin, transport, cooling and burning without relatives present, at a price of around €1,250. “Our customers either don’t have the money or are sensible enough not to want to spend it,” says Jan-Jaap Palma, one of the owners. The business only started three years ago and now handles over 2,600 funerals a year. Mr Palma aspires to become the Netherlands’ largest funeral-provider.
An increasing number, of whom David Bowie, who died in 2016, was probably the best-known, are taking this direct-cremation route. In America a third of cremations are now direct. Dignity, Britain’s only publicly listed funeral provider, started offering “Simplicity Cremations” last year. Simon Cox, a spokesman, expects 10% of British cremations to be direct by 2030. This is not driven just by cost. Many mourners still commemorate their loved ones. They simply separate this from body disposal and may not see any reason to include an undertaker. With no body to worry about, they can arrange an event of their own at a local hotel at a time of their choosing. “The sombre Victorian funeral is slowly being replaced by more upbeat personal celebrations,” says Mr Cox.
At the convention in Boston, this separation of the body and the ceremony is seen as a worrying trend. “Where’s the guest of honour? …No visitation and empty casket, no embalming. What’s the point?” asks Michael Nicodemus, an undertaker in Virginia, arms aloft in exasperation as he shows a slide of an empty coffin. Classes such as “Mastering cremation phone-inquiries” teach attending undertakers how to deal with that tricky “how much is cremation?” phone-call. When the pretend customer, “Helen”, asks if she can bring an urn from Hobby Lobby, a crafts shop, she is reminded these are not designed for cremated remains. To a customer who is “just shopping around” the undertakers are taught to say, “I admire your due diligence”, and suggest asking budget cremators how they’ll know for sure that the cremated remains are their loved one’s.
The Green Reaper
Cremation, direct or otherwise, is not the only rival to old-fashioned burial. A study in 2015 found that over 60% of Americans in their 40s and older would consider a “green” burial, with no embalming and a biodegradable casket, if any. Five years before the proportion was just over 40%. Jimmy Olson, an undertaker in Wisconsin specialising in green funerals, says it is inconsistent “for someone who’s recycled all their life and drives a Prius to then be put under the ground in a concrete vault, plastic-sealed casket and with their body pumped full of chemicals.”
Americans each year bury 70,000 cubic metres of hardwood, mostly bought at a hefty mark-up from undertakers—enough to build 2,000 single-family houses. They use 1.6m tonnes of reinforced concrete for vaults. Cremation is gaining popularity in part because it seems less wasteful. But burning (ever larger) bodies takes energy. A conventional gas-fired crematorium blasts 320kg of carbon into the atmosphere per body (the equivalent of a 20-hour car journey) and two to four grams of mercury from teeth fillings.
Britain now has over 270 green cemeteries, and 9% of funerals are now green, according to SunLife, an insurer. The appeal is more than just the lack of waste. Gordon Tulley and his wife run two green burial parks, one in a meadow in Lincolnshire, one in woodland in Yorkshire. Unembalmed bodies in a simple shroud or willow casket are buried in shallow graves under trees. “Six feet under [the standard elsewhere] is too deep for bacteria to break down the body,” explains Mr Tulley. Parks are far more pleasant to visit than cemeteries, both before and after a death. You can pre-book exactly where you would like to be laid to rest, explains Mr Tulley’s website: “We do not bury in rows but wherever you or your family feel most happy with.” Some terminally ill people have family picnics where they will be buried. For a child to visit a grave site with happy memories of a then living parent is no small thing.
Such changes in “consumer preference” unnerve most undertakers. Responses range from outrage to embracing change; most stick their heads in the dirt. All these reactions were on display at the NFDA’s gathering. If it had a catchphrase, it was “They don’t know what they don’t know.” This refers to the undertaker’s supposed need to “educate” the public about the value of ceremony, commemoration and—crucially—the undertaker. But not every undertaker is fighting change with fearmongering or tut-tutting. Some see the necessity of change. According to an industry veteran, the convention—which opened to the song “Best Day Of My Life”—“used to be all hardware; hearses, coffins and embalming products. Now it’s all about services,” he says gesturing to a group of bright young things who help get undertakers onto Facebook and Instagram.
Take Mr Olson. Trained as a music teacher, he bought a funeral business in Wisconsin, converted one of its two chapels into a dining hall and became the NFDA’s go-to guy for green funerals. Walker Posey, whose grandfather was a carpenter and whose father runs a traditional funeral business in South Carolina, wants one day to turn the family firm into a “life celebrations” company, doing weddings and baby showers as much as funerals. “To appeal to non-traditional folks,” Mark Musgrove, from Oregon, sells spaces for urns in a hippy-themed, refitted Volkswagen bus in his cemetery. “The need to grieve is unchanged,” he says. “You just need to find different ways to express it. A picture at a [barbecue] will be more meaningful to some than looking at a body.”
Rather than just accommodating themselves to what their customers want, some undertakers are actually promoting change. Engineers have for decades searched for a socially acceptable alternative to burying or burning. Some crematoriums in North America now offer alkaline hydrolysis, often marketed as “green”, “water”, or “flameless” cremation. If the water companies can get past their squeamishness about dissolved dead people in the sewers, Britain will soon follow suit. The process involves dissolving the body in an alkaline solution and then crushing the bones to dust. It typically produces less than a seventh of the carbon of normal cremation. Joe Wilson, from Bio-response Solutions, which sells flameless-cremation machines, says families choose it for environmental reasons but also because it seems gentler than fire.
The company’s latest offering is a flameless pet-cremation machine. Nearly one in five American undertakers now offer dead-pet cremations; Mintel, a market-research firm, says one in four British pet-owners either have already arranged, or would like to in future, some sort of send-off for their furry friends. Mr Tulley sells “Togetherness Resting Places” in his green burial grounds, where pets and humans can be reunited “when the time comes”. The Bio-Response machine has room for up to 20 domestic pets at a time, each in its own compartment. “But only one hippo,” adds Mr Wilson, intriguingly.
Another way to make money out of cremations is to do more with the ashes. Ascension, a British startup, releases them at “the edge of space”—after a 30km balloon ascent—and offers a video of the process.
Pointing to her earrings, Lori Cronin, who works in the industry, says “My Mom is in my ears, I take her wherever I go, I even swim with her.” SecuriGene, a Canadian Biotech firm, invites people to “celebrate life in its purest form” by sending in a blood sample of the deceased and $500, in return for which it will send a small stainless steel capsule with the extracted DNA.
As far-sighted undertakers extend into the exotic, more mundane colleagues find themselves undercut on the basics. Amazon, Alibaba and Walmart sell a range of coffins and urns online. So far relatively few people buy, but they do learn what they cost—and notice their undertaker’s often quite dramatic mark-up. In America income from selling such products, still accounting for nearly a third of undertakers’ revenue, has been falling for the past five years, according to the NFDA. So has revenue from preparing bodies (another 14%), the main skill taught at mortuary school.
Technology brings a clientele better informed in other ways, too. Reviews of undertakers on Google or sites such as Yelp are becoming more common. In America Funeralocity lets people compare prices. Dignity is in dispute with Beyond, a British comparison site, which last year claimed it was charging customers far more than the market rate. In the last quarter of 2017, Dignity’s warnings about growing price competition from new entrants led to a sharp share-price drop. The fall continued in January, when it felt forced to slash its prices to preserve market share.
“Google yourself!” barks one of the trainers at an NFDA seminar on dealing with millennials. “Change or get left behind,” says the other. “It’s all about the hashtag.” Instilling in the profession insights into use of social media can be an uphill task, says Zachary Garbow, who left IBM with a colleague to start a company called Funeral Innovations. He says they have to advise undertakers who want to plaster Facebook with pictures of hearses and coffins: “No, please don’t do that; don’t advertise death.”
More and more mourners want to live-stream funerals: many venues in Britain enable such virtual attendance. Tribute and funeral videos, often online, are ever more popular. FuneralOne in Michigan sells software that helps create thousands a year. At the Boston shindig a young man dressed in rock-star black gestures towards a drone that his team flies around the country to film backdrops for these “Personalised Life Tributes”. Nearby undertakers cover their ears at the thumping soundtrack that goes with his presentation.
The dead have two lives, explained Robert Hertz, a sociologist, in a paper in 1907: one in nature, as matter, and one in culture, as social beings. The internet greatly expands that second realm, and businesses are jumping in to help, with “virtual candles” and QR-codes that can be stuck to a tombstone linking to an online-tribute page. Facebook now offers “Memorialised Accounts” to clarify the status of deceased users. Many profiles are kept up and running years after a user dies. Over a third of those who have signed up with Cake, a startup trying to nudge people to share their end-of-life wishes, want their Facebook account to stay live after death.
Franklin Roosevelt might have liked Cake. His family found the four pages with his instructions—for a “service of the utmost simplicity”, a simple wood coffin, no hearse, no embalming and a grave not lined with cement or stones—only a few days after most of those wishes had been ignored. It was this that led Jessica Mitford to write “The American Way of Death” in 1963: “Odds are that the undertaker will be the arbiter of what is a “suitable” funeral…Even if [the deceased] is the president of the United States.” In an updated edition published posthumously in 1998, Mitford was disappointed at how little had changed: prices had kept rising and undertakers still sold services customers did not know they could refuse or felt too embarrassed to question.
A noble undertaking
Had Mitford a grave to rise from (she hasn’t; her ashes were scattered at sea), she might be pleased by some of the changes slowly shaking the industry, if acerbic about some of their aesthetics. Mr Lynch, who in 2013 co-wrote and published another book, “The Good Funeral”, finds his industry its own worst enemy. An emphasis on selling things, and thus “mistaking stuff for substance”, has led to public distrust. But he is a staunch defender of the essence of the undertaker’s role: “a promise to get the dead to where they need to go”.
“The public is right to be wary of being sold boxes,” he says. “Anyone with a catalogue and a credit-card machine can make such a sale. It’s the service to the body that you call an undertaker for.” Such service will always be needed, whether it leads to direct cremation, or soft decay beneath a growing tree, or a rocket in the night sky, and however closely linked it is to the commemorations of life that come after that. Undertakers who understand this probably have nothing to fear.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 15:38:00 UTC
LESSONS ON GENDERS
I have only a few “I wish I had, if I’d known” regrets of life in general. I wish I’d moved to philosophy, and I wish I’d saved my marriage, and I wish I’d been more demanding of the medical profession. But otherwise I’ve accomplished my goals in life – not that there isn’t more work to do.
I have many “I feel bad that I accidentally caused or contributed to” regrets – like most of us, this is what people remember of us. Most of my enemies (in business) attribute to me malice I did not have, and underestimate the advantages I could exploit if I desired. Those that I hold malice against deserve it in multiples. There are very evil people in this world, and they commit by financial and legal predation that which in old was done by violence. But there is no difference in the losses incurred.
I have a very few “I hurt people significantly because I wasn’t diligent enough”, and just a few “I … hurt people because I was young, smart, and ruthless”.
Those ruthless things were in business against men of greater age and experience than I who did not know the cunning autism of the monster they were dealing with. They were, by and large, good people, too entrenched in the past to understand the wave of technology that was changing the world. One of them died from the grief. Others withered away.
I was so burdened (and still am) by these consequences that I changed my life dramatically having done them, and instead pursued (((people))) who advocated these (((crimes))) by abusing the trust of our people – and our civilization of noblesse oblige.
Yet that concern did not help me in three similar matters with women. And this is the lesson I took and I want other men to take.
In my generation we were raised to treat women as equals – and it worked on me. Moreover, I’d made quite a bit of money advancing women that were against a glass ceiling at larger companies.
But you can sit around a table of men, even men you hate, and through that hate they will eventually tell you the truth – their incentives. You can sit with a table of men who are intimidated, and expose your vulnerabilities and incentives and they will eventually meet you with theirs if it is in their interest. In other words, we avoid the impulse to violence by incremental exposure of our interests – and therefore these interests are impersonal.
But in my dealings with women of equal or greater abilities to their male peers, I consistently overestimated their abilities, and overestimated their confidence, and overestimated their transparency. And this has largely to do with my lack of understanding, as foolish as it was, that these women had built relationships independent of their ability to execute while men generally build relationships only because of their ability to execute.
And the world of technology was shifting very quickly such that the value of servicing a customer expensively was offset by the quality and number of people in the field. (In other words, tech was, as predicted, becoming a butt-crack industry, like plumbing, hvac, and electrical). And because the world market for creative, marketing, and technical talent given the internet and internet delivered technologies, destroyed all value of locality to customers. Tech has become, much like the construction trade, a hierarchy similar to general contractors (structural steel vs top services firms), through specialists in some niche technology, through ordinary alliances of tradesmen, to the equivalent of unionized workers working through websites.
So i was falsely biased in favor of women, then frustrated with their lack of transparency and performance in a business where we specialized in execution – even at higher cost than all competitors.
The problem is, that these women assume I had taken advantage of them when the fact was, that I was a product of my generation. But if I could reverse those three events I would have. They were costly, and they were harmful to everyone involved.
Women can rarely afford to be as honest as men, even if they desire to or are able to – at least until they have a few centuries to adapt. They are more fearful than men especially of conflict. Less able to resolve conflict BY INCENTIVES. Because womens incentives are less empirical and more positional than men. They are less loyal than men – meaning less willing to incur harm for the group, saving that for family. They are the weaker sex not the less able sex. There are many things better done by one gender or the other – on average. And those things are stereotypically distributed. Distributed that is, not partitioned.
So my regrets are no only my fault, but the fault of the falsehoods that the boomer generation taught me. Like everything that (((boomer))) generation taught.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 14:51:00 UTC
TEACHING MEN
( You see newbies? This ‘dialog’ is how I run a class. I start an idea. Others participate. I quote good ideas. The only test is the one you give yourself. I don’t charge anything for it other than your time, attention, and a demand you aren’t too irritating. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:55:00 UTC
—“The only way to defeat intolerance (of civilisation, meritocracy, commons) is by being even more intolerant of deceit and non-reciprocal costs.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:53:00 UTC
Don’t over think the hemispheric differences. Both hemispheres are capable, but work must be distributed. I went down that road, and it really doesn’t help any. The hemispheres developed for reasons we understand, and are unrelated. Hemispheric cooperation produces all sorts of externalities precisely because they must both cooperate and compete (decide). We are always better off pursuing “how do we need to decide upon acting in a kaleidic universe” when working through the brain, because that’s all evolution favors.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:50:00 UTC
Intellectual capital is over. The globalist era is ending. The only competitive advantages any population has are (a) demographic (b) normative and institutional, and (c) territorial. That’s it.
We cannot compete with the numbers. We don’t have them. We gave those numbers away. So the only thing we can do is protect our assets (a) demographic, (b) normative and institutional, and (c) territorial.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:47:00 UTC
I finally have you Jordan. I understand your mistake. You confuse justification with cause. You love parable by which to indirectly educate and inform the feeble, weak, and broken – a narrative, a fiction, rather than a calculation that is arguable among men who are able, strong, and hale.
You do not understand the west at all.
Just the stories mothers and grandmothers tell to children to get them to conform; the excuses of the middle classes that long for the power they do not have. The priests who take credit by recasting the achievements of others.
But, the law of the initiatic brotherhood of warriors isn’t written down. It in’t spoken. It’s demonstrated. It’s inherited generation by generation. And it is the most truthful epistemology ever created: ‘testimonial reporting of observations in the field’.
And, instead of parable, advocacy or tutelage, it is written via-negativa in our traditional laws and customs, not in the excuses mothers give to children, laments of the middle class, or deceptions of priests.
The west has an artificially imposed cult of monopoly(christianity) in exchange for limited literacy and legitimacy of one tribal king to dominate, conquer, and seek rents from another.
The West has had an internally developed religion: a host of archetypal narratives, the respect for heroes, culminating the tragedy (sacrifice) of Achilles, and the west has a prehistoric philosophy: the common law of tort, decided by tests of reciprocity, which is the only possible means of decidability between peers in the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.
The entire history and success of the west is the *consequence* of sovereignty (meritocracy).
We institutionalized the political economy of pirates that we kindly refer to as ‘liberty’ from constraint rather than ‘sovereignty’ because there are *none who can constrain us*.
The west has always been tripartite, and priests deceive, middle class appeals, but the warriors – the militia and the aristocracy – ruled. Yet the propagation of propaganda was produced inversely.
The priests with the falsehood of religion, the philosophers with the half truths of philosophy, and the jurists and warriors with the empirical, scientific, and truthful COMMON LAW, that we call the ‘Rights of Anglo Saxons” – but begins in today’s poland and ukraine as the law of dispute resolution between the initiatic brotherhood of warriors we today loosely refer to without understanding as ‘the militia’.
Western civilization differs from the rest for the exclusive reason that men in the absence of concentrated capital (river valleys), must finance their own retainers, horses, chariots and armor before venturing out on raids, or supplementing those horses with even faster shallow water ships.
The consequence of their common law is that the only means of decidability available to the population is demonstrated property (meaning investment), and as a necessary an inescapable consequence, we developed markets in everything from association, to reproduction, to cooperation, to commons, to politics, to war. And that is why we never developed monolithic religion, never developed monolithic argument, and never succumbed to the stagnation of every other civilization except when we were invaded by christianity that undermined the aristocracy, and islam, that undermined our trade routes.
THe virtue of our sovereignty is that we develop markets in everything, and markets adapt faster than all other systems particularly because they make rents very difficult – and all other civilizations collapse from the accumulated stagnation produced by those rents.
We were not first. We were fastest. And we were fastest not because of priests, philosophers, and authors – but in spite of them. All civilizations are best understood by their laws and the institutions by which they decide them. Everything else is just decoration.
The west begins with the militia. And it will, if it ends, end because the militia ends.
(Yes, that little bit of nonsense on the psychologism of pride made me angry)
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:44:00 UTC