Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What Is A Reasonable Rate Of Progress To Expect In A Given System?

    Thanks (Michael) for asking me to answer this (very smart) question.

    —”Is there something akin to a Law of Progress for systems of people or even the individual? Closer to linear or exponential, incremental or rapid?”—

    I assume we mean economic growth rather than progress. Or at least, that we should separate growth from progress so that we understand their causes, and then can reflect on those causes.

    In the professional vernacular (economics, and political economy) growth refers to productivity, and progress refers to upward economic class rotation.

    Productivity refers to an increase in the amount of goods and services produced per hour worked, (per head of the population) over a period of time – and therefore increases in consumption over time. But it does not differentiate between ‘good productivity’ (innovation and market expansion), fake productivity (results of immigration), fraudulent productivity (rents on transport) and ‘bad productivity’ (spending down assets).

    Progress provides discounts on consumption that we interpret as increase in income. In other words, when we are more productive we make better use of our time, in producing goods, services, (and now information), that people want.

    Money or money substitutes, (or any trade or barter good) represent (really) a store of time saved. That is why it has value – why any good has value. So money is in fact an exceptional measure of productivity.

    Progress is (often) the result of increases in productivity. Most increase in productivity occurs from discovery of means of harnessing energy. (fire, kiln, crucible, coal, steam, fluid hydrocarbons, electricity, gears, relays, transistors, software), and discounts on energy expenditure (pack animals, riding horses, Everything else that occurs in every era

    And uncomfortably, the best productivity return – and the one we never think of – is genetic (eugenic reproduction, or upward redistribution of reproduction). Progress is offset by underclass reproduction (malthusian limits), underclass immigration, or upper class under-reproduction. This is because every person at the bottom is six times as costly as each person at the top is over-productive.

    In fact, the unstated but obvious failure to increase american incomes after the mid 1960s is due to inflation and immigration. For most of european modernity we have been liberating dead capital (The Church) and distributing it to under utilized capital (european middle classes). But since 1965, we have been using debt to redistribute debt to underclass immigration. And as far as I know this is the entire reason for our condition. Inflation and Immigration creating a false economy.

    For all of human history, most people lived on what we call about a dollar a day today. Trade in the first enlightenment prior to the bronze age collapse (prior to 1177bc), and trade during the ancient enlightenment, prior to the Abrahamic and Plague collapse (300–700 ad), then trade after the enlightenment, and prior to the late 20th century (which appears to be either an inflection point or collapse), appears to have produced a great leap in each era which defeated for a time, the fertility of Malthusian underclasses.

    So, yes, is there a law of productivity. Sort of. As a rule of thumb, a person can produce about twenty percent more than he can consume, if he works at it. During periods under which we have captured a new form of energy, or a new discount on energy consumption, we can increase this. Otherwise the only means of increasing productivity is to increase the quality of the population (as did europe and china/korea/japan) because by doing so, a people decrease frictions on cooperation, and frictions on cooperation can easily fall into (almost universal) equilibrium with productivity – which is the condition of nearly all of human history.

    So, armed with that understanding, China is going through what europe did, and what all post enlightenment peoples did, in the modern(steel), ancient(iron), and early bronze ages – and from what I understand, the late paleo (copper) age expansions.

    Why is china different from brazil? Homogeneity of genetics and culture, A highly nationalist military, and a vast store of underutilized human capital. None of which brazil has to work with.

    All but very short term opportunities, all of human economic activity is just another extension of the laws of the physical universe. Energy and Time vs Entropy. Or stated more simply; all evolutionary systems grow continuously or they die. And if they grow, they will grow by punctuated equilibriums. (which Michael mentions as ‘graduated then suddenly’.

    At present we are having a bit of a debate as to whether we have captured all the low hanging fruit of the capture of hydrocarbon, steam, and electrical energy. And given declining rates of innovation, it appears so. (Information technology eradicates frictions like nothing before it, but does not produce new energy). We are closing in on if not having past, our ability to harness enough energy to advance physics. We have ‘finished’ chemistry. We have just begun biochemistry. And we are scratching the surface of sentience (which is the same problem of three different scales.)

    As far as I know the debates over keynesian economics vs the business cycle, and the fallacy of infinite growth (‘technology is our savior’), and the fallacy of are over. As far as I know we are beyond the unmanaged carrying capacity of the planet (which I think is something on the order of 1B people, if not 500M). So given malthusian underclass rates of reproduction, and given the near exhaustion of the political and economic change of the enlightenment and industrial revolution, and given the peak in everything we can see, it certainly appears that productivity will decline everywhere to or under the rate of inflation. Because there is no more underutilized human capital.

    If you understand this, then all economic, social, and political behavior today, and in all of history is quite simple.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-reasonable-rate-of-progress-to-expect-in-a-given-system

  • Retweeted Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump): The Fake News Media never fails. H

    Retweeted Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump): The Fake News Media never fails. Hard to ignore this fact from the Vice President of Facebook Ads, Rob Goldman! https://t.co/XGC7ynZwYJ

  • Retweeted Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump): The Fake News Media never fails. H

    Retweeted Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump): The Fake News Media never fails. Hard to ignore this fact from the Vice President of Facebook Ads, Rob Goldman! https://t.co/XGC7ynZwYJ

  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight

  • The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct

    The Nolan Chart is Ideological(emotional) not Operational (scientific). Correct dimensions are (a) decidability: rule of law vs discretionary rule, (b) territorialist strategy vs pastoralist strategy. (c) Kin vs Corporate strategy. All else follows. #Trump #Conservative #NewRight

  • “QUESTION: Are Italians European?”—(a follower) This is one of those ethnic qu

    –“QUESTION: Are Italians European?”—(a follower) This is one of those ethnic questions that’s misleading. Because it confuses the modern state of italy, with the italian peninsula with the people who live there, which include french, swiss german, german, austrian, northern italian (germanic), and southern italian (mediterranean and greek). Southern italians (especially from Naples south) are of greek and anatolian origins. Northern Italians whether very early (Etru) , Italian (Ital), or later ‘invaders) Germanic) are all of Danubian (Germanic) origins. People of Sardinia are the remainders of the earliest europeans. People of Sicily are a blend of pretty much everyone in the ancient world, because Sicily was an extremely important port for transporting goods around the mediterranean using the sailing technology available in the ancient world. **General Rule of Thumb: ** If you work at it a bit you can pretty easily identify almost anyone’s tribal origins. Black hair and ‘swarthy” complexion and body hair = South route around the black sea = Anatolian/Eastern-Mediterranean/ Indo-Iranian. Or as I am often corrected “West Eurasians” (or middle easterners) Brown, Red, Blonde hair, very white complexion = Northern route around the Black Sea. Northern route people still exist in at least three if not four variations: atlantics, germanics (central europe), nordics, and northern and eastern slavs. The history of southern slavs is extremely complicated and I end up offending someone if I talk about it. But by and large they vary from very old peoples who started metalsmithing in what is today Bulgaria, to the remains of the steppe people who migrated there during the last major migration periods. The problem is that the spanish are largely from Atlantic and Celts and often have dark hair but are from the same lineage (R1b) – just less inbred with later versions of europeans. Something ‘very different’ happened around the black sea either before or after the deluge. we don’t know what but it caused repeated waves of expansion with the latest being the Yamna (horse) people what gave europe her ancient culture = although pre-yamna, yamna, germanic, christian, and modern values still exist if you understand which originated which set of ideas. But europeans, in general, regardless of earlier (southern), or later (multiple waves of northern), origins, evolve from what we (incorrectly) call ‘Caucuses’, but is apparently poland-ukraine-southern russia, with the caucuses the line of demarcation between the european, indo-iranian, and (now extinct) people that invaded india. The word Aryan is correct (Yamna expansion), but impolitic in the current century, and “White” is a poor substitute for Ethnic Europeans. We are, after all, all from the exceptional grazing and farmland between the north sea in poland, the black sea in ukraine, and the north of the caspian in southern russia. Europeans originated along the north sea, baltic sea, black sea, and caspian sea, and their russo finnic ancestors the arctic sea. It’s just that trade in the mediterranean was much more profitable for anyone – until the atlantic and now pacific came along. Some of us find it ironic that Poland is probably origin of the european diaspora. 😉 Italy empirically (by all measures) consists of two very different countries – north and south. Just like Belgium has french and germanic under the same state. Just as americans have nine different cultures under the same state. The reason different countries do not separate is that it is economically disadvantagous to one party or both parties. For example, catalonia (wealthy and culturally and genetically different) vs spain (poor), and north italy vs south italy, and west ukraine vs east ukraine. and the northern states vs the southern states vs the plains states, vs the coastal west (ecotopia). Or canada vs quebec. All of these countries would be better off alone, but the industrial revolution and fiat credit made it difficult for small counteries to engage in defense. Today, a handful of nuclear weapons and an armed populace (switzerland) cna preserve independence (sovereignty) against any and everyone. **Therefore:** Italian = State (government) North italian and South Italian Countries (natural cultural and territorial differences) Italian Culture = Generally referring to language and diet and festivals Italy = a territory ranging from the alps to the tip of the peninsula. Ethnicity = European, vs Germanic vs Greek, vs Mediterranean are Ethnic Groups. Germanic = a prehistoric culture and myth of the home and hearth. Christianity = an old world mythology and literature of politics. Modernity = The enlightenment restoration of our ancient judicial, empirical, stoic and Aristotelian traditions. Three or four races. A handful of subraces. Thirty or so minor subraces. A few hundred super-tribes. Humans are endlessly fascinating. 😉

  • “QUESTION: Are Italians European?”—(a follower) This is one of those ethnic qu

    –“QUESTION: Are Italians European?”—(a follower) This is one of those ethnic questions that’s misleading. Because it confuses the modern state of italy, with the italian peninsula with the people who live there, which include french, swiss german, german, austrian, northern italian (germanic), and southern italian (mediterranean and greek). Southern italians (especially from Naples south) are of greek and anatolian origins. Northern Italians whether very early (Etru) , Italian (Ital), or later ‘invaders) Germanic) are all of Danubian (Germanic) origins. People of Sardinia are the remainders of the earliest europeans. People of Sicily are a blend of pretty much everyone in the ancient world, because Sicily was an extremely important port for transporting goods around the mediterranean using the sailing technology available in the ancient world. **General Rule of Thumb: ** If you work at it a bit you can pretty easily identify almost anyone’s tribal origins. Black hair and ‘swarthy” complexion and body hair = South route around the black sea = Anatolian/Eastern-Mediterranean/ Indo-Iranian. Or as I am often corrected “West Eurasians” (or middle easterners) Brown, Red, Blonde hair, very white complexion = Northern route around the Black Sea. Northern route people still exist in at least three if not four variations: atlantics, germanics (central europe), nordics, and northern and eastern slavs. The history of southern slavs is extremely complicated and I end up offending someone if I talk about it. But by and large they vary from very old peoples who started metalsmithing in what is today Bulgaria, to the remains of the steppe people who migrated there during the last major migration periods. The problem is that the spanish are largely from Atlantic and Celts and often have dark hair but are from the same lineage (R1b) – just less inbred with later versions of europeans. Something ‘very different’ happened around the black sea either before or after the deluge. we don’t know what but it caused repeated waves of expansion with the latest being the Yamna (horse) people what gave europe her ancient culture = although pre-yamna, yamna, germanic, christian, and modern values still exist if you understand which originated which set of ideas. But europeans, in general, regardless of earlier (southern), or later (multiple waves of northern), origins, evolve from what we (incorrectly) call ‘Caucuses’, but is apparently poland-ukraine-southern russia, with the caucuses the line of demarcation between the european, indo-iranian, and (now extinct) people that invaded india. The word Aryan is correct (Yamna expansion), but impolitic in the current century, and “White” is a poor substitute for Ethnic Europeans. We are, after all, all from the exceptional grazing and farmland between the north sea in poland, the black sea in ukraine, and the north of the caspian in southern russia. Europeans originated along the north sea, baltic sea, black sea, and caspian sea, and their russo finnic ancestors the arctic sea. It’s just that trade in the mediterranean was much more profitable for anyone – until the atlantic and now pacific came along. Some of us find it ironic that Poland is probably origin of the european diaspora. 😉 Italy empirically (by all measures) consists of two very different countries – north and south. Just like Belgium has french and germanic under the same state. Just as americans have nine different cultures under the same state. The reason different countries do not separate is that it is economically disadvantagous to one party or both parties. For example, catalonia (wealthy and culturally and genetically different) vs spain (poor), and north italy vs south italy, and west ukraine vs east ukraine. and the northern states vs the southern states vs the plains states, vs the coastal west (ecotopia). Or canada vs quebec. All of these countries would be better off alone, but the industrial revolution and fiat credit made it difficult for small counteries to engage in defense. Today, a handful of nuclear weapons and an armed populace (switzerland) cna preserve independence (sovereignty) against any and everyone. **Therefore:** Italian = State (government) North italian and South Italian Countries (natural cultural and territorial differences) Italian Culture = Generally referring to language and diet and festivals Italy = a territory ranging from the alps to the tip of the peninsula. Ethnicity = European, vs Germanic vs Greek, vs Mediterranean are Ethnic Groups. Germanic = a prehistoric culture and myth of the home and hearth. Christianity = an old world mythology and literature of politics. Modernity = The enlightenment restoration of our ancient judicial, empirical, stoic and Aristotelian traditions. Three or four races. A handful of subraces. Thirty or so minor subraces. A few hundred super-tribes. Humans are endlessly fascinating. 😉

  • (FYI: I’ve posted Quora Moderation’s “Suppressions” on my web site. Any intellig

    (FYI: I’ve posted Quora Moderation’s “Suppressions” on my web site. Any intelligent person will see that they’re pretty straightforward attempts to counter propaganda.)

  • (FYI: I’ve posted Quora Moderation’s “Suppressions” on my web site. Any intellig

    (FYI: I’ve posted Quora Moderation’s “Suppressions” on my web site. Any intelligent person will see that they’re pretty straightforward attempts to counter propaganda.)

  • The Suppression Of Eugenics: Self Directed Human Evolution

    by Daniel Gurpide Eugenics – meaning the applied science for the self-direction of human evolution – is nowadays the object of Freudian, hypocritical repression. Although one may say that eugenic concerns are an implicit constant in most post-Neolithic cultures, the essential question of eugenics flares up with the advent of the Darwinian revolution, and of Mendelian genetics—which has long been considered one and the same with eugenics. This arose in anticipation of a very real dysgenic risk in modern times that ‘traditional’ selective factors would break down. Galton, who coined the term, defined eugenics as ‘the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.’ The philanthropic motives that encouraged him to develop the new science are beyond question: `Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective.` The way of hunger, death, stupidity, delusion, chance, and bare survival—natural selection—is thus replaced by the way of life, will, aspiration, and achievement—conscious evolution—not merely on a temporary and local basis, as in ancient Sparta, but permanently and universally. Breeding may itself be considered an early aristocratic technique. Yet, it was impossible to return to earlier Western social forms based on a hereditary aristocracy that had achieved their position by means of the military accomplishments of their ancestors. Hence, in the early twentieth century, a current of thought headed in the direction of developing a natural aristocracy based on intelligence, moral probity, and meritocratic social mobility. This was the heyday of eugenics as a belief system common among European elites—both liberal and conservative. Ultimately, the eugenics movement was shattered; it was a victim of the outcome of the Second World War, although eugenics was not expunged from polite society until the 1960s as an outcome of an energetic campaign by Holocaust-haunted egalitarian intellectuals bent on striking a blow against their rivals (nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics programme continued until 1975). However, before it was ‘cursed,’ eugenics had long been perceived—essentially until the 1930s—as a ‘progressivist’ theme, since it was linked to concerns about the evolution of society in general (and correlated with the latter ‘taking charge of itself ’), to the extent that even Soviet intellectuals and scientists promoted its study. In Germany, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk—politically on the left—recently argued that, given the understanding existing in genetic science, the eugenic dream of ‘selection’ is now within reach. Sloterdijk’s use of the word ‘selection’ horrified, of course, his colleagues, for whom the word evokes the ramp at Auschwitz. What most worried critics, however, was Sloterdijk’s argument that this capability should be exploited to breed a new generation of human beings. Coming after Sloterdijk’s open letter in Die Zeit attacking Jürgen Habermas as the representative of an outdated humanism, suggestions were made that he was ‘flirting with fascism,’ which reveals the uncertainty and fear still evoked by the issue of ‘conscious evolution.’ The Sloterdijk controversy demonstrates the almost exclusively ideological nature of contemporary discussions of eugenics. This has been accentuated by the increasing erosion, because of technoscientific progress, of the subjective costs of eugenic practices. Such costs have plummeted ever since the exposure of newborns, and the strict parental or communal control of mating gave way to the chemical or surgical sterilisation of severely retarded individuals, as well as to birth control. These have been succeeded by prematrimonial anamnesis—replaced, in turn, by prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. In turn, these will be supplanted by IVF with embryo and gamete selection; and, finally, by direct therapeutic manipulation of germlines. In fact, in respect of contemporary and upcoming procedures, the natural empathy for the individuals concerned operates in an entirely favourable sense—to the point of rendering unconditional rejection of eugenics an increasingly embarrassing and untenable position. The key issue regarding eugenics are which countries will develop it to its fullest extent. Francis Galton had already predicted in 1909 that ‘the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth.’