Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY? —“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”–

    A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY?

    —“What would happen if there were no money on earth?”–

    (Repost) Answered May 1, 2013

    Believe it or not, this subject has been given quite a bit of treatment in the literature – mostly during the early part of the last century in response to the communist, socialist and fascist movements.

    REALITY:

    Almost everyone, on the planet, except for perhaps ~500M subsistence farmers would die in the first 30-90 days. Yes. Really. Seriously.

    MONEY

    Money makes planning of complex things possible.

    Humans literally cannot ‘think’ as we understand the term, without numbers, money, property, contracts, credit and interest. Just as drawings and written words help us remember things, numbers help us remember things we could not remember, think about, or compare without them. Money makes numbers possible to apply to things that are DIFFERENT. Whereas numbers without money can only be used for things that are the SAME. As such, we say that money makes it possible to compare objects that are otherwise incommensurable. Money renders the world commensurable: open to planning and the use of mathematics (measurement and forecasting).

    In practical terms, money and prices form an information system that tells us all what to do in real time in response to what others want and need. It is how we tell each other how to cooperate. It is the human social system. And the use of that social system, plus the capture of fossile fuel, has taken us out of ignorance and poverty.

    CONVERSELY

    What money and credit have also done is make it possible to breed again up to new malthusian levels. While Malthus was only half right, he was half right. Group selection accomplishes what malthus did not account for. THe general belief of ‘progressives’ is that technology will ‘save us again’ just like agrarianism, and then pastoralism saved us in the past. But the truth is we just breed up to these levels again, and reduce ourselves back to poverty.

    The problem then is that we must control our breeding. And that has been, except for a brief period in china, or the middle ages in England under Manorialism impossible to achieve. Partly because it is so profitable to sell things to people who bear children, and those children as they too mature.

    EXAMPLES

    THe US economy is primarily driven by housing, and the high rate of return on lending for housing, and the large supply of labor jobs for the production of housing. From this perspective, the exceptional nature of the american economy is not the product of ‘democracy’ or innovation, but the product of selling off a continent to waves of immigrants and their offspring, and using the profits from the sale of the (conquered) continent to invest in increasingly complex technologies.

    THe Chinese for example have figured this out and are doing the same thing but moving people from the ‘poor’ village farm to cities where they *hope* the population will be more productive than they were at subsistence farming. China can do this bcause it adopted consumer capitalism (money, prices and interest) and abandoned communism (no money, no prices, and no interest).

    The problem other countries face (India and say, Ukraine) is india is so pervasively corrupt that it’s not possible to create infrastructure without privatization of the investment through corruption, and the population is still expanding unsustainably in a dirty and hot environment. THe problem Ukraine faces, is that it cannot play ‘china’ because the lower levels of government are so corrupt and the country sees no demand for its currency, so the government cannot issue credit, and therefore the people remain poor.

    IN CLOSING

    When you say ‘money went away’ what you must also understand is that with money and prices will go the ability to communicate, and think. Literally. Humans would not be able to cooperate, communicate, plan and think without money. Worse, they would have no incentive to do so, because to have an incentive one must be able to think of something to do. And you couldn’t think of anything to do that you couldn’t do with your own two hands.

    THere is about 4 days worth of energy, and 14 days worth of food in the pipeline. If you made money vanish, you would need to make 6B people vanish along with it.

    You may find a more thorough, or a more simplistic answer elsewhere. But this is the answer, and there isn’t any alternative.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 21:35:00 UTC

  • The British Are United In Mutual Defense

    by Oliver Westcott Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures. BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons. (Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law) We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust. There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.

  • The British Are United In Mutual Defense

    by Oliver Westcott Genes -> Culture -> Politics -> Law The UK is made up of many more than 4 distinct cultures. BUT the British are mostly united in the very least on mutual defence. This has been invested into over the centuries and is one of our greatest commons as Britons. (Culture is downstream of genes, and we share largely very similar and distinctive genes, even the Scotts are on average over 30% anglo-saxon, the source of our common law) We have other commons, language, science… and we have not only maintained these commons but strengthened these commons, it has been an increasingly harmonious arrangement. It has been the lubrication on the wheels of contracts and the market. Our common trust. There are differences and to the extent that there are, as much as possible authority might ought be decentralised as locally as possible.

  • Feelings and Group Strategies

    THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL? 1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies. 2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it. 3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to? 4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy. We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies. 5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies. 6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive? 7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine. 8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam. 9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy). So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence? Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam. We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism. Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy. If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance. If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers. Cheers

  • Feelings and Group Strategies

    THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL? 1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies. 2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it. 3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to? 4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy. We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies. 5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies. 6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive? 7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine. 8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam. 9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy). So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence? Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam. We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism. Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy. If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance. If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers. Cheers

  • My understanding is that men cheat but rarely defect. Women cheat and more frequ

    My understanding is that men cheat but rarely defect. Women cheat and more frequently defect. The reason being that other than novelty and cost of access, women are marginally indifferent in utility. Whereas other than novelty, men are marginally different in utility. Most of the time, people cheat for novelty, test of sexual market value, and retaliation.

    Economics in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-25 18:41:00 UTC

  • AND MEN DIFFER DRAMATICALLY IN LOYALTY via John Fouad This is the difference in

    https://youtu.be/UxpVwBzFAkwWOMEN AND MEN DIFFER DRAMATICALLY IN LOYALTY

    via John Fouad

    This is the difference in our moral and political intuitions.

    It’s an evolutionary necessity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-25 18:26:00 UTC

  • AND MEN DIFFER DRAMATICALLY IN LOYALTY via @[100003258598828:2048:John Fouad] Th

    https://youtu.be/UxpVwBzFAkwWOMEN AND MEN DIFFER DRAMATICALLY IN LOYALTY

    via @[100003258598828:2048:John Fouad]

    This is the difference in our moral and political intuitions.

    It’s an evolutionary necessity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-25 18:26:00 UTC

  • The Key To Understanding Propertarianism

    KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM by Luke Weinhagen Understanding this: —-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—- … and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context. Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.

  • The Key To Understanding Propertarianism

    KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM by Luke Weinhagen Understanding this: —-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—- … and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context. Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.