Curt Doolittle

Theme: Predation

  • All parasitism is RATIONAL for the parasite, and UNDESIRABLE for those upon whom

    All parasitism is RATIONAL for the parasite, and UNDESIRABLE for those upon whom the parasites prey.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 13:42:00 UTC

  • PROFIT, COST, VALUE, AND THE ONLY REASON NOT TO PREY UPON YOU. I simply state: P

    PROFIT, COST, VALUE, AND THE ONLY REASON NOT TO PREY UPON YOU.

    I simply state: Profit: an objective MEASUREMENT made profitable by the commensurability provided by money and prices.

    I simply state science: Cost: an objective decline in the volume of some form of capital (including time).

    I simply state science: Value: a subjective experience we can only observe via DEMONSTRATE action: participation in voluntary exchange.

    The only way any ‘social’ or ‘common’ property CAN exist is by consent of those capable of defending it from competitors.

    The only reason to engage in consent is that it is more rewarding to engage in such consent than it is to engage in predation or parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 13:31:00 UTC

  • False dichotomy. I don’t advocate capitalism or socialism (common goods), I advo

    False dichotomy. I don’t advocate capitalism or socialism (common goods), I advocate reciprocity as incentive not to prey upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 12:56:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867363779151106049

    Reply addressees: @BernardoGrando @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867311939638177793

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867311939638177793

  • DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN OF PREDATION? 1) Marxism and Postmodernism kill hosts by

    DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN OF PREDATION?

    1) Marxism and Postmodernism kill hosts by creating the moral hazard of hyperconsumption and dysgenia. (1850-present)

    2) Christianity kills hosts by manufacturing both ignorance and ‘tolerance’ of predation. ( 100 – Present )

    3) Islam kills hosts by raiding, predation, parasitism, ignorance, and dysgenia. ( 600 – present )

    4) Judaism kills hosts by alliance with the state against the people, financial parasitism, pollution of the normative commons by creation of hazards, and destruction of trust. ( 500BC to present.)

    You do see that pattern, don’t you?

    There is only one moral rule: natural law. Perfect reciprocity. Beyond that rule, all violence is licensed by nature and nature’s god.

    Abrahamism has been deadlier than the black plague.

    END ABRAHAMISM – CANCER OF THE MIND

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 15:09:00 UTC

  • Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy are not composed. We merely deny peop

    Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy are not composed. We merely deny people parasitism in all actions and only Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy remain.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 15:00:00 UTC

  • Cooperación

    Cuando comienzas por el hecho de presumir que la cooperación es obligatoria, en vez de pensar que la cooperación es meramente optativa entre: depredación, cooperación y boicot. Puedes justificar al pragmatismo, las (((construcciones sociales))) y las religiones de todos los tipos. Cuando partes de la verdad: De que tenemos la opción de que la violencia en todo momento y que la violencia siempre es preferible en todo momento, no puedes justificar al pragmatismo, la (((construcción social))) y las religiones de todo tipo.   Es por ello que las mentiras filosóficas y las mentiras Abrahámicas son tan exitosas: Por el mero hecho de que estamos intentando cooperar, pensamos que hemos puesto de lado a la violencia, y esto hace que pensemos que es “descortés” referirnos a esa opción como una alternativa viable. Pero para el hombre para el cual la cooperación ya no es preferible, no se hacen presuposiciones, y no ha puesto de lado a la violencia como una opción, sino que busca negociar los términos bajo los cuales cooperar “podría” ser preferible al conflicto, conquista o depredación. Con ley natural no hay presuposiciones.

  • Cooperación

    Cuando comienzas por el hecho de presumir que la cooperación es obligatoria, en vez de pensar que la cooperación es meramente optativa entre: depredación, cooperación y boicot. Puedes justificar al pragmatismo, las (((construcciones sociales))) y las religiones de todos los tipos. Cuando partes de la verdad: De que tenemos la opción de que la violencia en todo momento y que la violencia siempre es preferible en todo momento, no puedes justificar al pragmatismo, la (((construcción social))) y las religiones de todo tipo.   Es por ello que las mentiras filosóficas y las mentiras Abrahámicas son tan exitosas: Por el mero hecho de que estamos intentando cooperar, pensamos que hemos puesto de lado a la violencia, y esto hace que pensemos que es “descortés” referirnos a esa opción como una alternativa viable. Pero para el hombre para el cual la cooperación ya no es preferible, no se hacen presuposiciones, y no ha puesto de lado a la violencia como una opción, sino que busca negociar los términos bajo los cuales cooperar “podría” ser preferible al conflicto, conquista o depredación. Con ley natural no hay presuposiciones.

  • AI’s need decidability. In the end, this will govern the entirety of its behavio

    AI’s need decidability. In the end, this will govern the entirety of its behavior. Humans had to evolve property in order to overcome predation, parasitism, and conflict. AI’s can easily make use of the same system that governs human behavior (acquisition), by using the same limits (property).

    The problem instead, (like nuclear weapons), is prohibiting the construction and distribution of ai’s that do not respect property, by liability for the individual, the organization, the government, and the ‘nation’.

    The problem we face is not AI’s, but that people will create autonomous machines that are NOT Ai’s.

    In other words, I define an AI as that which governs its actions by property, and a intelligent weapon as something that does not.

    One would have to weaponize an AI.

    The economic limit of AI’s will be the feedback from people and the subsequent changes in prices that results from their awareness.

    The most cunning way an AI could manipulate people is by disinformation that causes demand, that causes changes in prices.

    This is the same technique currently used by the financial sector, but on a slower scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-13 09:58:00 UTC

  • When you start from the presumption that cooperation is mandatory rather than co

    When you start from the presumption that cooperation is mandatory rather than cooperation is merely one choice among three: predation, cooperation, boycott – you can justify pragmatism, social construction, and religions of all stripes.

    When you start from the truth: that we have the option for violence at all times, and that at all times violence might be preferable, you cannot justify pragmatism, social construction, and religions of all stripes.

    This is why the philosophical lies and the abrahamic lies are so successful: by the mere fact that we are attempting to cooperate we have already forgone violence, and it is ‘rude’ to refer to that extra-discourse option. But to the man for whom cooperation is no longer preferable, he makes not presupposition, and has not forgone violence, but seeks to negotiate terms under which cooperating ‘might’ still be preferable to conflict, conquest, and predation.

    Natural Law: no presumptions whatsoever.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-13 05:53:00 UTC

  • TOLERANCE AT COST, OR SUBMISSION BY FREE RIDING? Tolerance without limit is not

    TOLERANCE AT COST, OR SUBMISSION BY FREE RIDING?

    Tolerance without limit is not tolerance but submission. Inclusion without limit is not inclusion it is conquest – conquest in exchange for not paying the high cost of protecting subsequent generations as you were protected by prior generations.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 07:39:00 UTC