Pushing a wrong idea off the cliff

Encouraging the absurd is a fruitful method for destroying wrong ideas.

Within any ideological faction there will be a few crazy people, with really crazy ideas. Always encourage them to express their ideas the loudest and give the most attention. This will make the public believe that the fringe group's views are the norm. This is an easy way to manufacture consent.

Advantages of having a dynamic hierarchy of values

Everyone has a hierarchy of that which they act to gain and keep i.e. values. And because of this hierarchy everyone prefers somethings over another. Most people have a static hierarchy which can exploited once its structure is known. If they want something more than you do, you have power over them. This sort of power arbitrage is key to interaction between sentient mortals.

The obvious solution to avoid losing power is to not reveal the hierarchy, so that no one can have power over you by using your values as hostage. This however, is impossible. Every interaction with the real world, will reveal your values bit by bit. You can try to stop interacting, but that is impossible too, because voluntary exchange for mutual benefit is extremely beneficial – valuable and worth having. Since this is up there on everyone's hierarchy of values, and since everyone knows it, another strategy must be devised to minimize lose of power.

I think a dynamic hierarchy of values is the answer.

Every time you do not hold dear what everyone thinks you hold dear, you have power over them. So be prepared to change your hierarchy of values in a manner that does not affect your happiness. Everytime somebody is about to make you lose power, change your hierarchy of values. That will make you invincible.

Examples:

1. Suicide bombers & some cults have successfully inverted their hierarchy of values so much that they have even started thinking of life, or "this life" as they call it, as something of less importance, without affecting their happiness. This makes them capable of having an extremely huge advantage in power over others. To stop them we must scramble our hierarchies of values in a manner that does not affect our happiness.
2. The modern Left, expects to rule the titans of production by holding what they value the most as hostage. They constantly tweak the tax code, and the value of the medium used to exchange material values, to always entice the producers to produce while stealthy stealing their hard work.

Helium depletion will lead to asteroid & moon mining craze

Title says it all. World is running out of helium which is needed for silicon production, MRI, welding, wind tunnels, entertainment, advertisement blimps , particle accelerators etc. Substitutes can be found, but it may not be possible in all cases.

So we will end up mining the moon or the asteroids for this, as soon as it is profitable.

As soon as it profitable everybody will jump in.

Monads explained yet again

Asking what are monads is the wrong question, the more important question is why did we end up inventing it.

Suppose a function has side effects. If we take all the effects it produce as the input and output parameters, then the function is pure to the outside world.

So for an impure function:

f' :: Int -> Int

we add the RealWorld to the consideration

f :: Int -> RealWorld -> (Int, RealWorld)

– input some states of the whole world,

– modify the whole world because of the a side effects,

– then return the new world.

then f is pure again. We define a parametrized data type IO a = RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld), so we don't need to type RealWorld so many times

f :: Int -> IO Int

To the programmer, handling a RealWorld directly is too dangerous—in particular, if a programmer gets their hands on a value of type RealWorld, they might try to copy it, which is basically impossible. (Think of trying to copy the entire filesystem, for example. Where would you put it?) Therefore, our definition of IO encapsulates the states of the whole world as well.

These impure functions are useless if we can't chain them together. Consider

getLine :: IO String               = RealWorld -> (String, RealWorld)

getContents :: String -> IO String = String -> RealWorld -> (String, RealWorld)

putStrLn :: String -> IO ()        = String -> RealWorld -> ((), RealWorld)

We want to get a filename from the console, read that file, then print the content out. How would we do it if we can access the real world states?

printFile :: RealWorld -> ((), RealWorld)

printFile world0 = let (filename, world1) = getLine world0

                       (contents, world2) = (getContents filename) world1 

                   in  (putStrLn contents) world2 — results in ((), world3)

We see a pattern here: the functions are called like this:

…

(<result-of-f>, worldY) = f worldX

(<result-of-g>, worldZ) = g <result-of-f> worldY

…

So we could define an operator ~~~ to bind them:

(~~~) :: (IO b) -> (b -> IO c) -> IO c

(~~~) ::      (RealWorld -> (b, RealWorld))

      -> (b -> RealWorld -> (c, RealWorld))

      ->       RealWorld -> (c, RealWorld)

(f ~~~ g) worldX = let (resF, worldY) = f worldX in

                        g resF worldY

then we could simply write

printFile = getLine ~~~ getContents ~~~ putStrLn

without touching the real world.

Now suppose we want to make the file content uppercase as well. Uppercasing is a pure function

upperCase :: String -> String

But to make it into the real world, it has to return an IO String. It is easy to lift such a function:

impureUpperCase :: String -> RealWorld -> (String, RealWorld)

impureUpperCase str world = (upperCase str, world)

this can be generalized:

impurify :: a -> IO a

impurify :: a -> RealWorld -> (a, RealWorld)

impurify a world = (a, world)

so that impureUpperCase = impurify . upperCase, and we can write

printUpperCaseFile = 

    getLine ~~~ getContents ~~~ (impurify . upperCase) ~~~ putStrLn

Now let's see what we've done:

1. We defined an operator (~~~) :: IO b -> (b -> IO c) -> IO c which chains two impure functions together.
2. We defined a function impurify :: a -> IO a which converts a pure value to impure.

Now we make the identification (>>=) = (~~~) and return = impurity, and see? We've got a monad.

I think, this is the simplest explanation of what are monads and more importantly why they are so.

END

——————–

Formal Sidenote (can be safely ignored): (>>=) and return must satisfy the following axioms for the type they are inside to be a monad:

1. return a >>= f = f a
2. f >>= return = f
3. f >>= (\x -> g x >>= h) = (f >>= g) >>= h

Public choice theory

Regulations don't just "happen". Much like with sausages there is a dirty game behind it.

Before the 1960s, most social scientists were still naive enough to take politicians' speeches about "the general welfare" at face value. But that was soon to change.  In the 60's and 70's, economists began to use their standard tools to understand how democracy works.  "We would never believe a businessman who claimed to work for the public good," they reasoned.  "Why should we believe a politician?"  Instead, they assumed that politicians maximize votes, just as firms maximize profits.  The result was public choice theory, and eventually won James Buchanan a Nobel Prize. (Buchanan 2001).

Public choice theory emphasizes the contradiction between the propaganda of government intervention and the reality.  Government supposedly intervenes to advance the interests of the majority. In reality, however, its goal to advance the interests of political insiders at the expense of everyone else. (Tullock 1967; Krueger 1974)

One of public choicers' favorite examples is airline regulation.  The Civil Aeronautics Board of USA claimed to protect travelers from rapacious airlines.  In fact, the mission of the CAB was to keep airfares up by restricting competition.  To say that "regulation did not work" is rather misleading.  It failed in its official goal of helping consumers, but it succeeded in its actual goal of shielding the regulated industry from competition. (Friedman and Friedman 1979)

In each case, the altruistic rhetoric is a smokescreen.  Laissez-faire would make most people better off, but financially endanger or even bankrupt the politically connected forces behind the expansion of government power.

Each piece of legislation has the following components:

1. A public-interest rationale.
2. Supportive interest groups with a hidden financial agenda.
3. "Full rent dissipation".
4. Negative consequences for the general public.

Full Rent Dissipation:

The idea is simple.  If the government has $1,000,000 to hand out, lobbyists will spend up to $1,000,000 to sway the legal process to get their hands on it.  So begins a legal "arms race"; the more the government distributes, the harder interest groups fight to get their cut.

Furthermore, lobbying cannot remain unusually profitable for long, because high rewards attract new entry – like the ruthless. The long-run effect is not to enrich the special interests, but to destroy wealth.  This is a common explanation for the failures of India's economy. (Krueger 1974). Everything is politicized, so vast resources that could have been used for production instead chase after government privileges.

But why does democracy put the economy up for grabs, if it is such a bad idea?  Public choicers' standard answer blames voters' rational ignorance.  Paying attention to politics has virtually no payoff for the average voter, so it is rational to not pay attention.  The result: Few see through the smokescreen of public interest rhetoric to the sordid reality of the sausage factory.  Even fewer realize that government intervention is the fuel of pressure group warfare.

The appeal to rational ignorance has its critics. (Wittman 1995)  Big problem: There is a difference between ignorant and gullible.  If voters were really "rational ignorant" about politics, they would greet altruistic rhetoric with skepticism. If rational ignorance were the central weakness of democracy, voters could protect themselves with a simple slogan: "When in doubt, vote No."

If voters were plain ignorant, they would have the modesty to leave other people in peace. In practice, however, the man in the street combines ignorance with self-righteous dogmatism – and votes for politicians who pander to his folly.  The ultimate source of destructive policy is grassroots neglect of the virtue of rationality.

Public choicers think that interest groups are the proximate cause of a lot of wealth-destroying legislation. But in my judgment, there is one more step ahead of the standard public choice story: Yes, lobbyists enrich themselves at the expense of the majority, but only after the majority paves the way for the lobbyists by electing statist politicians.

The sausage factory is right in front of the voters, but they refuse to see it – or even think about what goes on inside.    

Evolutionary Philosophy

The great thing about reality is it is the final arbiter. To command it one must obey it.

Impersonally speaking, advocacy of truth and defending reality is not really necessary, because philosophies evolve and the right philosophy will catch on anyway, somewhere sometime in the universe. The only reason why we need proselytizing of truth is so as to improve the chances of individual survival. For example my survival would be unlikely in a society which thinks having a mobile phone means I am a devil worshiper who ought to be burnt at the stake. We all know such things happened in ancient times.

So when I wish, say, that a government shouldn't dictate what I eat, or the means of my voluntary association with others, I do it not out of some misguided sense of idealism, but pure greed to maximize my chances of survival. Systemically speaking it is not necessary. The system is much more stable than any theist or communist or post-modernist can fuck with. I just want to expedite the recognition of reality.

With all the weekly cures for cancer, Alzheimers and Parkinsons

mice ought to be immortal by now.

Missing the trees for the wood

Yes that's right, people often miss the trees for the wood too.

Especially when dealing with complex systems with many parts.

For example, consider technological progress or the stock market. There are so many interacting parts that people seem to not think about the parts. They merely try to predict the emergent outcome as if it were an entity by itself. And they run into estimates that are far off.

My favorite example are economic aggregates like GDP, GNP, Income equality, Wealth distribution, Consumption, Production. I see people fitting increasingly complex auto-regressive models, testing for co-integration, correlation with no regard for the underlying reality.

If a whole economy can be manipulated by a single number like interest rate, I wouldn't be living in it. That economy would be too fragile to prevail.

My thoughts on marriage

I might never get married, so here are my thoughts about it. Love is unlikely. So when people do get married they often do so:

1. Out of some sense of duty, i.e. an unchosen obligation towards parents, relatives, society, humanity ..
2. Out of pity to someone. Since Love as a result of admiration is considered inferior to love as a result of pity or duty, marriage is often done out of pity or out of duty.
3. Because everyone is doing it.
4. Fear of future loneliness.

Here are my arguments against it:

1. I recognize no unchosen obligations. All individuals are born free from obligations that are shoved down their throat without their permission. Only chosen obligations like contracts & promises exist. Marriage is one such chosen obligation.
2. I consider love as a result of admiration to be superior to love as a result of pity or duty. I admire very few people, because I see little virtue in others which can measure up to mine.
3. Even if everyone in this world jumped of bridge I wouldn't do it. So everyone doing something ain't a reason.
4. Within the temple of their minds everybody was always alone, and they will always be alone. There was never anyone inside anyone's head other than that person. When they die, there won't be anyone to die with them in their mind. They have to face death & life alone. All company has a limit on its capacity for accompaniment. It is true that the person you love can come very close almost inside ones own mind. But that is unlikely.

Moral Certainty As The Ultimate Weapon

Man is capable of as much atrocity or prosperity as he has imagination.

All that is necessary is

1. the ability to happily survive & sustain the consequences of one's actions and,
2. the moral certainty that one was righteous

Here are the ways people deal with Necessity 1:

• They don't deal with it. They underestimate constraints imposed by reality, thinking all of politics & human morality is just make-belief and that any type of world is possible & sustainable. They believe all that is necessary is a consensus. Some are stupid enough to believe a consensus can be coerced. While it is true that a consensus can be manufactured it is not durable unless it corresponds with reality.
• They deal with the consequences, but they invert what is to be desired and what is to be avoided. They try to redefine ideas like happiness & prosperity. They regard pain, sacrifice and suffering as the true form happiness, while claiming actual comforts and prosperity and happiness as fake, delusions or mere imitations.
• They deal with the consequences, rationally and realistically.

Here are the ways people deal with Necessity 2:

• They don't deal with it. They consider moral certainty as non-existent, unnecessary or even evil. These people will have a hard time making difficult decisions in life and politics. They will go with the crowd when dealing with politics, and will end up creating hells that crowds create. After all a majority is neither infallible nor omniscient.
• They have the wrong moral certainty, the kind that does not correspond with reality. e.g. I am doing this because my Imaginary Friend The Sky told me to, and because he told me to do this I am righteous in doing so.
• They have the right moral certainty, the kind that correspond with reality.