Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Message to No One

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 26, 2013, 1:45 a.m. EST by Misaki (893)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It looks like no influential person is going to support this idea. (see link for what this post is about)

What I have said...

  • "Economists are not going to [support this idea]"
  • To Yoko Ono: "If you support this idea but fail in the attempt I will probably die"
  • To Yoko Ono: "If you don't support this idea I will probably die because I'm too lazy to find someone else interested in helping the world"
  • If someone was unsuccessful in supporting this idea I would view it as a personal failure for not being able to determine their ability more accurately
  • I concluded my efforts in 2011 only after identifying mistakes by everyone I thought might be willing to support this idea or deciding that they would probably fail

I am, unfortunately, still able to imagine a scenario where someone with a reputation tries to get people to use this idea and they are unsuccessful.

I look at things like interest rates this way. They are known to influence investment and spending, and so can change the level of employment. But this is limited.

In contrast, through working less we can create as many jobs as necessary.

To anyone wondering why influential people haven't supported this idea, it is for the same reason that you have not.

The reason that problems exist in the world is that no one thought of this idea before. Since the prevention of war is an essential component, you could also say that no one understood the competitive drive that causes people from other cultures to accept war. It does not help a society to be peaceful if it is overrun by its neighbors, and historically a lot of war was about the loot.

As I said I have tried to avoid conveying that I think that supporting this idea is the 'ethical' thing to do, but I don't accept this as a reason for people not to support it. I would benefit from it just like anyone else from the lower risk of being killed or other similar things for myself and people I know, and as I have mentioned it would also lead to higher quality in games like World of Warcraft.

If anyone thinks that influential people should support this idea, they should say so. The feedback from the Occupy Wall Street forums was that we should distrust authority.

People who have not supported this idea are assumed to view the following issues as not important enough to act on:

  • A small chance they, or people they know, will be killed
  • Mass shootings like the ones at Aurora and Sandy Hook
  • Unemployment and associated problems, including wasteful government spending
  • War and its effects like someone you know joining the military and being killed
  • Rapes
  • Unexpected events in general that cause harm and could have been avoided if people were smarter
  • Occupations that appear to be unethical having a 'wage premium', including the sex industry and finance
  • Nonviolent crime, like computer viruses and scams
  • Unwanted climate change like global warming
  • Smart people being unhappy because they feel more responsible for problems
  • The fact that the human race is getting stupider as time goes on due to genetic selection
  • Biased feedback for games like WoW or Aion that lead to people wasting time on things that do not have the intended result
  • Starvation in Africa
  • Friends or relatives committing suicide because of relationship problems or depression
  • High cost of college in the US and the inaccuracy of attendance at an 'elite' institution as a signal of ability despite that many people perceive it to be accurate
  • 'Nice' people going to prison or being accused of crimes, such as Aaron Swartz who committed suicide
  • Economic sanctions against nations such as North Korea that are seen as unethical
  • Intellectual property law that causes obvious inefficiencies, such as the patenting of round corners on electronic devices
  • Government corruption in places like China
  • Female persons, or even male persons, not being able to attain important positions in society because of a lack of time

It seems like the definitive statement on the competence of influential people is whether they expected something like Sandy Hook or Aurora could happen. If they did not consider it at all, they are stupid.

In that case, I would expect James Holmes to announce his motivations so that people can agree that the problems of the world are not due to poor intentions. There are enough conspiracy theories floating around (on Youtube, a 94 minute video has 500k views) without expecting people to evaluate another; besides, blogs are not considered "reliable sources".

I dedicate this post to Monk of Firetree US server in the World of Warcraft, who defended me from respawns after I stopped talking after losing a neck item with intellect and spirit to, I think, a rogue, in March 2005. His email address went inactive sometime between an email I sent on his birthday on October 5 and another email I sent on 10 Nov.

Link to notes

(From http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-message-to-no-one.html)

14 Comments

14 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

yeah-ya - these two are definitely not on my priority list:

  • Smart people being unhappy because they feel more responsible for problems

  • The fact that the human race is getting stupider as time goes on due to genetic selection

the only reason smart people are unhappy is because they woke up to find one of two things were true -

  • they aren't as smart as they thought they were

  • the world operates by a completely different set of rules than the ones they were taught

And the reason the human race is getting dumber is because the global elite don't want to educate the masses - they claim it is because of taxes, but we all know they just want to exploit the masses -

and genetics has nothing to do with it. That's just another lie.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

People in the US tend to think they're above average, but smart people also underestimate their intelligence.

So statistically, smart people are smarter than they think they are.

I was talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Since we are talking eugenics this is not at all surprising, which is itself, a subject of controversy.

Given the overwhelming numbers of humans on the planet I would assume that this, if indeed it is a problem, is an issue that will correct itself, one way or the other, within the course of the next hundred years or so . . .

And if in fact the species goes extinct within that period, I suppose that solves the matter in its entirety, and may even demonstrate that high iq was not a deterrent to such an event, and may in fact be a significant contributing factor . . .

After all, those who have engineered Global Warming Denial and have provided an endless series of justifications for their intellectual position cannot be said in any seriousness to possess iq scores far below average.

It is, I am sure, much more likely to be the result of some defect in their moral compass.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

Yes, but we are living in the present aren't we?

And it isn't clear what you mean by 'correct itself'. Populations in developing countries are expected to level off as they progress economically, which this idea would make happen more quickly, but I don't foresee an end to the negative correlation between intelligence and babies unless this idea is used.

It's not like depression is a new thing. Just look at Shakespeare or other ancient writers such as Machiavelli ("Anyone who studies present and ancient affairs will easily see how in all cities and all peoples there still exist, and have always existed, the same desires and passions") or the 11th-century work "The Tale of Genji".

People are less likely to "believe" in global warming if unemployment is high; similarly, the President has also said that he views unemployment as more important that climate change. So a reasonable explanation is that these smart people who deny global warming are just not smart enough to have fixed unemployment already.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

These smart people may in fact be driven by political considerations of the moment, rather than the gravity of the long term issues that arise with Global Warming, thus illustrating that they have indeed placed their priorities in a self destructive order -

it remains to be seen if placing the matter of Global Warming as our first priority will not produce ample work for everyone . . . .

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 1 year ago

That would probably either mean 1. huge subsidies for renewable energy... Germany has tried this with solar power and it was moderately successful (enough that they scaled back the subsidies) or 2. huge tax increases on fossil fuels.

The first has the risk of Solyndra-type abuses... the second would be a lot easier to pass if poor people had more money to be able to afford those taxes. Which goes right back to unemployment.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

poor people don't need to pay those taxes - all we need to do is regulate the fossil fuel industry and tell them they are now non-profit - with all proceeds returning to government coffers to invest in green tech.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is a matter of National Security after-all.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

yeah-ya - and instead we pay them - to the tune of over a billion dollars a year in tax breaks

and the scumbag repelicans insist we do something about something they call entitlements and yet they do nothing

the fukers should be shot

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I want in on that - but I will only use rubber bullets - makes a longer lasting impression ( rock salt ? ) - I think - don't forget to put Harry Ried on the list - he ain't no angel either. Entitled wealthy assholes. Hey check this out :

http://occupywallst.org/forum/national-debt-national-wealth-paradox-much/

Is it a real paradox? or is my gray matter misfiring?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the way it is written I am not sure - it almost reads as if you are confusing public interest with public debt.

It is in the public interest to have appropriate legislation, the public should not be driven into debt as a result, and it is paradoxical that should repelicans get their way not only will the public interest bankrupt the nation, they will insist it is in the public interest.

The paradox here is of course, that they keep getting elected. Given the facts it is inconceivable, impossible - and yet it remains a fact.

Go figure.

The entire banking industry should be a public enterprise. In that way the public debt becomes financed with private interest - and since it is in everyone's interest that the nation succeed, one would imagine that this is in everyone's interest - and it might even reduce taxes . . .

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I do not know if you caught my point/thrust/direction in examining an apparent paradox - BUT - Your point on banking is well made.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20555) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think I get the general sense of it - but say the debt was just forgiven, that would mean social security was out 16 percent of 15 trillion dollars.

Meanwhile wall street financiers are back to astronomical profits on the basis of what I presume must be the same practices that brought us the economic meltdown to begin with.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - loopholes - or is that - SCREW HOLES???? Businesses need to pay taxes into the system - the support system - WTF are they doing collecting subsidies when they are making major profits without a need for subsidies?

The public should be set to go ( be good ) under any circumstance - 1st - as that is where the majority of funds come from in the 1st place.

The astronomical profits being made are a total fiction and a theft from the public.