What meritous work do the 1% do to deserve the rapidly increasing and disproportionate chunk of the wealth that they get?
If we started from scratch with ten couples, each with 1,000 sqaure miles of land, wealth inequality would start immediately for the next generation. Assuming (without loss of generality) that inheritence is passed with equal weight to all children born of a given couple, next generation sole children will be twice as wealthy as those children with a sibling, and these will in turn be wealthier than children who number one of three, and so on. The deterioration of wealth is natural.
Eventually we arrive at a time when most land owners get so poor in land, that disasters force them to sell off parcels of their land. Thus we eventually get a landless class of worker bees. Disasters such as the plague temporarily reversed this natural trending by creating labor shortages, and thus temporarily increasing the power of the working classes.
Today we live in the age Power Laws, and lifetimes far exceed the time for major paradigm shifts. The network connectivity to planetary assets by the top percentiles far exceeds the tiers down below, and Moore's-like laws lead to increasingly disproportionate growth. All roads once led to Rome, but everyone still had to walk or ride horses at best. Today technology is in runaway self-criticality. Who will first be able to afford creating improved offspring and buy life extension technology as it takes off in the near future? The race will become more disproportionate. Barring some great Mad Max catastrophe, which I don't buy into (we're more likely to vanish entirely in a modern disaster, say jetting a killer virus across the globe at the speed of airlines, than pull off some Hollywood survival fantasy) it is likely already too late I suspect. The bulk of us have been run off the cliff. We just haven't struck the ground yet.
Of course I hope I'm wrong.
What meritous work do the 1% do to deserve the rapidly increasing and disproportionate chunk of the wealth that they get?
Power laws. The network connectivity to planetary assets by the top percentiles far exceeds the tiers down below, and Moore's-like laws lead to increasingly disproportionate growth. All roads once led to Rome, but everyone still had to walk or ride horses at best. Today technology is in runaway self-criticality. Who will first be able to afford creating improved offspring and buy life extension technology as it takes off? The race will become more disproportionate. Barring some great Mad Max catastrophe, which I don't buy into (we're more likely to vanish entirely than pull off some Hollywood fantasy) it is likely already too late I suspect. The bulk of us have been run off the cliff. We just haven't struck the ground yet.
My experience from BS, MS, and PhD were pretty rough. I always felt I was learning a bunch of prescriptions: do this to get that. It would often take me years of self study to pin down the history of what I had learned, from good texts and references.
A decade after finishing school, I finally felt I had tracked down all that had mystified me. I finally put together a syllabus of the miniminal set of physics ideas and math methods, references and key literature for students, from sophomore to postgraduate to study on their own and make their school experience better.
I posted a short version (document at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=540829&highlight=aalaniz ) more for the physics major, and, SCROLL down, a long document for STEM majors.
I hope this helps.
Alex Alaniz
What is your feeling on how a global economic slowdown might affect your funding prospects?
With the crimes being perpetrated against those scientists who use animals on the rise, do you foresee the rise of a similar movement (aside, tacitly, from the religious) against mankind attaining potential immortality?
If life extension technology matures, what percentage of humanity will be able to buy it?
Is your field employing molecular dynamics simulations to research out viable methods for moving genes out of mitochondria? If so, might you consider making this work a distributed computing project over the internet?
Clearly, many countries will advance, unhindered by religious troglodytes who push creation science and seek universal death--the Rapture--by means of a Middle East war. Do you see the US faltering into an idiocracy?
Given nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, scarcity of resources, religious and culture conflict, the potential rise of a killer bug in the slums of our world, and its easy transport via jets to every corner of the world, the Matthew effect, not just in terms of wealth, but in terms of education, global warming, climate change, food production threats,...,and all the ways these pressures synergize, what do you think our odds are as a species? Can you point out a tipping point (or points) towards are demise which we should work to prevent?
A.A.
Los Alamos, NM
So, the market share of Linsux users seems to be about 572 or so, and you "winners" clearly know how to spend your weekends. Have you ever kissed a girl?
1. Why do I say religion (as opposed to faith in the existence of God) should be discouraged?
1.1---The pernicious tendencies of religion and the religion dividend---
Beyond the history of religion as a pernicious force (e.g. inquisitions, holy wars, etc.), and beyond its continuing ability to divide (e.g. President Bush, "God is on our side." versus President Lincoln, "I hope we are on God's side."), religion exacts a tax on the development of our civilization that can be measured in lives lost due to wasted effort. How much time, money and effort has gone into filling the coffers of the Jimmy Swaggerts, the popes, and other religious leaders? Could not the money for building new churches instead be donated to cure cancer? Science does work. Childhood leukemias are now highly (above 90%) curable, whereas just 50 years ago they were nearly always fatal. Or how about putting some of that wasted money into education for better schools and higher paid teachers? There are likely thousands of worthy causes struggling for cash that is otherwise wasted on religion. Now, I do realize 'some' nominal amount of church money does go into cancer research and other good causes, by what fraction of it? Half? I doubt it. So cut out the middle man and send 100% of the cash to the good causes. Then instead of wasting time at church functions, people could put time into their communities. Yes. Some nominal amount of church time is spent on improving communities. But what fraction? Half. I doubt it. Cut out the middle man, and while you're cutting out the middle man, cut out the hypocrisy as well. Why do good members of faith X, Y or Z do their good deeds? Out of the goodness of their own hearts, or for the Holy reward of life after death for Christians and a harem for suicide bombers? The religious do good to save their own skins and the skins of those they care about.
2. What is wrong with morality based on religion?
2.1---NO DOUBT there is trouble with religion---
This, NO DOUBT, is what religion is predicated on. No doubt equals faith and conversely. Having NO DOUBT is the innate trouble of most religious doctrine. That is, religion, by its own construct, is innately pernicious, because only under a moral philosophy of NO DOUBT can entire hordes of religiously motivated people throughout the ages, by reason of their NO DOUBT faith, become (Teutonic) Nazis, KKK members, al Qaeda members, witch burners, lynchers, homophobes, misogynists, child molesters, and other numerous types of nefarious -obes, -ists and -ers in order to raze entire civilizations, pillage, plunder, murder, maim, destroy, burn books, imprison scholars, discriminate, rape, butcher, segregate, and slowly eviscerate other peoples. (I'm certain I missed a couple of good ones.) And these religiously motivated people committed these crimes and atrocities against humanity without a doubt in their minds for they were following the will of their God, NO DOUBT.
2.2---Does lack of religion imply degeneracy?---
If there is no religion, no faith in God, then what? Can there be no morality as Immanuel Kant would insist? Why does religion have to equate to morality? How many millions of atheists are there out there following the same basic morals of the faithful? Don't kill, steal, cheat, etc., help others, etc., these morals need not have anything to do with religion. These morals, which try to hem our wanton natures, make good sense if one wants to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Does the lack of religion make the enforcement of such morals impossible? Ask the millions of atheists.
3. Can there be alternative, less dangerous moralities?
3.1---Morality based on the scientific method is less arrogant and thus less dangerous---
The scientific method is based on doubt up to reproducibility. Cold fusion ala Fleshman and Ponds turned out to be bullshit. It could not be reproduced in other labs. But to follow a scientific based morality is more than this. It is to doubt ev
Slashdot Mirror
Let's turn your question around.
What meritous work do the 1% do to deserve the rapidly increasing and disproportionate chunk of the wealth that they get?
If we started from scratch with ten couples, each with 1,000 sqaure miles of land, wealth inequality would start immediately for the next generation. Assuming (without loss of generality) that inheritence is passed with equal weight to all children born of a given couple, next generation sole children will be twice as wealthy as those children with a sibling, and these will in turn be wealthier than children who number one of three, and so on. The deterioration of wealth is natural. Eventually we arrive at a time when most land owners get so poor in land, that disasters force them to sell off parcels of their land. Thus we eventually get a landless class of worker bees. Disasters such as the plague temporarily reversed this natural trending by creating labor shortages, and thus temporarily increasing the power of the working classes. Today we live in the age Power Laws, and lifetimes far exceed the time for major paradigm shifts. The network connectivity to planetary assets by the top percentiles far exceeds the tiers down below, and Moore's-like laws lead to increasingly disproportionate growth. All roads once led to Rome, but everyone still had to walk or ride horses at best. Today technology is in runaway self-criticality. Who will first be able to afford creating improved offspring and buy life extension technology as it takes off in the near future? The race will become more disproportionate. Barring some great Mad Max catastrophe, which I don't buy into (we're more likely to vanish entirely in a modern disaster, say jetting a killer virus across the globe at the speed of airlines, than pull off some Hollywood survival fantasy) it is likely already too late I suspect. The bulk of us have been run off the cliff. We just haven't struck the ground yet. Of course I hope I'm wrong.
Let's turn your question around.
What meritous work do the 1% do to deserve the rapidly increasing and disproportionate chunk of the wealth that they get?
Power laws. The network connectivity to planetary assets by the top percentiles far exceeds the tiers down below, and Moore's-like laws lead to increasingly disproportionate growth. All roads once led to Rome, but everyone still had to walk or ride horses at best. Today technology is in runaway self-criticality. Who will first be able to afford creating improved offspring and buy life extension technology as it takes off? The race will become more disproportionate. Barring some great Mad Max catastrophe, which I don't buy into (we're more likely to vanish entirely than pull off some Hollywood fantasy) it is likely already too late I suspect. The bulk of us have been run off the cliff. We just haven't struck the ground yet.
My experience from BS, MS, and PhD were pretty rough. I always felt I was learning a bunch of prescriptions: do this to get that. It would often take me years of self study to pin down the history of what I had learned, from good texts and references. A decade after finishing school, I finally felt I had tracked down all that had mystified me. I finally put together a syllabus of the miniminal set of physics ideas and math methods, references and key literature for students, from sophomore to postgraduate to study on their own and make their school experience better. I posted a short version (document at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=540829&highlight=aalaniz ) more for the physics major, and, SCROLL down, a long document for STEM majors. I hope this helps. Alex Alaniz
What is your feeling on how a global economic slowdown might affect your funding prospects? With the crimes being perpetrated against those scientists who use animals on the rise, do you foresee the rise of a similar movement (aside, tacitly, from the religious) against mankind attaining potential immortality? If life extension technology matures, what percentage of humanity will be able to buy it? Is your field employing molecular dynamics simulations to research out viable methods for moving genes out of mitochondria? If so, might you consider making this work a distributed computing project over the internet? Clearly, many countries will advance, unhindered by religious troglodytes who push creation science and seek universal death--the Rapture--by means of a Middle East war. Do you see the US faltering into an idiocracy? Given nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, scarcity of resources, religious and culture conflict, the potential rise of a killer bug in the slums of our world, and its easy transport via jets to every corner of the world, the Matthew effect, not just in terms of wealth, but in terms of education, global warming, climate change, food production threats,...,and all the ways these pressures synergize, what do you think our odds are as a species? Can you point out a tipping point (or points) towards are demise which we should work to prevent? A.A. Los Alamos, NM
So, the market share of Linsux users seems to be about 572 or so, and you "winners" clearly know how to spend your weekends. Have you ever kissed a girl?
Alex
1. Why do I say religion (as opposed to faith in the existence of God) should be discouraged?
1.1---The pernicious tendencies of religion and the religion dividend---
Beyond the history of religion as a pernicious force (e.g. inquisitions, holy wars, etc.), and beyond its continuing ability to divide (e.g. President Bush, "God is on our side." versus President Lincoln, "I hope we are on God's side."), religion exacts a tax on the development of our civilization that can be measured in lives lost due to wasted effort. How much time, money and effort has gone into filling the coffers of the Jimmy Swaggerts, the popes, and other religious leaders? Could not the money for building new churches instead be donated to cure cancer? Science does work. Childhood leukemias are now highly (above 90%) curable, whereas just 50 years ago they were nearly always fatal. Or how about putting some of that wasted money into education for better schools and higher paid teachers? There are likely thousands of worthy causes struggling for cash that is otherwise wasted on religion. Now, I do realize 'some' nominal amount of church money does go into cancer research and other good causes, by what fraction of it? Half? I doubt it. So cut out the middle man and send 100% of the cash to the good causes. Then instead of wasting time at church functions, people could put time into their communities. Yes. Some nominal amount of church time is spent on improving communities. But what fraction? Half. I doubt it. Cut out the middle man, and while you're cutting out the middle man, cut out the hypocrisy as well. Why do good members of faith X, Y or Z do their good deeds? Out of the goodness of their own hearts, or for the Holy reward of life after death for Christians and a harem for suicide bombers? The religious do good to save their own skins and the skins of those they care about.
2. What is wrong with morality based on religion?
2.1---NO DOUBT there is trouble with religion---
This, NO DOUBT, is what religion is predicated on. No doubt equals faith and conversely. Having NO DOUBT is the innate trouble of most religious doctrine. That is, religion, by its own construct, is innately pernicious, because only under a moral philosophy of NO DOUBT can entire hordes of religiously motivated people throughout the ages, by reason of their NO DOUBT faith, become (Teutonic) Nazis, KKK members, al Qaeda members, witch burners, lynchers, homophobes, misogynists, child molesters, and other numerous types of nefarious -obes, -ists and -ers in order to raze entire civilizations, pillage, plunder, murder, maim, destroy, burn books, imprison scholars, discriminate, rape, butcher, segregate, and slowly eviscerate other peoples. (I'm certain I missed a couple of good ones.) And these religiously motivated people committed these crimes and atrocities against humanity without a doubt in their minds for they were following the will of their God, NO DOUBT.
2.2---Does lack of religion imply degeneracy?---
If there is no religion, no faith in God, then what? Can there be no morality as Immanuel Kant would insist? Why does religion have to equate to morality? How many millions of atheists are there out there following the same basic morals of the faithful? Don't kill, steal, cheat, etc., help others, etc., these morals need not have anything to do with religion. These morals, which try to hem our wanton natures, make good sense if one wants to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Does the lack of religion make the enforcement of such morals impossible? Ask the millions of atheists.
3. Can there be alternative, less dangerous moralities?
3.1---Morality based on the scientific method is less arrogant and thus less dangerous---
The scientific method is based on doubt up to reproducibility. Cold fusion ala Fleshman and Ponds turned out to be bullshit. It could not be reproduced in other labs. But to follow a scientific based morality is more than this. It is to doubt ev