Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Will be earned through blood shed.
Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Will be earned through blood shed.
Which comes first, chicken and egg. Some of you are philosophical and realize that eggs DNA do not change for the whole of life time and hence egg is the right answer. However, most of the time it doesn’t make any different.
Eggs cause chicken and chickens cause eggs. Both are correct. It’s not a circular argument. It’s a positive feedback system.
And those arguments are used by both the Israel and Palestine. The Hamas says that they launch rocket because Israelites kill civilians. Israelites say that they commit military operation to prevent suicide bombing.
Both sides argue that the other sides start first and that their acts are just response of demonic acts from the other sides. Both are correct. Vengeances are like chicken and eggs.
The issue is not who started it, but whether the system is positive feedback or not.
However, it’s not that bad actually.
Think it this way. Say there is no vengeance. Say we all opt for peace too much even though we have the capability to slaughter our opponents, at some costs to us. Then people will think that we’re a wussy. Then every body will beat us up.
The Jews in Medina, for example, when under siege by Muslims troops choose to surrender quickly, giving up all their lands. Within a few years, a few Jewish tribes then end up facing genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir.
This goes all the way till 1945 in the hand of so many people from various religions.
The Japanese has different algorithm as is shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_Ronin. Here, the ronins don’t care whether they win or lose them just care about avenging their master and preserving their honor.
In a cruel world where laws are unclear, people slaughter the meekest. Those so full with evil that they don’t value their life to kill the other side is often those who survive better in the gene pool.
This honor thing then has a monetary value. It is more auspicious for people to lose some money, or even life, if they can more properly align people’s interests with theirs. That’s where our ideas of justice and honor come from, which do serve some evolutionary advantage.
So war is not too bad. Let them kill each other. Soon, once they’ve inflicted enough damage, they manage to maintain proper reputation that it doesn’t pay to fuck each other off. Then maybe there will be peace.
Love of money is root of all peace. Let’s all hope the war gets expensive enough for both sides that they start seeing peaceful solution profitable. Only then, there will be peace.
Science, as we know, is answering many questions religion and philosophy used to answer. While scientists are typically honest and objectives, religious leaders often have some points to make that are subjective and arguably manipulative.
Scientific theories are designed to be tested with evidence. Theories that we have now are theories that, at least in the past, survive the scrutiny of scientific inquiry. Understanding scientific natures, for example, will help us understand theories that will correctly predict reality more.
For example, a religious sermons might advice, “Men should not aim for pretty women, and women shouldn’t look for wealth.” It’ll usually followed by messages that humans will achieve more happiness if they follow that advice.
While the world “should” is not disprovable, science can predict whether you will indeed be happier by following religious doctrines.
According to gene centered view of evolution, the sort of genes that survive in the gene pool nowadays are the sort of genes that are doing well in the gene pool. The sort of humans that survive in the gene pool, are the sort of humans with the winning genes.
Our genes affect our preference and behavior. Our genes decide the sort of conditions that’ll make us feel happy, sad, pain, or pleasure. The sort of genes that we have are the genes that correctly tunes our preferences toward gene pool survival.
Hence, we can rationally predict, that males, with their smaller gametes will prefer to mate with as many females as possible. Females, with larger gametes will prefer to pick the highest quality male.
Preferences that are common nowadays are preferences that are proven to work in the past. For males, being rich is obviously an advantage. Rich males can bribe more women for sex. Also women that pick richer males will inherit sons with money making talent and extra wealth. Hence, we will naturally predict that:
1. Males are greedy for wealth and women.
2. Females like rich males.
Fertile and fecund females and unfertile females consume the same food. Hence, we would predict that a male that aim for a fertile female will survive better in the gene pool for the same amount of money spent. We would expect males to prefer small waist, big hips, unblemished skin, straight teeth, tada tada tada… females. In other words:
1. Males look for pretty women.
2. Women want to be as pretty as possible to signal offspring making capability.
Because our preferences are essentially pursuing happiness, we would expect the genes we have are the genes that make us happier when we commit acts that lead to gene pool survival.
So yes, men will be happier to get pretty women. Women will be happier to get rich males.
Now, if women will be happier to get rich men, the other men will be out of the gene pool. So, we would predict that the less attractive competitors will entertain beliefs that the opposites are true. And that naturally explain the religious teaching that we see.
There’s much more like this.
The Jews and Palestinians have killed each other over land for thousands of years.
I was wondering. The Palestinians have controlled the land for more than 1200 years. Would the Jews mind allowing them to have the land for 60 years if that means peace? Probably not.
Some are assholes and will fight. However, most Jews are known for being good capitalists. Why fight if they can earn something peacefully even if that means it’ll take 60 years longer.
And what about the other way around? What about if the Jews say, “Look, I want the land for 60 years. After that, it’s yours.” Will Hamas choose to fight?
Well, they’re willing to fight for the land even if that means fighting for 300 years. Would they settle for peace if all they need to do is waiting for the next 60 years to get the land?
The answer is yes for some because some people are total assholes that just want to fight. The meek do inherit the earth though. Most will say no.
Would people kill each other for a 60 years lease of land? Probably not.
You see our basic instincts are designed when we’re evolving. When we’re evolving, there is no such thing as 60 years lease. So we do not get emotional about that.
What’s the point?
Do you know how much does it cost to lease a land for 60 years? About the same with the price of the land.
Think it this way. How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 year? Probably not much different than the interest rate for the value of the land, assuming the price of the land is constant. If not, it’ll be about the same with the difference between interest rate and the price increase of the land.
If it’s higher, people will borrow infinite money from banks, buy land, and rent it away. I know people do and make money doing it. However, let’s ignore this arbitrage for a while. Their profit really comes from taking calculated risk and work required to settle the deal. That’s why they can’t do that infinitely.
How much will it cost to rent a land for 2 years? Obviously more than it would cost to rent a land for 1 year. However, the present value of the second years rent is less than the first year rent. That’s because the money will grow in the bank first for 1 year and then used to pay the rent.
How much will it cost to rent a land for 1 billion years? You guess it. Buying a land is equivalent with renting it forever. However, most of the value is in the next 60 years.
Assuming the price different between interest rate and land price increase is 5%, rent cost of 60 years of land should worth 94.64% of the land price. If the rate difference is 10%, the 60 years rent cost should worth 99.67%.
You see why the British eventually return Hong Kong to Chinese? So they can get something as good as owning the land while letting the Chinese government, weak at that time, to safe face.
People kill each other because they think they can get the land permanently. However, they will not kill each other for a 60 years lease of the land. It’s kind of strange isn’t it? Could this be a solution for peace?
Imagine if UN or somebody told the Jews and Palestinians. Look, one of you will own the land for 60 years; the other will own it after ward. Both will jump wanting the second option, which worth only .33% of the economic value.
The wonder of free market is in how it properly aligns humans’ interests to what maximizes productivity as a whole.
That’s what a Korean descent economic professor taught me in US. He talked about it passionately, and I listened to it with wide open eyes.
“Free market is meritocracy,” he said with a smile enthusiastically.
Did it? Yes, mostly. Not completely.
Think it this way, pure free market does not take care of everything. Security, is still, at least, till now, done by governments.
Free market simply change the way we acquire success and prestige. Before the greatest among us are those who can kill others.
Now, the greatest among us are those providing the best service to the most customers.
Free markets also properly align humans’ interests to productivity. However, it doesn’t do so fully.
Say a person cannot work, at least temporarily. He can only eat, sleep, and wait till he’s death. What’s the most productive thing that person can do
I’d say, he can support free market, and postpone making kids until he’s rich.
Is that what the most profitable thing to do for him? Of course not. Under pure free market, that person would be better of voting for free welfare, and free drug prescriptions, and so on.
In non democratic countries, those people would probably find places waging Jihad against porn, prostitution, greed, and all the stuff envy bigots hate.
There are many choices we can do. One very reasonable ways, within democratic system, is to simply buy their votes.
How much a vote worth A vote can worth differently to different people. The neediest are willing to sell their vote for the cheapest price. You see why we should “help” the needy
It’s simply more profitable to do so.
That’s why we should give the needy. So we can buy their votes and motivate them to postpone making kids till they’re rich. Do this and poverty will be history.
Men want mainly two things in life. First money. Second, as many females as possible.
Women want mainly two things in life. First money. Second the best genes, measurable by wealth.
Now you know why males want money.
I support free market. Free market properly aligns humans’ interest to productivity. Free market maximizes productivity as a whole.
However, I am disappointed with the fact that many proponents of free market oppose free sex.
You know what? I’d rather tolerate some socialism in economy to buy votes from losers rather than tolerating opposition to free sex.
Because restrictions on free sex, currently, will cause more market distortion, inefficiency, and poverty way more than restrictions of free trades.
Men want mainly two things in life. First money. Second, as many females as possible.
However, those men want the two things differently. How much money a man is willing to lose, to get one additional women, for example?
Of course, it’s different.
A rich male is willing to lose millions of dollars for a big harem. A poor male would be happy to go to prostitute once a month if he can get say, $100,000 per year. A homosexual wouldn’t spend a cent for a woman.
Some women insist that they must get Brad Pitt. Some women love to be gang banged by hundreds of males.
Some women are moms. Others prefer to be sluts aiming for quantity like males. Somewhere between, we got whores.
The way we evolve is when we’re not at war, we’re in a race. The reason why so many support deviations from meritocracy is to get rid superior competitors.
Imagine if all women pick Brad Pitt and the rest of us to simply protect them.
Imagine if sexes are really free and ghetto studs just breed and breed and breed expecting the rest of us to pay all the bills?
Obviously most of the other males will simply not agree with it. Rather than defending those leeches from other countries, the other males would join the other countries to bring them down.
However, prohibiting everything else but life long monogamous marriage is like pure communism in sexuality.
We need to properly align our interests to some common goals, like prosperity and security. However, we’ll more efficiently motivate people to that common goal by addressing the want and need of different people.
Nothing does that better than the market and other market like mechanism.
What about paying soldiers hire to encourage protection. What about paying dividend to all citizens and taxing kids.
That way those who value opportunities to make kids more, like billionaires, can just pay but make more kids.
Those who value such opportunities lowly, like the welfare parasites, can postpone making kids, get more money, go to prostitutes, and still vote for free market to increase their dividends.
What about if we tax wealth and kids rather than income so not to discourage people from earning income?
At the end, no people will be so poor they barely live. Poverty will be gone. Still, people will have even more intensive to be rich.
I saw with my own eyes how Benny cured many people on the stage. I saw the crippled walk. I saw the deaf hear and I saw the blind see.
All these can be explained by hypnosis. For example, if a person believes that he can walk, that’ll activate neural muscles in his brain that have never been activated before.
Some positive-thinking cancer patients, seeing all the “miracles” might think positively. His brain will release endorphins and turn off the pain. Heck, even the way he thinks may interfere with the way his cells work and cure the cancer.
The patients do not want to embarrass Benny. So all patients have the subconscious intensive to do their best to look cured. Many of the cured diseases were probably not as bad as it really were.
Also I didn’t see diseases that cannot be cured by positive thinking.
I didn’t see those who do not have legs grow legs. I also saw some people that weren’t cured. I guess their diseases were so bad that not even hypnosis could fix it.
All those restrictions wouldn’t happen if God were the real source. Or is it? Who knows if God just demands more faith for more complicated “divine intervention”?
Many scientists and skeptics simply say that all these are hypnosis. So let’s get the hell out of here. There is nothing to see.
I would disagree with those overtly skeptic opinion. There are plenty to see whatever the explanation might be.
While the miracles may not really be such depending on your definition of miracles, Benny is someone really worth seeing. Hypnosis or God (the latter is also a possibility) for no matter what I saw many lives improved.
If it were hypnosis, then it’ll be evidence on how positive thinking can alter your life for the better. Then we’ll probably have hypno-therapists healing stroke patient with hypnosis.
So there are plenty to see folks. By seeing, we can learn some ways to improve our lives by pushing the boundary of what we think is possible.
The way religious people think makes God look like He exists even if he doesn’t. However, the way scientists think makes God look like he doesn’t exist even if he does.
If God really exists and we can cure patients by believing in Him, then the phenomenon will happen regularly. After something happens regularly, the scientific community will simply classify the miracle as a natural event and put some banal words like “hypnosis” to explain it.
After all, natural phenomena can simply be God’s answering machine at work.
Isn’t our very existence a miracle? Millions of DNA codes fine-tuned to make us. It becomes so natural that scientists simply put that as natural phenomena.
As a businessman, I care little whether something positive happens because of evolution, hypnosis, suggestion, or God. Whatever it is, I believe that it’s something amazing to admire, ponder, learn, examine, and mass-produced.
What is marginal economy?
Think it this way, which do you need more, gold or water?
Of course you need water more.
Which one will you pay more money for? One kilogram of gold or one kilogram of water? Of course, gold.
That’s because in economy, only the marginal matters. What does that mean?
Water is precious.
However, the value of water is the value of that least useful water that you still use anyway.
You use water to drink, you use water to take a shower, you use water to water your plants, then you use water to wash your car.
Obviously, the water that you drink is much more useful than the water that you use to wash your car. However, the value of water is the value of that least useful water.
Why is it so?
That’s because you’re trying to maximize your profit. Of course, you use your water for what’s the most useful first.
Yes, but why is the value of water so low?
Say the value of water is higher than that. Say it is $5 per gallon. The satisfaction you’ll get from washing your car is $1 per gallon. Then you simply don’t wash your car.
Say the value is lower than that. The satisfaction of washing your car is $1 per gallon. However, water is so abundant that its cost is only $0.50. Then you’ll use water for stuffs that give even less satisfaction, such as washing your house.
In fact, water can be so abundant that the price is negative. A negative price means that you’re willing to spend money to get rid that water. Such is the case during a flood.
In which case, you’ll actually spend money to get rid of water, such as buying water pumps. That’s what happened to one of my grandmas because her house is often flooded.
What’s the moral of the story? Be rare. When you’re rare, you’re valuable. When you’re not rare, you’re worthless.
Humans maximize their profit.
That’s the first and, within reasonably deadly accuracy, the only thing you need to know about humans.
“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interests.” Winston Churchil
So does equal share for everyone work? What about giving to those who need? What about from each according to his capability and to each according to his need?
Guess what, free market; tend to take care of it. A small deviation from free market, called democracy, will take care of it too.
The way we really redistribute wealth is, in a way proportional to ones’ bargaining power.
The most obvious example of this is the correlation between monogamous norm and democracy.
One man one vote soon leads to one man one wife. Maybe most of you never noticed this. However, monogamy only becomes the norm since the Greek.
The justification may go from the east to the west. People will tell stories out of this word in spiritual and religious realms to justify the opinion.
However, what’s really going on is that.
Riddles after riddles. Perhaps there is a key to that riddle. Selfish interests.
Monogamy is a sexual socialism that ration females in equal share to everyone manner. Nothing more.
Humans maximize profit. If we want our countries to prosper, we need to reward those who make our countries prosper more than those who do not.
However, equal share for everyone, giving to those who need, and all those stuffs have a case too, in other areas.
The needy are willing to sell their vote at cheaper price. Hence, it’s very lucrative to “help the needy.”
Some wealth, like natural resources, can only be redistributed, hence it make sense to distribute profits from such extra wealth in equal share for everyone.
What about from those according to their capability and to each according to his need? Well, the market will tend to take care of it. The capable people get paid the most when they do what they are capable. People are also willing to pay more for what they need.
Libertarians need more vote. Perhaps, if we’re less stingy and more flexible in some areas, we can push the world to other areas we prefer better.
The more reward for those who do it in case it work. The more reason there is to try it.