Monthly Archives: December 2012

Let’s revamp Calendars & Time!

So, I was just sitting around thinking… cause, hell, why not right? And the way we keep track of dates and time is pretty stupid isn’t it? Here are the seasons for instance:

Spring = March 21
Summer = June 21
Fall = September 23
Winter = December 21

How arbitrary is that? And you know I think you’d be hardpressed to find 10 people that actually know when each of the four seasons begins. The only one I know off the top of my head is the winter solstice, and that’s only because the Mayan calendar conspiracy nonsense. But hey, ending a calendar year at the winter solstice makes a lot more sense than a random 10 days after it.

Right, well, I went and did the math and here’s the result:
Tiff Calendar

Basically what you need is to figure out the amount of days within each season and divide those equally into months, and you’ll have to account for a leap year somewhere in there too since the mean tropical year (solar days) is 365.2422 while the veneral equinox year is 365.2424 days and they don’t play nicely together.

The idea is that rather than starting the year in the middle of the winter in January, it would make more sense to start it at the beginning of Spring, and end in Winter. That’s how a year feels like it progresses, yes? It begins in Spring then reaches its conclusion in Winter. Further, the months themselves would line up with the seasons so that every 3 months starts the next season exactly on the start of the month rather than some arbitrary dates thrown in the middle of various months. To be technical, we would be lining our calendars up with the Earth’s two celestial Solstices and Equinoxes.

The only important thing is that the seasons from Spring to Winter should have the following days: 92, 94, 89, and 90/91. How you divide each of those up isn’t terribly important. In fact, to be perfectly honest you could even go so far as to eliminate the 12 month calendar all together and instead go for a 4 season calendar with the aforementioned days included respectively. “The 87th day of Spring,” “The 17th day of Fall,” and so forth. Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense too.

So now that we got the new months out of the way – which by the way, you could call whatever the heck you want, now we’re going to move on to the days themselves.

Let’s say you wake up and the sun’s just coming up. But you don’t know what season it is. Without looking anywhere, do you know what time it is? Probably not. The same could probably be said about the time that it gets dark. It’s just an arbitrary time when it happens, and it changes roughly by a few minutes daily throughout the month. By about 2 or 3 minutes a day or so, vaguely depending on the month and where you live. But 7AM in the Summer certainly doesn’t look like 7AM in the Winter. So let’s fix that.

What would be more obvious than dividing the day into two periods: Light, and Dark. Light begins when, well… when the light begins! And Dark? Yeah, that’s it. You’re already catching on – right when it starts to get dark.

So let’s go back to that scenario. With this type of time scheme, if you wake up and don’t know what season it is but you watch the sun come up then you know it’s 0:00 Light. Convenient, eh?

Time per regions differs more literally than is adjusted via our timezones, so we’ll need to make a few more timezones to get this right. And overall, we can’t adjust for the exact minute that the light comes up or goes down because that would just be a synchronization nightmare. So, we’ll have to round to the nearest accurate hour.

That brings us to DST corrections. We’d need some of those too. Every month would be most accurate, but every 2-3 months or so would likely suffice. It doesn’t really matter which one, just some form or another of daylight time correction would need to be in place to account for the minute discrepancies not accounted within the day measurements for ease of synchronization.

So what do you think? It’d be pretty cool, huh? We’d need to make some new clocks and calendars of course, but overall I think it’d make a lot more sense.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Communism & Socialism

I was thinking about it, and why are Communism and Socialism bad?

I don’t know about other “Western” countries, but the US tends to view the two things in a very negative light. Communist even being a derogatory term, no doubt stemming from the Cold War where it likely meant something akin to traitor.

But what’s really so bad about it? We tend to crusade for Democracy, but Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with Communism or Socialism. It’s Capitalism which is the difference, and even a Capitalist state needs some form of socialism. Medicare, or universal healthcare as most wealthy nations have it, is a form of Socialism. It’s a very critical part of society, and it’s Socialism. In fact, so is Welfare. Actually, I think they’re moreso part of Communism than Socialism, albeit Communism is Socialism just taken a step further is it not?

So what’s so bad about Socialism and Communism, really?

From what I understand, the distinctions are: From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).

People say, well, it just leads to the oppression of civil rights. Why do the governed get no say? Why would Democratic Communism not work? Remember: Democracy is a system of government, Communism & Socialism are economic policies – it just so happens that most Communist states end up ran by Dictators. I think that most people forget this.

I think a limited Communist state would work. A Democratic (or rather Geniocratic, as I’d prefer it) government, and a Capitalistic free market for the majority of the economy. Then, the top x% that make more than $y, that money would instead go back into the system and be dispersed among the rest or used for the Socialist/Communist programs such as welfare, healthcare, and education.

For instance, that whole “we are the 99%” movement for the redistribution of wealth of those with the top 1% of wealth that made surplus of $506,000 annually – because who needs more than that, really?

We have executives making $XXm+ a year, atheletes making $XXXm+ a year, celebrities and music artists making $Xm+ a year… these are clearly not the most important members of society, but rather just the top end of consumption. But the problem with a pure capitalistic state, in my opinion, is that without caps on wealth then the wealth of a nation just stagnates in the coffers of a small percentage of the wealthy while the rest of the nation state suffers.

So what I’d do is say… if your income is more than x% than the average annual income then any excess wealth will then be redistributed back into the population, in large part going to fund socialist programs (healthcare, welfare, education), but the remainder redistributed.

It could be done through taxes, where the wealthy get a very severe tax beyond a certain income, and the redistribution is done for others via a tax credit in a proportional equal amount depending on their reported income after the socialist programs.

It would be, basically, a more extreme version of our current system… just with caps and limiting of economic loopholes. I mean if you made $500,000 annually, I don’t think anyone would be able to say you were bad off… but you wouldn’t be so far above the rest of the population that you controlled a majority stake in the entire economy.

What do you think? I mean I’m not an economist, but it sounds good to me.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On God & Religion

The problem with god is that it’s often given a god of the gaps argument and is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

If both you and a team of physicists agree that something cannot be explained so then they go ahead and agree “Well, okay. You’re right. It must be god.” Then what happens is in 10 years when it can be proved, then they have they have to go back and say that it wasn’t. And in this way, god is simply an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. We see it all the time. There’s so many examples that could be listed that were once attributed to god that we fully understand now. It’s just a god of the gaps argument, and it’s sad really.

I’m Agnostic, I suppose, and I think one of the biggest problems with people labeling themselves Atheists is that they’re not really Atheists but rather they’re Agnostic. An Atheist just purely beyond a shadow of a doubt disbelieves the possibility of any god or gods, the opposite of a Theist who absolutely believes in the existence of a god or gods. Agnosticism just says that claims of the existence of a god or gods is unknown and as far as can presently be judged, unknowable.

In respect, an Agnostic person if given definitive proof that a god either does or doesn’t exist would accept it. It is the logical course. A Theist or Atheist, if given the opposite of their particular belief, would deny it.
(Edit: Actually, allow me to redact this statement. As a commenter pointed out, this isn’t necessarily correct. Thanks for pointing that out!)

So here’s the deal: Religion is just a system of oppression.

Religion was originally formed to explain phenomena that primitive man could not explain otherwise (god of the gaps). The flaw in most religions is that said explained things are largely later disproved with the advance of science, and are therefore inherently flawed. We don’t understand why the tides come in, so it must be god. No, sorry, it’s the moon. I mean, these things can go on and on ad infinitum.

The problem is, that religions evolved beyond simply answering phenomena but became useful as oppressive tools of control by a few powerful elite. Maybe your population will rob and steal no matter the manpower you have in place and the threat of a flogging or chopping their arm off may not deter them, but you tell them that if they do it that even if nobody sees them that a god sees them and they will suffer in an everlasting pit of pain and suffering for all eternity when they die – well, if they believe that shit… then your crime rate drops. Further, if you convince your people that if they sacrifice themselves for your religious cause then they get 72 beautiful virgins to service them when they die, then well hell… people are lining up to die for you.

Problem is, these are just tools for control. They exist to exert control over society. Laws are a strong tool, but religious belief can act as a further deterrent against crime or assist in the control and oppression of a population.

All in all, maybe at one point in time religion wasn’t all that bad… but since the introduction of modern sciences, religion is a very bad thing. It’s quite simply no longer necessary at this point. Even if we can’t understand something we have the scientific knowledge that we can probably figure it out eventually. We are no longer primitive, we don’t have to look to gods for explanations. And with modern civilized societies with our laws and governance, we don’t need that second system of control. I’m sure powerful men enjoy it, but it does not benefit society. It benefits powerful men.

So all in all, religion is bullshit.

“Overt control… always has a finite life, because in the end there will be a challenge and rebellion against it. Covert control… can go on forever, because you don’t rebel against something you don’t know exists. A person who thinks he is free will not complain that he is not.” -David Icke

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My Political & World View: Expanded

Many of you following my blog may have seen My Political & World View – if you haven’t yet, please go ahead and do so before continuing on. This post will be covering what I really meant, and expanding a bit on that with proper explanations in my own manner of speech and rhetoric.

Now: What I first want to point out is that if you hadn’t noticed it after reading my original blog on this, then I’ll say it now: That post was based wholly on a clip from an anime called Code Geass, and it is the speech of the Emperor Charles of the Holy Britannian Empire. He’s a hard right Social Darwinist. Following that line of thought, I realize I may have come off as a Fascist somewhat akin to Hitler, or Mussolini. This, is sadly a bad representation of my views due to the shock value of the political propaganda itself. While my views aren’t inherently different, they are in context, a fair shake apart.

With that said, let us begin. I will start out by outlining my Political & World View into two major categories, and I will expand on those along with my reasoning thereof.

1. Eugenics
2. Geniocracy

1a. I’m going to start us off with a quote from the brilliant inventor and one of the wisest minds of our current time, Nikola Tesla:

“The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct. Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.”

Nikola Tesla was a brilliant man, and he was right – to a point, but probably not for the reasons you think. So first of all, just what exactly is “eugenics” you may ask? Some of you may genuinely not know. So let’s start out with a definition:

eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks]
noun, ( used with a singular verb )
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

What we’re looking at here is basically an expansion on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Why do we evolve? How do we evolve? Why do we evolve in certain ways? In nature desirable traits are passed on, and undesirable traits are not. The undesirable traits are not passed on because the members of those species with said traits do not breed. If you do not breed you do not pass on your traits. Eugenics in a nutshell.

The inherent problem with Darwinism with the human species is that we are artificially and unnaturally breaking this cycle. As it stands now, some of the stupidest motherfucking assholes are the majority of the ones reproducing. And they’re good at it. They make a meteric fuckton of babies. Why? How did this happen? Does this mean that stupidity rather than being an evolutionary weakness is rather the desirable trait established by natural selection? Well, possibly. But that’s because of how we’ve allowed ourselves to be governed over the past several thousand years: A few powerful individuals are in control, while the rest of the sheepish masses follow. This has been the basic formula for the human social engine for quite some time now. But is that where we really want to take our species? A few intelligent… no, that’s wrong to say. The ones with power may not inherently even be intelligent or charismatic.

About an hour after this point I hit ctrl+z and subsequently lost a good hour’s worth of writing. I’m rather upset about that, mind you, and I’m not entirely sure where I went with this.

I went on to expand further on how this happened, and religion, and how religion was initially to explain seemingly supernatural phenomena that primitive man could not understand but then went on to be used as a control tool for controlling populations, and how this blog post will focus on negative eugenics rather than positive eugenics as positive eugenics would be unnecessary and blah blah, am I fucking pissed that I lost all of this or what…

1b. Now, unfortunately regardless of what you or I think on the matter, this will be necessary in about a century or two – and not for the reasons you or I would like for it to be. You see, our current growth rate along with our limited resources is unsustainable. This is not yet apparent, but it will be. Further, eventually as we work to combat aging and the effects of aging we will eventually have to choose between either a) having lots of kids, or b) longer lives. Given that A will be already in dire need of action, it will leave only the course of option B. Of course, things like space colonization and so forth are possibilities, but are inconvenient and unrealistic. It’s just like one of the major underlying issues with the American health system. It treats the symptom and not the cause.

These are the problems that we will face:

  • Inadequate fresh water for drinking, as well as sewage treatment.
  • Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels.
  • Increased levels of pollution.
  • Deforestation and loss of ecosystems that sustain the global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance.
  • Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming.
  • Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification.
  • Mass extinctions from reduced habitat of local populations due to human expansion.
  • High infant and child mortality.
  • Intensive factory farming.
  • Increased chance of epidemics and pandemics.
  • Starvation, malnutrition, ill health, and diet-deficiency diseases. Famine.
  • Low level of capital formation.
  • Low life expectancy.
  • Unhygienic living conditions.
  • Elevated crime rate.
  • Conflict over scarce resources and crowding.
  • Less personal freedom and more restrictive laws.

Any rate of growth is unsustainable in the long term, so we must stabilize population soon for the good of future generations. So it’s a problem for the future, right? We’re not there yet, right? Well, actually… 7 billion people, which is the current projected human population, may well be too many already. Research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American). The world population is expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050. People are also living longer. At present there’s a ratio of about 5 births for every 2 deaths. Here’s the current growth trend:

Unfortunately, these past few centuries has seen a massive explosion in population, and that’s not good.

If the human race is to have an arbitrarily long future on this planet, then we must establish a society which is essentially static in nature. This is not open to debate…it is a simple mathematical fact. So while it’s all well and good and all to put ourselves in a moral position where we want to protect and support all life, unfortunately it’s a mathematical impossibility. If you want to call me insane, fine. But I get to call you fucking stupid.

So what do we need to do? Well, first of all… our population is already too high for sustainability. But… We need to have a higher death rate than a birth rate. In other words, we need to drop our population down to about 2 billion, or a bit less, and then sustain those numbers through the ratio of births and deaths. I’m not sponsoring slaughtering and genocide, I’m suggesting eugenics.

First we make it so that people with undesirable physical traits (as well as undesirable mental disorders) are sterilized. This won’t be popular, but it’s better for our species from an evolutionary perspective. And keep in mind, this isn’t murder – it’s a method of prevention and no more murder than a condom is. Next, we need to regulate who can actually parent children. Couples will need to go through parent licensing to be able to have a child. The new children that are born will be important, and we need to make sure they have good homes. I wouldn’t even really be against positive eugenics done artificially outside a womb and leaving the population sterilized that way we could breed desirable traits like intelligence. Overall, the most important thing though is population sustainability. We need to be under 2 billion and essentially static. The longer our lives are, the lower our birth rate needs to be. I’ll leave this at that for the time being.

2. Geniocracy. So what the hell is Geniocracy? The basic jist of it is that rather than an election by popularity contest, instead we would be electing geniuses of the population – thus the name. It ascribes basically to two main things: 1) To run for office you would need a certain IQ, and 2) to vote in elections you would need a certain IQ (albeit lower than the ones running). We wouldn’t just use IQ for the ones running, since Hitler could have been a genius for instance (albeit he was an idiot, though I digress). We’d also need some tests for some other things as well… But the basic premise is that we get the people in office who would be best for society, and we only let those capable of making good informed decisions and capable of proper logic and reason deciding this for society. Stupid people are all well and good, but they shouldn’t be deciding the fate of our species. They can just go sit in the corner over there. The whole thing was proposed by this alien cult leader guy named Rael who’s kinda batshit crazy, but the idea itself is nonetheless pretty sound.

I’ll now take it further:

3. Abolition of Religion

3. If you read one of my earlier blogs you know that Fundamentalism is directly linked to low IQ. While we can eliminate low IQ through eugenics, it also helps to not indoctrinate our kids. Religion was initially designed to explain seemingly supernatural things primitive man could not understand. But we can explain these things now, we no longer need to look up to some magical man in the sky. Sure, there are some things we can’t understand but can we really say that if you don’t understand something and a community of physicists don’t understand it then it must be god? If that’s the case then we could go ahead and list all the things in the past that physicists at the time didn’t understand, and say “yeah, that must be god” then come back 10 years later and say “well… I guess maybe it’s not.” If that’s how you want to invoke your “god” then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. It’s a bit pathetic, really, but that’s what it comes down to. It’s just a god of the gaps argument, and it’s been around forever. It’s stupid and if you believe it you’re a moron.

Now I’m not going to bother explaining further why religion is a bad thing. There are a lot of brilliant Atheist or Agnostics far more eloquent than I that have gone on at length regarding this, and I’ll just leave that up to them.

So with that said, this is the basic jist of my political agenda. It’s not so much about “aw shit, she’s crazy!” but moreso about the continuation of the human species in some form of meaningful way. We can’t do it how we are now, and it’s a problem. People are going to realize it’s a problem, and even if I don’t do anything personally and nobody listens to me, eventually something is going to have to be done or we’re done.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

What to tell your child about Santa?

Well, I was thinking about this in the shower awhile back, and… Having an intelligent child, of course my child will question the existence of Santa, especially when their friends start to tell them he’s fake. So, what will I do? First, I’ll apply to their logical minds, and then I’ll spin them a colorful believable tale (in the mind of a child, of course).

Child: Mommy, does Santa really exist? One of my friends told me he wasn’t real.

Come here, let me tell you a little secret.
Tell me, what have you been told about Santa?

(they tell you)

I see. Everything you have been told up until this point has been a lie. But I’m going to tell you the truth.
You’ll have to keep quiet about this, because not a lot of people know and if the wrong people find out… there’s no telling what will happen.

You see, Santa doesn’t actually visit every child in the world’s house to deliver presents on Christmas Eve. No, that would be logistically impossible, even if he did have some sort of magic to instantly teleport to each house. Once you factor in even at least 30 seconds to go down the chimney, reach into his bag and put out all of the presents, you have to think…

There are nearly 2 billion children in the world. So this means Santa would have to spend 30 seconds at 2 billion houses. That is 4 billion minutes in a single night. Do you know how long that is?

66,666,666 hours, which is 2,777,777 days, or 7,610 years. Even if Santa only spent 15 seconds, or even only 5 seconds, it would still be thousands of years every single year, which makes it impossible.

Santa would have to freeze time, but there’s no way Santa would spend thousands of years every single year just to deliver presents to little children. Nobody is that nice, and as we know… time travel isn’t really possible. That’s just made up.

No. The truth is… Santa does really exist, but what everyone has told you has been a lie. You’ve just been told stories to deceive small children, but you’re smart. Don’t be deceived any longer.

You see, Santa does really live up at the North Pole, but he doesn’t visit houses on Christmas Eve. In truth, Santa has a massive mind controlling device that uses the earth’s magnetic field on both poles to control a massive mind controlling device that he uses each year to control every child’s parents every year to go out and buy them gifts.

Yes. I, too, have been victim of this. Even the Santa at the mall, all of them are just ordinary people that have been mind controlled by Santa Claus to go to the mall and gather the lists of presents that children want. Sometimes he will even control little people, or others, to pretend to be elves.

You see, the reason he does this is because Santa can’t read nor control the minds of children. So he must control these fake Santas to gather what their presents will be. He will also use the parents. In fact, it’s more convenient to use the child’s parents, as they will be the ones controlled to gather the gifts.

And you see, Santa himself does not have infinite resources nor a horde of elves slaving away for him. No, he has each parent use their own money to buy their children gifts. It’s ingenius, really.

The whole thing’s a big cover up so while kids are actually still young enough to do anything about it, they don’t even know about it. And most kids that do find out about it, well, they actually like the presents… so they don’t do anything.

Tagged , , , , , ,