Archive

Archive for January 22, 2010

Misanthropy: 02

January 22, 2010 7 comments

I have been thinking about writing this article for some time, but always thought my views on the subject were too dark (even by my standards).

So let me start with the stream of thinking that pushed me in this direction. Even as a kid I was unusually intelligent and perceptive, and quickly realized a basic problem about human beings. We, as a species, tend to use our cleverness to fulfill desires that have no rational basis.

My definition of rationality is not based on the works of dead men or dogma, but in a more fundamental concept: Does the action still retain positive value if seen from a detached viewpoint?

I feel that this concept is best explained with a few examples:

1. Women age more badly than men, their self worth is dependent on external validation and it is they who want to have kids, expensive lifestyles and money.

Would it hurt them to be be pleasant, always sexually available and willing with a guy who has signed away a lot of his income to them? But as you all know, women tend to ration sex, cheat, nag, conspire and generally make the man’s life miserable. Ironically, if every woman enthusiastically cleaned the pipes of her guy twice a day, he would do almost everything for her without asking. Think about it, women would prefer to spend a few hours conjuring up new ways to harass their man, when enthusiastic sex for an hour (and not stabbing him in the back) would get her so much more.

2. Companies and businesses try to cut cost, boost paper profits and goose share prices by firing employees, often with specialized training. It converts consumers into non-consumers, and causes further job less that then causes a deflationary spiral. It kills the goose that used to lay the proverbial golden egg.

In a world of high productivity, it makes sense to create a minimum living standard with enough discretionary income to support jobs that have still not been lost. But do we do that? Why not? Quoting books by dead or dying white men who have been anointed by universities does not cut it. What is so wrong with giving people money to spend, as long they buy stuff/services to keep others employed. It cuts motivation for most normal crime.

3. We have criminalized most drug use. We cheer on “law enforcement” as they incarcerate people who had no other way to put food on their table or lead a half-decent human existence. What purpose does it serve? Who benefits? Who pays?

Does it really matter if your next door neighbor gets high on opioids? Have you ever seen a person do anything other than stare at the ceiling when they are high on opioids? I have seen drunk people punch each other. What about cocaine? Who is going to pay for incarcerating these people? Who is going to pay for the law enforcement system and pensions? What about the lives destroyed by bad laws? So why do you support it?

4. Everyone likes to defend bankers, lawyers, MBAs, doctors, managers etc. They have high ‘IQ’.. you know (sarcasm)

What do they really contribute? or are they net parasites whose useful roles could be done for less without the ‘overhead’. These people screw, abuse, loot and mock you.. and you defend them as the product of a meritocracy and invent rationales for their utility (for free).

5. Parents teach the value of ‘independence’ to their kids, and expect them to earn a living as quickly as they can. Find a job, loser! Don’t mooch off me..

How can those parents also expect their kids to treat them with any dignity or humanity in their old age. I cannot see the logic of getting something that you never gave. Can you? Why should the kids or their generation pay for their parents? Let them rot..

6. Most people spend their lives trying to piss on the person below them, rather than moving up themselves. How does that work? Does it work?

You can spend twenty years of your life lording over your subordinates, but it won’t save your job from a large layoff. You see, the people you work for are the ones who will screw you over. Forget your pension, investments and other BS, save a miracle most of you will die broke. Investing for your retirement, suckers! It does not help that those whom you abused will also piss on you when you are down for good.

7. Do you like treating immigrants and people in non-white countries as subhuman. Good for you.. keep it up.

So who is going to keep on consuming after your demographic peak? How are the increased sales to goose up your stock investments going to occur? Who is going to buy your stocks, bonds, houses etc? What good is an investment if you cannot cash it in? Have you forgotten the role personal consumption plays in the economy? Have you ever looked at the basic assumption behind any investment?

Do you think poorly treated immigrants and their kids are going to play nice with you (in your old age). Think they will play nice and cooperate with your kids? Why would they do that? You have demonstrated bad faith over decades. Think they have short memories? Think again..

Remember this quote..

Agent Smith: Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.

Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 01

January 22, 2010 8 comments

In this post I am asking a simple question:

Is it worth playing nice with a woman, ever?

Note that ‘nice’ is used in the context of any significant altruistic behavior, as opposed to being a doormat. Essentially, is it ever worth treating women in a non-adversarial manner?

Let us start by analyzing the usual arguments for playing nice with woman. The most common arguments range involve excessive anger hurting oneself. Anger can hurt you only if you keep it bottled inside you, or turn it against yourself. Chanelling anger away from you in an objective manner has no ill effects, for you. Others may not enjoy it, but guess what- who cares?

Another argument involves the idea that women interpret anger as being a ‘loser’. My answer to that is- who cares? Women always behave in an adversarial manner, when their interests are concerned. It certainly helps that such adversarialism is not linked to objectivity. Even if you were the most objective and altruistic human being, some woman could find a reason to call you a loser. My counterquestion is: does it matter what a woman thinks about you?

There seems to be a general zeitgeist that women have an important role in weeding out bad seed for reproduction. My answer is- who cares? Prior to the post-industrial age raising kids well was a viable retirement plan. However the current social mores and possibilities ensure that kids can and will dump your ass, unless you are lucky. Any major plan that depends on luck is not worth it. Think about it, if kids are an investment what is the return in the current scenario?

The only major reason for putting up with a woman, namely kids, is no longer a reliable retirement option.

The other argument about having kids involves the concept of “leaving a legacy”. My counterpoint is: how is that useful for you? Can your legacy do anything worthwhile for you? In any case, humans will become extinct if we remain a one planet, purely biological species. Every species that ever lived on this planet is doomed for extinction, trilobites were around for over 300 million years, dinosaurs and large marine reptiles dominated the world for over 100 million years. Where are they now? What about Homo erectus (almost a million years), Homo neanderthalensis (at least 500,000 years)? They are all DEAD!

We can find fossilized turds (coprolites) of such animals far more easily than their skeletal remains. You see, their biggest legacy is fossilized turds.

Another reason for being altruistic to women is that they eventually learn the error of their ways. Two words- who cares? Even if they really saw the error of their ways,do you want a 35 year old cum rag who would not have given you a chance when she had something to offer? What are the chances that seeing the error of her ways is linked to her biological clock and rapidly aging body? If she made a decision , she should take the consequences (good and bad).

Linked to this notion is the concept of women taking care of you. While this is partially true in non-western cultures, it is no longer valid in western cultures. You will be disappointed if you think that the current generation of young women will grow into caring old women. Infact,that concept was never really true for western women for over the last hundred years. Cultures with caring old women have something that the west lacks, namely mechanisms to handle adversarialism. The west celebrates adversarialism, but does not want its long term fruits.

If you think about it, “game” is essentially male adversarialism in response to female adversarialism.

Any bets on where this will end? Never mind.. Societies that cannot handle adversaliasm may have bursts of great creativity and progress, but they won’t be around to enjoy its fruits.

Adversaliasm cannot be eliminated, merely controlled and chanelled towards less destructive ends.

It is something humans as a species will have to ultimately grow out of, if we are to survive over any significant period of time. But to tell you the truth, I don’t care. Unless, I have a positive incentive to care, you will reap what you sow.

A word of advice: If you justify your behavior based on that of wolves, hyenas, lions, apes, primitive tribes and long dead empires or eras don’t expect to live any better.

Zero sum based behavior has its consequences. Increasing complexity requires increased altruism, but you will learn that the hard way. BTW if you think we can “go back”, you will be unpleasantly surprised.

I am going to explore another heretical idea in my next post, namely that sociopathic behavior is the default setting for human beings. The next post in this series is now up: Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 02