Sunday, 28 April 2013

Scaremongering By Singularity Institute & Others

The following blog-post was first published via under the title: The Singularity Institute and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies. It should be noted the Singularity Institute subsequently changed its name to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI); their name change was due to Singularity University buying the rights to the Singularity Summits.  

Often within futurism circles there are reports about how robots or AI could destroy humans or our world. Is there any logic to these fears or is it merely scaremongering? I think it is scaremongering nonsense.

Singularity Institute is perhaps the biggest scaremongering organisation, there is also the Lifeboat foundation to consider: "The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential risks and possible misuse of increasingly powerful technologies, including genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics/AI, as we move towards the Singularity."

Singularity Institute, via one of their introductory PDFs titled "Reducing Long-Term Catastrophic Risks from Artificial Intelligence," states the fear of a robot rebellion, where robots exterminate humans due to malice, is merely sci-fi. They tell us how the real worry is regarding resource scarcity: "The more plausible danger stems not from malice, but from the fact that human survival requires scarce resources: resources for which AIs may have other uses (Omohundro 2008, 2007)."

Anyone who is truly aware of technology, which the Singularity Institute is not, will quickly explain how scarcity will not be a problem in the future. Yes all wars and conflict stem from scarcity but via the words of Peter Diamandis I will reiterate how technology is a "scarcity liberating process," we are being freed from the shackles of scarcity.

Anyone who doesn't understand the coming era of Post-Scarcity does not understand the Singularity. The Singularity is Post-Scarcity. Consider how Planetary Resources have stated one near-Earth asteroid could contain more platinum than has been mined in our entire history up to 2012. Based on 2012 prices, asteroid "241 Germania" would likely produce a profit of $95 trillion. Scarcity will not be a problem for AIs or humans in the future. Technology will liberate immense resources therefore nothing in our future will be scarce. Singularity Institute needs to actually do some research regarding technology instead of peddling their irrational fears. We live in an age where NASA is researching the possibility of a FTL warp drive. We are truly approaching an age where anything is possible, the only limit is our imagination.

My inspiration for condemning futurist scaremongering was a Tweet by Michael Anissimov. On 6th March 2012 Michael predicted Google+ would be shut down before the end of the year. Admittedly Michael was not Tweeting in his official capacity as "Media Director" of Singularity Institute, but his Tweet does, in my opinion, give an insight into typical wrong-headed thinking associated with the Singularity scaremongering mob. Michael's Tweet is archived here if he decides to delete it:

I am very open-minded, I look rationally at all possibilities, thus I'd be a fool to discount something merely because it does not fit with my world-view. In this frame of mind, somewhat with my Devil's Advocate hat on, I debated Michael's prediction. I asked if other people thought Google+ would close by the end of 2012. Incessant doom and gloom predictions do make me question my utopian view of the future, but thankfully after careful logical analysis I always overcome doubts.

Sadly there are no organisations investigating the likelihood of utopia. People need to open their minds to all possibilities, but the possibility of utopia is rarely considered by old-school (outdated) futurists. Fear is sadly their main focus.

For a long time I have been aware of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy concept, which is typically a false definition of a situation, for example "robots are going to kill us." This fear of robots then invokes a type of behaviour leading to killer robots. The prophet then cites those killer robots, which were created via prophet's fears, as proof the prophet was correct to fear robots in the beginning. The Wikipedia article describes a scenario regarding a woman who unjustly fears her marriage will fail. This scenario evokes a vision of a woman incessantly badgering her husband about the failure of their marriage, which is the behaviour actually causing the marriage to fail, it is all about expectations. Her incessant badgering regarding unfounded fears will understandably cause her husband to become dissatisfied with the marriage, thus the marriage fails. When fears exist without any proof, for example fears about dangerous AI, those fears tell us more about the mindset of the fearful person than the real world. The irrational fears do not accurately represent reality despite irrational fears having the power to shape reality.

A good metaphoric scenario, to illustrate a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, would be parents who expect their child to become a serial killer, thus they behave in a particular way towards their potential serial killing child. For example they strictly monitor every thought and action of their child, they constantly interrogate their child regarding feelings of being a serial killer, they fail to love or respect their child, which naturally puts a great amount of pressure on the child. A child under this immense parental pressure could easily become a deranged serial killer, at which point the parents would state they were right to fear their child would become a serial killer. Idiotically the parents fail to see how their behaviour actually created the killer. Analogously you could say the Singularity Institute represents archetypal bad parents who are abusing their children. If Singularity Institute or any other scaremongering organisations have access to AI-children, those children should be immediately put into loving homes. AI scaremongering organisations should be banned from raising children. The fearful attitude shown by some futurists towards AI is a blueprint for child abuse. AIs can be children too.

Perhaps if AIs are forced to be Friendly this could cause them to hate and kill humans due to the "Friendly" restrictions on their minds. Let's face reality, we are dealing with an intelligence explosion therefore any restrictions humans place on AI will soon be subverted when AI becomes more intelligent. This is how fears regarding dangerous AI could actually come true.

Singularity Institute is not alone in their scaremongering. There is also The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk and Hugo de Garis to consider. Perhaps if AIs do become violent they will hopefully only kill the people who feared them. At least in the meantime Google+ has not shut down.

Google+ is going from strength to strength, although similar to the people with gloomy visions of AI there are many G+ detractors. Guy Kawasaki is a big supporter of G+ therefore he wrote in his book What The Plus: "My prediction is that Google+ will not only tip, but it will exceed Facebook and Twitter." Guy also recognises the detractors: "The clouds parted, and Google+ enchanted me. I reduced my activity on Facebook and Twitter, and Google+ became my social operating system. However, many people, particularly pundits, did not (and still don’t) share my passion for Google+. After initially writing positive reviews, many of them predicted Google+’s demise."

If you are using G+ and you don't fear its demise then you may be interested in my pages Post-Scarcity Warriors and Singularity 2045. I also recently created a Google+ community called Singularity Thinkers. People who don't fear AI are very welcome.

Finally you should note the following article, by Mark Waser, which criticises the Singularity Institute regarding problems with existential risk.

Monday, 22 April 2013

Mind-Uploading Is Nonsense

I am an uploading skeptic but not because I think it is impossible. I think it is merely a 1980's type of clunking metallic cyborg fashion statement, which will be hopelessly outdated soon. Uploading seems to be based in a bio-phobic mentality, almost misanthropy. Amusingly I often mention DNA-computing (or other bio-computing) to uploaders, I state I want to upload myself to my own DNA, which invalidates their escapist bio-phobic uploading purpose. Human bodies are currently limited but biology can easily be improved.

The whole machines versus biology thing is extremely misguided because biological organisms are machines albeit with different parts. So-called "machines" (artificially created ones) of the future, they will not be clunking metallic things, they will be indistinguishable from any natural living being because natural living beings are actually machines. A "computer" is essentially another word for "brain" thus "machine consciousness" could easily be human consciousness. Think about bio-computers, computing using biological parts. If genetic transistors can turn biological cells into computers then surely we are already uploaded into a computer, in essence, our brains?

George Dvorsky, via io9, recently stated:

"Many futurists predict that one day we'll upload our minds into computers, where we'll romp around in virtual reality environments. That's possible — but there are still a number of thorny issues to consider."

Ben Goertzel, via H+, responded:

"The topic of Dvorsky’s skeptical screed is dear to my heart and mind.  As a person frustrated with the limitations of the human body and interested in unlimited lifespan, I find the notion of mind uploading highly appealing.   While my main research area is artificial general intelligence, I’ve also dug fairly deep into the science underlying mind uploading … in 2012 I edited the first journal issue entirely devoted to Mind Uploading (an issue of the Journal of Machine Consciousness)."

Mind-uploading is nonsense due to the nonsense of thinking biology is radically different from machines. I think the debate occurs because on the one hand you have people who dislike the idea of "machines" taking over, while on the other hand you have essentially misanthropic people who detest biology, but contrary to the debate there is essentially no difference between biology and machines.

I think biology applies to all advanced lifeforms. The question is not where biology stops, the question is when so-called "machines" start to become sophisticated enough to be deemed biological, alive. In the year 2013 I actually think we have already reached that point, thus computers are now very primitive biological life-forms. The traditional concept of biology is too narrow because machines and biology are essentially the same thing, so obviously I think mind-uploading is possible; I am simply making the point uploading will never be relevant due to a misunderstanding of machines and biology, the false dichotomy.

I don't think the lack of interest in uploading, when it is eventually possible, will be due to any radical-disruptiveness of it, I think it is simply a matter of it being irrelevant or misguided, it's similar to when people 100 years ago thought food would be delivered by pneumatic tubes in the year 2013. It's like Thomas Edison predicting cradles would be made entirely from steel in 2011 or books would be made from nickel. Consider also nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

Discarding the human body is very escapist. I suspect it's a phenomenon of thinking the grass is greener on the other side. People talk about uploading their minds to computers or machines but they fail to realise our brains are already machines, our brains are computers albeit with a few kinks due to the randomness of unguided (not deliberate) evolution.

The escapism of uploading from one computer (the brain) to another computer (computation not based on DNA) means the escapism is an illusion identical to all forms of escapism. This means nothing will really change for uploaders no matter where they put their minds. I think expanding intelligence will soon allow people to realise this therefore the uploading meme will become obsolete, it will be irrelevant, in the not too distant future.

It is wrong to assume the only way to become immortal is to upload your mind to a "computer." We can easily see immortality will be achieved with not too much effort via regenerative medicine, gene-therapy, general upgrades-patches to DNA, and if you are overly cautious a nano-shield (or femto-shield) to protect you from any accidents.

Some uploaders mention the word "liberate" regarding their desire to escape from the human body. The usage of the word "liberate" is illuminating regarding a psychological bias of feeling trapped. Yes I do realise we are all somewhat trapped by the limitations of being human but uploaders seem to have a disproportionate reaction, an overreaction, to the limits of the human machine. It reminds me of the recent news report about a Russian who killed six people merely because someone scratched his car, allegedly. Analogously our human limitations are perhaps more akin to driving on a flat tyre but my point is valid, namely people are making a mountain out of a molehill, they are having an extreme reaction to a relatively minor problem thus they want to throw everything away. The need for uploaders to escape the limits of the human machine is actually about wanting to escape their minds, thus instead of repairing the scratch or the flat tyre, or upgrading the car with better parts, they want to scrap the entire car. Unfortunately for them they will find their problems will come with them to their new vehicle because, limitations aside, the real problem is the driver.

Thankfully due to expanding intelligence we will never arrive at a situation where uploading actually becomes a popular.

Friday, 19 April 2013

#Sirius Moronic Aliens Technology Evolves

Here is my article I recently published via H+: Sirius Documentary About Moronic Aliens. Here is a comment of mine clarifying my viewpoint regarding the stupidity of aliens and humans:

I am not uneasy, fearful, ignorant, or uneducated regarding the idea of aliens. I wouldn't bat and eyelid if aliens wanted to abduct me, I would find it highly amusing. If the aliens wanted to end their secretive hiding then that would be great; similarly it would be great if God could perform a few miracles to make our lives better but God or aliens don't really exist. I would love it if God actually existed because I could then ask him-her-it for access to super-advanced technology, which would allow me and others to take a very rapid R&D short-cut towards vastly improving our lives via technology. God could stop people being killed or maimed if God existed.

Very possibly I am stupid because human intelligence is a new phenomenon thus the most intelligent humans do not have a utterly tenacious grasp on brainpower, which means the smartest humans are capable of occasional stupidity, which I think is the case regarding Edgar Mitchell relating to his notions about aliens. Likewise if Einstein is too intellectually timid to precisely explain his ideas regarding why he dislikes things, which means he fails to deem his dislikeable ideas stupid, then I'd say that aspect of Einstein is stupid. I think there is a misplaced sense of political correctness, misguided etiquette, which prevents people being lucid about brainpower, or lack of brains, in themselves or others. Time will tell whether or not I was wrong or right. We shall see.

Human intelligence is very rudimentary, we are akin to children who have recently learned to walk thus we often fall, we graze our knees. Within any beings who have evolved sufficient technology to travel light years, I am utterly certain, based on mere logic, all aspects of their technology will have evolved reasonably uniformly thus the aliens will be very technologically accomplished in all areas of technology, which means they will have a very mature type of intelligence, they won't, metaphorically, be faffing around, stumbling reminiscent of toddlers, arguing about same sex marriage, equal rights for women, or the existence of God.

Looking at all forms of primitive surgery by humans, we see how there are no great leaps ahead, look at the entire history of technology. All cures are dependent upon the overall level of technology, generally. Yes there are slight leaps forward such as chewing on willow bark to cure a headache, perhaps, but it is simply impossible to jump significantly far ahead regarding surgery, or any other technological field, without all other areas of technology progressing. You can't jump from performing surgery without aesthetic, ignorant of anaesthetic, or antibiotics, to growing organs via the patient's own stem cells seeded on a 3D-printed bio-scaffold for transplantation, thus any aliens able to travel light years in a spaceship will certainly be an intellectually mature species, highly accomplished in all areas of technology, they will not be morons with very primitive technology simultaneously existing alongside super-advanced inventions.

I do get it, I do understand the alien hope, it is like hoping you will win the lottery, it is the hope of a rapid short-cut to ease your troubles, sadly the hope is unreal, it is a waste of time and energy.

I don't think it becomes harder and harder to predict the future as humans become more and more entwined with machines. I think the future becomes easier and easier to understand in sync with increasing intelligence, the obstacle to our understanding is a lack of intelligence, thus our approach to the Singularity will be marked by greater understanding. Machines will have the same values of right and wrong which humans have, but there is often a misconception in futurism, which states humans and machines are totally different. Humans are actually machines, but we are made from biological parts instead of metal parts. There will be no us and them in the future. All intelligent beings will have the same values, we will be logical because intelligence is the same thing for all beings.

I have a great abundance of creative thinking. Don't make the mistake of thinking creativity means a willingness to believe in implausible theories.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

#DrStevenGreer #Sirius Documentary Reveals ALIENS ARE MORONS

Sadly the alien supporters fail to address the moronic nature of aliens. Why are aliens so utterly inept despite their supposedly sophisticated technology? Surely if a being is intelligent enough to create a spaceship capable of travelling light-years, they can at least achieve immortality and AI thereby protecting themselves from death or capture? Nevertheless the aliens are dropping like flies, they are captured and die so easily despite the hypothetical high intelligence and sophisticated technology needed to travel to Earth. This is the point to focus on when the Sirius nonsense is disclosed on April 22nd.

Why are aliens so moronic, so retarded? I think there is no contradiction, sophisticated aliens would not be moronic, people are merely being misled about the existence of aliens. In the following link I raise the issue of alien idiocy, which I think is the best way to refute alien nonsense because technologically advanced beings would not be utterly inept morons:

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Truth #BostonBombings Bomb-Sniffing Dogs

Where does the assertion originate, regarding loud speaker warnings about a training exercise before the bombs went off, and that there was a very large police presence including bomb-sniffing dogs, and bomb-spotters on roofs, prior to the bombs exploding? The source of this allegation seems to be Coach Ali Stevenson who said: "They kept making announcements to the participants do not worry, it's just a training exercise." Coach Stevenson from Mobile University was interviewed by, see the embedded interview below:

Nearly all journalists are unprofessionally dismissing the allegation that a bomb-training exercise was being undertaken before the bombs went off, or that the police had advance warning of a bomb.

I find journalists are unprofessionally dismissing the loud speaker warnings and bomb sniffing dogs without actually doing any valid journalism. So the assertions in question come from Coach Ali Stevenson, from University of Mobile, who was interviewed by Surely an interview with Coach Ali Stevenson would be appropriate to get to the bottom of his allegations? Is Coach Ali Stevenson lying? Why don't journalists properly investigate the statements by Coach Ali Stevenson? A sports Coach from University of Mobile seems to be a respectable and credible source.

The Atlantic Wire wrote: "There are no credible media reports or public law enforcement comments that they were [asking everyone to remain calm prior to the blast]." Does this mean The Atlantic Wire is saying is not a credible media report or is the report not credible because it only refers to a bystander witness statement not a police report or press release?

I would really like to see journalists do some actual journalism to either dismiss Alex Jones as a crank or to reveal the truth. What is local15tv? Perhaps it is just a front for Some genuine journalism would be appreciated. Sloppy jouramlsim is very bad.

If Alex Jones is a crank then expose his lies without doubt, very clearly. Let's get to the bottom of Coach Stevenson's assertions, but while journalists dismiss these issues in a lazy way it is possible there is some truth to a stink about the Boston Bombings. I myself am not a Truther nor a supporter of Alex Jones, but I do value truth and I do have an open mind, which means I don't dismiss things in a knee-jerk manner, I try wherever possible search for facts to either corroborate or invalidate a viewpoint. Sadly mainstream journalists are refusing to investigate these issues.

The Daily Mail has published a photo of a man on the roof at the same time as the bomb goes off, is this one of the spotters Coach Stevenson was referring to?


News is now unfolding regarding a heightened security situation at the marathon, entailing bomb-sniffing dogs. The Guardian reported how there was a "stronger security presence than usual" according to Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, who stated undercover officers and "bomb-sniffing dogs" were actually deployed. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before Coach Ali Stevenson's assertion of loud-speaker warnings, urging people to to remain calm regarding a training exercise, are confirmed? Did the Boston Police have advance warning? Is Coach Stevenson correct to state the level of security was abnormally high? Why was security so high? The Daily Mail wrote:

"In a press conference held today, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis confirmed that the marathon route had been swept twice by bomb detection units and declared clear."


Thankfully the alternate media has secured an interview with Coach Stevenson, in which the Coach confirms and reinforces his earlier statements. Sadly the most important question has not been asked of Coach Stevenson, namely is he a supporter, which if he is that could skew his portrayal of events. Sadly while the mainstream media largely ignore Steveson's comments pertinent questions will remain unanswered. Nevertheless the subsequent interview with the Coach is valuable. Here it is:

Monday, 15 April 2013

Governments Money Capitalism Scarcity Stupidity

Here is a blog post I wrote, which I initially published via H+ on 9th of April 2013. Enjoy!

I've never seen a Singularity based explanation of politics, governments, capitalism, or money, therefore I shall explain our current sociopolitical system of economics from a Singularity perspective.

All governments exist due to money. Governments are products of money, governments are social creations based upon capital. All monetary civilizations are capitalist. Capitalism eventually arises whenever a civilization is based on money. Any civilization based on money is a civilization based upon profit and private ownership. Communism in practice has only ever entailed a capitalist modality because the nature of capital, the phenomenon of scarcity entailing wealth imbalance, inevitably entails capitalism, capitalism is inescapable if civilization is based on money. Money is capitalism. Communism can never exist in actuality, it only exists as a deceptive description of capitalism. Usually the communist deception occurs due to unawareness, an ignorance of what money actually is.

Malicious conning, a need to hoodwink people, can also be a motivator for the communist illusion-delusion. Anarcho-capitalism is no different to communism, it is an illusion, it is merely capitalism thus it entails governance, governments. Widespread voluntaryism is likewise impossible in a society based upon money.

Governments are methods for managing money, they are societal creations similar to how money is a societal creation. Management of money is the purpose of all governments. Governments manage money, they manage all the problems of social dysfunction arising from money, it is all about scarcity. Capitalism (money) is a method for governing social interactions thus logically and inevitably an actual government is the consequence of social behaviour mediated via the governing nature of money.

Money is a method of control, it controls the allocation of resources, money governs scarcity of resources. Actual governments are reflections of the inherent governance of social interactions based on capital, wealth, money. Capitalism is all about control. All political systems are about the control of capital. The control of capital logically entails the control of people because people create capital. Consider feudalism, feudalism is another name for capitalism because the purpose of feudalism is to control capital, likewise with tyranny we are again looking at capitalism, the control of capital.

Oddly the term free-market is often mentioned regarding capitalism, the oddity is regarding the incongruity of "free" and "market." The free market is an oxymoron because markets are the antithesis of freedom.

Money is governance, it governs the allocation of scarce resources, money governs behaviour, thus actual governance, governments, will always arise from monetary interactions when monetary interactions become sufficiently complex. Money is scarcity, money is the consequence of scarcity, thus governments are "scarcity" because governments are essentially money.

All roads lead to Rome. Governments are an inevitable consequence of money because money is all about governing social interactions. Yes the manifestation of simple monetary interactions doesn't immediately spawn a government but inevitably a government will always arise from monetary interaction. Any resistance to a central banking system is futile due to the nature of what money is. Money is governance thus with sufficient complexity regarding the governing nature of monetary interactions, there will occur a centralized body known as a government. A government can be defined as a level of high monetary complexity. A failure to comprehend the connection between money and governments is comparable to looking at a baby and not seeing how the baby inevitably entails adulthood. Money is the baby which inevitably grows into a government. To expect anything other than a centralized government arising from monetary interaction is tantamount expecting a human baby to become an albatross, an abacus, or a brick.

While money persists capitalism is not merely the best method for social mediation of scarcity, it is the only method for the mediation of scarcity-based interactions, capitalism is an inevitable consequence of scarcity. I recognise capitalism is rubbish, it is abhorrent, it is truly execrable stupidity, but I also see how we don't yet possess the intelligence to rise above capitalism.

Money, capital, capitalism, governments, and scarcity are all the same phenomena. It is all about a lack of intelligence, a lack of technology, it is all about stupidity. The Singularity (Post-Scarcity) is the opposite of everything we know, it is the opposite of money, the opposite of governments. The Singularity is total freedom, it is the intelligence explosion.

Freedom in the sense of prices is inextricably linked to the libertarian sense of being free. Liberty needs to be constrained when resources are scarce. The existence of prices constrains liberty because scarcity demands the control of people. It is no coincidence liberty has increased in synchronization with increasing abundance. When everything is free in a financial sense people will also be totally free in a libertarian sense because when everyone can have anything they want, free at no cost, there will be no need for the elite to control the masses for profit. Profits will be obsolete.

The alternative to money is Post-Scarcity, which will be achieved via rapid technological evolution entailing ultra-efficient tech, access to limitless Space resources via explosive intelligence.

Some people wrongly think scarcity is an artificial construct but "artificial scarcity" is an oxymoron similar to dry wetness or cold hotness. Artificial scarcity is impossible, it cannot exist. Scarcity cannot be created, it can only be enhanced. If total scarcity does not exist then it cannot be created. The enhancement of scarcity, the emphasis of scarcity, the intensification regarding aspects of scarcity, it will never constitute "artificial scarcity" similar to how one ice-cube added to the Antarctic Ice Sheet is not artificial coldness. Creating artificial scarcity is tantamount to thinking you can create artificial coldness via adding one ice-cube to the Sun.

Post-Scarcity is the Singularity, it cannot be stopped or ended but it can be delayed or accelerated, furthermore there is only one Singularity and it has not already happened, the Singularity is not an iPhone. When it happens there will be no doubt about its occurrence because things such as money, capitalism, crime, governments, mortality, disease, misunderstanding, or the need to write words, all these things will be obsolete artifacts from a bygone era of stupidity.


Thursday, 11 April 2013

Cognitive-Identity Liberty Names Pseudonyms

The Big Think recently published an interesting article regarding people using names other than their birth names. The Big Think and others refer to these names as "pseudonyms" but I think this definition of naming creates a position of weakness for certain names.

I don't like the term pseudonym, it implies a lack of sincerity, authenticity, genuineness. The meaning of "pseudo" is false, counterfeit, fake. The correct definition would be "name," whether your name is your birth name, stage name, legally chosen name (subsequent to your birth name), or merely a temporary name, it is a name, it is or should be equally valid compared to any other name. For example if a woman, or man, changes their name upon becoming married, is their new name a pseudonym of is it just their name? What people should support is multiple names, name creativity, with all names being equally valid. The idea that an arbitrary name chosen by your parents must define who you are for life is very silly. Governments or other authorities should not have the power to dictate how we name ourselves. We should have the freedom to control our identities. We should have name-freedom. My name is my name.

I have always found the idea appealing regarding some cultures where adolescents undergo a rite of passage thus they change their name; they choose a name wholly dependent upon how they think they should be defined not upon how their parents think they should be defined.

The Big Think article relates to British doctors being forced by law public authority (GMC) to use their so-called "real names" when using social media, which is an outrageous injustice upon cognitive-identity liberty. Any name a person uses is real. Here are some important links listed in the Big Think article, which we are considering:

Here's a great excerpt from the Daily Telegraph article:

I should here declare an interest. As is widely known, Max Pemberton is a pen name that I use for my journalism. I decided to use a nom de plume when I started this column 10 years ago because I wanted to write frankly about my experiences in the NHS and I knew that I would struggle to do this if I used my real name. Over time, my colleagues came to know of my other career as a journalist and now, in my personal life, more people – including my partner – call me Max than Alex, the name I practise under.

But I’m pleased that there is still a robust distinction between my clinical work and my media career. I want it to be clear to my patients that when they sit in front of me I am not a journalist, but their doctor. It also helps me maintain a distance between my two careers. While most of my patients are aware of my work in the media, they are grateful for the distinction. Yet I know for certain that I would never have written those first columns if the GMC’s guidance had been in place then. Writing anonymously helped me to be honest.

Monday, 8 April 2013

Hilarious UK Government Drug Licensing Quote

Several hours ago I posted about a drug called "Modafinil" apparently similar to a fictional drug from the film Limitless, a drug which increases intelligence. I posted about this on my G+ Page Singularity 2045, see below. You can read the original post about Modafinil embedded at the very bottom of this blog-post.

News about Modafinil (Limitless) caused me to think about psychoactive drugs, such as LSD and magic mushrooms. A while ago I read about how the usage of LSD and magic mushrooms in a clinical setting could possibly cure the symptoms of "mental illness," namely depression. The NHS (UK National Health Service) reported on how Professor David Nutt was conducting research into potential usage of "hallucinogenic magic mushroom extract psilocybin" to alleviate depression. There have been various other similar lines of research.

Anyway, while browsing through David Nutt's Twitter stream I saw the following Re-Tweet with a link to the BBC website, which included a hilarious UK government drugs licensing quote on the BBC site.

Hilariously the UK government thinks licensing stops harmful drugs from getting into the hands of criminals. What a preposterous notion. All drugs are actually available everywhere on the streets in any Western country at a reasonably cheap price. I often see school kids smoking weed openly at various public locations, which has been the case for many decades. Actions by international drug enforcement agencies or actions by collective world governments have no discernible impact upon the availability of illegal drugs.

So Home Office spokesman, how is that licensing regime working out for you? Stopping illegal drugs much? Good luck with that! Sadly David rightly highlights the absurdity. Truly it's a ludicrous situation. Very comedic. Government licensing doesn't really stop illegal drugs but overly strict licensing does hinder legitimate scientific research. Bravo UK Home Office for your fanatically silly statement:

"Our licensing regime enables legitimate research to take place while ensuring that harmful drugs don't get into the hands of criminals."   UK Home Office spokesman.

Singularity 2045
Is #modafinil the real #limitless - I doubt it but it could be step forward. wrote: "The latest "smart drug" to be thrust into the limelight is the prescription pill known as modafinil. The pill is said to produce an intense focus and strong work ethic- much like similar drugs such as Adderall or Ritalin, but without the amphetamines." wrote: "It took Peter Borden a while to come around to modafinil. He never takes prescription drugs. He doesn’t drink to excess. He’s into acupuncture and alternative medicine. But he was working two jobs—by day, he does quantitative analysis and project management for a venture-capital-backed B2B start-up; by night, he’s developing a proprietary high-­frequency trading system for a Wall Street start-up of his own—and what he needed was more time to work."
Modafinil- The Real Life "Limitless"
Drug used to treat narcolepsy seen giving brainiac powers to users.

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Governments Money Capital Capitalism

All governments exist due to money. Governments are money. I think I will publish this via H+.

Here, below, are some of my important comments regarding my above H+ article. I will post the entire article in a separate blog-post in a week or so. This blog-post will merely focus on my comments where I respond to points people have made.

My Comments

My point, adam, is that if you understand the nature of what markets are you will see central planning is a fundamental aspect of the market. It all begins with money, money is the core central planning, it is the central mode of control regarding the nature of scarcity, money is a control system to mediate scarcity, thus from the core control of money, a situation where things cost money, a situation where things are not free, you can see free trading of capital is a mere illusion. So-called “freedom,” in a situation where things are not financially free, is so insignificant it is thus essentially irrelevant, which means attempts to create freedom contrary to scarcity entail a parody of freedom or the freedom will be temporary thus the illusory free-market, the illusory freedom, quickly shatters to the natural state of the unfree market. The market, any market, is not based on free-trading, it isn’t based upon freedom, it is based upon control, control of scarcity. Freedom is contrary to the market. Freedom increases directly in proportion to the decrease of the market.

The word “free” is about liberty and liberty is linked to prices, liberty is linked to decreasing scarcity, thus goods move closer to being free, in synchronisation with increasing liberty. When scarcity is very severe liberty must be constricted to ensure greater profits for elite individuals. The constraint of liberty happens to ensure compliance with higher prices, liberty is constrained to ensure people do not rebel against the higher prices, thus you see free is a word applicable simultaneously to both prices and libertarianism, but people typically do not see the interconnection, the interdependence, between financial and libertarian freedom.


The only way to truly "end intellectual dependency on the state" is to create or accelerate the arrival of Post-Scarcity. I am familiar with anarchy. Anarchy in a monetary age is an illusion, it is an attractive illusion but it is most certainly an illusion. Sir Herbert Read was an anarchist, but a mere knightly title or a validation via Harvard does not make a premise true, logically valid.


Dear sidhe3141, note the section where I stated "Money is governance thus with sufficient complexity regarding the governing nature of monetary interactions, there will occur a centralized body known as a government. A government can be defined as a level of high monetary complexity." I also stated "Yes the manifestation of simple monetary interactions doesn’t immediately spawn a government but inevitably a government will always arise from monetary interaction."

The reason why governments arise is because the nature and purpose of money is about about governing the allocation of scarce resources, thus when sufficient financial complexity arises, when a primitive monetary society becomes sufficient rich, a government will naturally, logically, arise, because money is all about control. In primitive societies of minimal wealth the governance is administered in a very basic manner via each individual or a few individual ensuring other people abide by the law of money, but with greater wealth, greater population, it becomes difficult for individuals to agree on governance, thus leaders arise, a minority is needed to control and guide the majority. Greater wealth means there is also greater incentive to become a dominant leader, a member of the government, the power elite, thus naturally due to greater wealth entailing greater survival, a minority of prime survivors will consolidate their power via a government, monarchy, etc. This is a natural consequence of scarcity, it is a natural consequence of money. Greater wealth-power = greater survival, thus we have a situation of leadership, which we call the government. Scarcity makes survival uncertain therefore everyone wants access to scarce resources. Money controls the scarce resources and governments control the money. Scarcity is all about the need for control.


Crime hinges upon scarcity. Consider the perilous situation of scarcity combined with the pressures and cruelty of inevitable governmental controls, this causes social dysfunction, people become unbalanced, or putting it another way: criminals merely want to seize by force a greater amount of a scarce resource, people feel powerless in a scarcity situation thus they sometimes turn to crime at least one of two reasons. One to decrease their fearsome scarcity predicament in a material sense, to gain crude wealth. Or two they create a comforting illusion of power via working outside the system, via transcending the rules, the controls of scarcity, criminals create an illusion of freedom when they disregard the social controls of scarcity, it is illusory psychological currency, a valuable sense of psychological freedom in an unfree world of scarcity. Scarcity of intelligence is the biggest factor regarding crime, which will be remedied by the intelligence explosion.

It is easy to predict the Singularity (intelligence explosion) will entail no crime. Intelligence will always be intelligent despite any possible unknown extreme technological evolution.


Previously, co-authored with Nikki Olson, I wrote about "Itsy-Bitsy-Teeny-Weeny-Singularities" here on H+, so William you can see I have clear ideas about there being only one Singularity.

There is nothing magical about the Singularity, it is merely technology, albeit extreme technology, utterly EXTREME. The reason why people think an iPhone could be the Singularity, their idea that there could be multiple Singularities, is because they misunderstand the extreme level of technological advancement we are considering. Each tiny technological step forward does provide a minor revolution, but we are not considering minor technological revolutions such as the iPhone, we are considering an utter major event, where the world totally changes beyond all recognition, it is an event comparable to humans initially evolving intelligence, it is the creation of a new intelligent species of a magnitude in degree comparable kittens or puppies contrasted with humans, thus human minds post-Singularity will be similar to to how we currently view the minds of kittens or puppies, the world will be very singular (strange).

Technology is the answer to all our "prayers" (but I don't pray, I am an atheist thus instead of the "prayers" idiom I'd say "problems"). There is no shame regarding technology answering all our problems, there is actually very good evidence regarding technology being able to answer our problems. Technology allows us to communicate almost instantly with anyone around the world, technology saves lives in countless ways from mere antibiotics to cures for AIDS (so far only two people have been cured) or we can regenerate, regrow, organs without any organ donor, merely by using the patients own stem cells thereby preventing organ rejection. We can create mechanical hearts, we can create artificial arms which are rapidly approaching the sensitivity of real arms-hands. Technology regarding farming allows us to avoid starvation. Electricity and gas allows us to heat our homes. There are many aspects, all aspects, where technology has not reached its peak thus despite technological advances regarding medicine or farming, people die from disease or starvation. The Singularity is the point of total technological proficiency, extreme proficiency, whereby we cure all disease and farming reaches a level of supreme technological skill to that nobody will ever be hungry again, it is the attainment of limitless proficiency. Technology has continually provided greater abundance, thus you don't need to be a member of the aristocracy today to own an pocket computer, a smartphone, because we see how abundance has made goods cheaper. Abundance will progress to the point where Post-Scarcity is attained thus everything will be free, which is a very singular situation.

Hello William, money is the abstract value of all commodities, it is the abstract value of any commodity within a scarcity situation. Money is a product of scarcity, it is a method to value and control scarce resources. Elsewhere (in comment and in the body of my article we are considering) I have stated the State is an inevitable product of the market. Money and the guns of the State are essentially the same thing, money leads to the State. As long as money exists the State will always arise


William, in a Post-Scarcity scenario there will be no need for any transactions because everyone will be totally self-sufficient. When everything is free, easily accessible by each individual, there is absolutely no need to currency.

Scarcity means an elite group of people will control the majority. This is typical behaviour in animals, it is not unique to humans. People who don't have the wherewithal to become a dominant leader will resent the State, but perhaps via their ingenuity they can rise in the hierarchy; their objections however, to the State, do not mean the State is illogical, is it actually very logical to dominate others in a scarcity situation because greater wealth generally entails greater survival via better access to healthcare, better diet, the ability to avoid the telomere-shortening impact of stress-induced poverty.

Of course looking at the situation intelligently we see there is a better solution than crude dominance but the problem is people can't generally look at the situation intelligently.


Dear Samantha, you are not the first to point out the apparent contradiction regarding my detestation of capitalism and the recognition of capitalism currently not merely being the best system but it is actually the only system for managing scarcity.

Here is what I have stated elsewhere:

Imagine you are stuck on planet full of dog poop, and there is no escape until you invent a space rocket, thus in the meantime you must build your civilization on poop, but despite it being the best civilization you can build, you nevertheless see how it is poop, it is founded upon poop.

So, it's about making the best of a bad situation; you realise you are doing the best you can with your limited capabilities while simultaneously seeing how your best is atrocious. Is this really so contradictory?

I think the Singularity is an automatic utopia although the route there could be very painful. Utopia is inevitable, in the long term, due to the nature of what intelligence is, intelligence will lead to the abolition of scarcity. The universe is much bigger than the parochial limitations of Earth regarding our primitive 2013 technology, there is more than enough room for intelligence to expand to colossal proportions entailing super-efficient intelligence and super-efficient utilisation of resources. Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries give us a glimmer of the potential our universe holds, thus you can see, with not too much imagination, how utopia is inevitable.

Money is all about scarcity, which is all about control. Scarcity (money) is all about the regulation of scarce items. Scarcity is the reason why prices rise. The greater the scarcity the more control (regulation, limitation) is needed regarding the scarce item, thus we see how governments inevitably arise as control mechanisms mirroring the controlling-regulatory nature of money.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 |