Market impact

Michael Sandel is hosted by TED to give the following talk concerning market influence and impact on civic life.

This talk describes how an increasing number of the aspects of life are marketized, meaning they are being evaluated for their monetary weight and then private interests can purchase advantages in those aspects. He gives a couple of examples, which need no repetition by me, and these should be news to most people. They exemplify how a certain distortion is introduced by this take over. What Michael is trying to convey here, amongst other things, is the question of whether or not this change has impact on motivation in a positive sense.

Now I did a piece on motivation almost two years ago analysing the idea superficially and making some minor connections to other issues. But I think a relevant answer backed by scientific studies to the question posed above, is the one supplied by Daniel Pink in this lecture:

It is clearly stated that the findings seem to indicate that monetary rewards seem to give a sugary rush to completing simple and mechanical tasks, whereas the exact same rewards inhibt critical thinking in creative tasks.

So when Michael Sandel asks the question whether a monetary reward for reading a book is a good idea, science seems to counter-propose whether we think reading a book is related to mechanical or creative thinking. If we simply think it is about turning pages and memorising knowledge, then we are branding the reader a vessel for the knowledge of others, not an individual with creative abilities to process ideas and improve upon them.

And as Michael rightly points out - we do not know the long term effects on the motivation towards reading, if curiosity gets replaced by monetary goals as the motivator for reading and absorbing perspectives.

My guess would be: The sooner in life we introduce money as life support to people, the sooner we motivate them to stop thinking creatively and start thinking mechanically.

Fukushima 2013

Reading through a handful of articles all stating the same thing, I finally decided to go with this one, seeing how well sourced it is concerning statements. This article takes the rather pessimistic viewpoint that a nuclear crisis on the scale of the Cuban missile crisis is imminent.

- Some 400 tons of fuel in that pool could spew out more than 15,000 times as much radiation as was released at Hiroshima.

- Former Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata says full-scale releases from Fukushima “would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.”

If this is true, then the article, written in late september, says that the official statement is that about 60 days remain before this Unit 4 will ignite and start a fuel fire. Such a fuel fire would apparently damn our atmosphere, which in turn ruins the air, the oceans and the positive effects of the sun, effectively choking the planet to death. And just to drill it in, in case you have previously been categorising this issue in your mind as a Japanese issue:

- Chernobyl’s first 1986 fallout reached California within ten days. Fukushima’s in 2011 arrived in less than a week. A new fuel fire at Unit 4 would pour out a continuous stream of lethal radioactive poisons for centuries.

If radiation from Chernobyl in eastern Europe can reach California in ten days, then compare that with the current issue where we face an amount 15,000 times greater. It should be clear to you, that this is a global issue, and should therefore concern you. This is why it is damaging that the offical story is indeed that it is just a japanese issue.

To broaden this discussion I will point out that this is a very dangerous way of categorising issues, and at the same time it is quite resemblant of how issues are indeed categorised. Issues like these are clearly of global concern, and should therefore not be a national problem to solve. When an issue concerns more than just one nation, the nation becomes a hinderance in finding a solution. National pride and economics are the causes of this, and they pull in opposing directions. Some market theories unquestionably labels issues like this as a positive force in the market in that it provides investment incentive to a large degree. Funneling public funding into private institutions working to compete for a solution to the issue. But the mere time frame alone should clarify how crippling this is to a creative and functional solution. There is a very good reason why it has come down to this narrow time frame now, with a crisis that started in 2011. That is the level of thinking associated with the solution is thoroughly handicapped by the framework enforced on the debate.

The fault lies in presupposing that every issue that ever enters our reality is a democratic one. Sometimes precision is needed, which assumes an undermining of all bureaucracy in order to minimize collateral damage.

Universal Basic Income

So I found this clip about work and the merit of it in contemporary society.

It seems to be the point of this idea to create awareness of the complication introduced into production and consumption, when we politically moralise the debate about who deserves what and when based upon individual contribution to the whole. Rather than rearranging society in accordance with current technical capability to ensure the highest possible rate of production, we would rather limit the possibilities to ensure that anyone who can, and even some who cannot, experience the feeling that they therefore should contribute in order to receive.

If you are as regular a reader on this blog as my posting habits would allow then you should be aware of the fact that I am a firm believe in basic human rights including a roof along with sufficient nutrition for every single human being on this planet. It should never ever be considered a luxury to be able to sustain life along with mental and physical health no matter the contribution to society.

As a transitional tool away from monetary exchange and economic pressure all together into a true economy with equilibrium and steady state systemic structure as the goal, I do think this universal income idea has some merit. A bridge obviously has to exist from our current ecocidal and asocial ostracising patterns into a much more humane paradigm, where human beings are recognised as such rather than the label “consumer”.

A day in the life

Trapped. Queued. Shopping... Looking at a plastic basket full of imported groceries, I find myself contemplating how fast I could escape this situation should I want to. I wonder if the sun is shining outside, and in about five minutes time, when I have paid for my temporary solutions, I will find out if it does.

But then I sat up. I was in bed. Nightmares always make me rather groggy when I wake up, so it takes a short while before I distinguish this moment from the last in the string of conscious experiences. The sun was indeed shining outside, and I feel it now warming my hair ever so gently as I bend down again resting on the elbows. I know what comes next, but the delicate grace of the consuming familiarity has to be overpowered, before I can get up and do what must be done.

Going to the bathroom for a quick leak, and I will have my breakfast afterwards. Some progressively charming people would refer to it as “a cheap golden spa with the doctor”. Reviewing the numbers popping up on the mirror as I wash my hands, I find that my recent diet has been a bit too sugar-heavy, so instead of just leaving, I tab the recommended meal touch pad.

Jumping into a pair of nano-fabric shorts and a t-shirt I feel the short chill, before I venture into the garden outside. The sun shine really is lovely today. Like a never ending and never beginning kiss on the cheek from the love of your life. But after dwelling on such a rather poetic notion for a short while, my stomach lets out a brief growl shoving me back on track. So I sign in with a finger print on the pad next to the hydroponics, and upon recognising that I asked for a recommended meal, lights beneath the artificial soil quickly appear, highlighting the necessary fruits and vegetables for my breakfast. I sheathe my hands into the gardening gloves on the desk and take to gather the components.

I must say I do not care much for the compliments I get from my kitchen, just because I went with the suggested meal to balance my vitamin intake, but I guess some concessions have to be made, if it helps other people be motivated towards a better a diet. I could just tell my kitchen to stop giving me those messages, but I like to be reminded of my own attitude. And of course there is the added bonus that fewer and fewer people have to see doctors now. I reckon medicine will easily transition into a focus on preventative treatment and health maintenance in my life time given where we are now.

Leaving the house I greet the neighbour coming home. She has apparently already been out and about on one of the new city roamers. These vehicles never seize to amaze me. Plated with a photovoltaic shell, just like almost every road is now, they run entirely on sun light, but the interesting part is that this has completely vamped society, and I think this is why people get up so early in the morning now, even though there is no labour left to do. These bikes never stay stationary for longer periods of time, and yet they have a fascinating break down rate of close to zero.

So when she gets out, I jump in and articulate my destination to the receiver. When I get to the university, I quickly traverse the stairs in anticipation of the study group I have been preparing for all week. “Applied Teraforming” has become my new hobby, and I hope to one day become sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to teach it myself. Although most classes are now taught by the students themselves on a rotation basis, it is suggested that one takes a number of classes on a specific subject, prior to leaving the student roster and entering the the student-teacher roster.

Regarding “Applied Teraforming” I tend to day dream about a production team of developers and programmers working with me to realise my dream of a computer game, that tasks players with cultivating the best possible environment on a given planet, drawing raw data and calculating impacts made by player decisions from the global database. In turn this could become applied teraforming, if the record setting players' designs would be submitted back into the database for engineers and ecologists to review as possible schemes for real space exploration. But that is just my personal goal, and if it is to be, then I am sure I will eventually find the people I need for such a team to start working.

Later this week I did sign up for another study group called “Beyond exchange”, but I am actually considering not going. The people are very nice, but I do sometimes feel that I spent a bit too much time on that subject before Liberation, so I am not sure I would learn much from a thorough analysis into the socialisation process concerned with human interaction and that stuff. It just always seemed like a given to me that it would obviously work out in the end, even if we did not have anything left to threaten each other with.

However, I do see the merit in the course, because we certainly did not evolve past the exchange based culture as soon as we technically could have. And if I do go, it will be to explore how the transition seems to be going based on recent findings. Most of the previous advocates of exchange came around after strife and famine were ended, but some still cling to the idea that humans are categorically egoistical, and the only reason we are currently functional in a cooperative society is because it benefits ourselves the most. I guess they could be right. But then again, the results speak for themselves. All the psychiatrists either chose another education or shipped off to the Americas to work with transitional conflicts over there, simply because the need here fell like never before a few years after Liberation.

What amuses me greatly is when I get back home and do my exercises before dinner. I was always one of those lazy kids who were never properly motivated by the physical socio-dynamics, but now that I can track my progress on a bar that slowly builds towards the next level, I find myself working out almost every day. It is purely recreational though, but I do not see why that would be a bad thing. The results are that my ulcerative colitis is kept in check, and my body has never been healthier. To think I was pretty much addicted to junk food and computer games before Liberation. Now I feel in shape, and not because I have to impress anyone but myself.

So for dinner tonight I believe I will treat myself to a soy burger with a quinoa bun and a relish of kale and pees. Afterwards I try to stay motivated towards a short session of meditation. After training for a while I can tell it helps me stay curious and open minded, but when there is no bar tracking how well I do it just gets a bit too intangible sometimes.

So have a nice evening friends. I will see you in class for “Steady-state patterning”.

Horizontal Social Governance

Inspired by the following RSA presentation I have begun a new train of thought this morning. But before I introduce what could become a lengthy introduction I will let you get acquainted with the material yourself.

What I gather from this talk is that Jeremy Rifkin believes that a 3^rd industrial revolution could be on its way. Obviously this is interesting by itself, with all the perspectives on peak oil and what not, but what I find to be even more intriguing is that this perspective that power and management thus far has been vertical – top-down. And as is introduced the internet has more than proved that people are ready for a more horizontally oriented approach. Powerful search engines have made the lack of available information a thing of the past, and this could be interpreted as a sign that people are adjusting to having more influence.

As opposed to Mr. Rifken I see a wealth of possible conflicts with this emerging social paradigm of equality. A horizontally governed direct democracy, as it would be, would feature less individually oriented authority. This would make politics obsolete in a relatively short period of time, and that would be perfectly fine, if it was not for the fact that the powers that be will know this in advance of the majority, and they will try, as they have with the Occupy movement and similar groups, to turn public orientation towards an illusion that they and they alone embody democracy. Because if they do it would become obvious how counterproductive it is to diminish the institutions concerned with politics and law making.

The proof of the above claim? Look at how the media handles the rising discontent with governing institutions. They are attempting to shadow the reality of how big a portion of the globe is currently interested in making changes. While all of them do not share a unified goal for whatever change they seek, they agree on the fact that something must be done. Humans are now on a collision course with reality, as we begin to understand that razing forest after forest to compete in this global game of monopoly is unrealistic.

In closing it should be noted that the reason that we are simultaneously aware of this abyss and still moving towards it, is exactly the vertical governing installation of representative democracy. This makes for a dissonance between what we know and how fast we can make changes accordingly because every discovery in science and later in public understanding has to go through the process of persuading political figures and market shaping forces before it can be integrated properly.

Because we are a top-down species at this point, we are limited from responding optimally to emerging social problems.

Service

Depending on what culture you are from you may have experienced what I am about to describe. In my country it is very much the case in the service sector of the market that younger and younger people are employed as front line personel. In short, people of the new school.

Aside from the obvious financial benefit this has brought to the employers, since younger, inexperienced people are cheaper, it may be worth pointing out another very important point about this situation.

In the past when the service sector was a relatively fresh industry, following the downsizing of the work force in aggriculture caused by the technology available around the start of the 20^th century, there was a period where it had include a certain flexibility to market itself. The kind of flexibility you would probably only experience presently if you get in contact with someone with a higher grade of responsibility than the service level. The shop keeper or to a lesser extent the manager. Most managers would not apply though. They are put in place to uphold the rules put down by their own employer and their job is based mostly on making sure the staff beneath them bends no rules and applies no flexibility.

Not because the industry tries to work against flexibility, but because the total stream lining of the service sector has allowed for a much more rigid rule set. If you do not like the rules in place at a restaurant or a store, you are pretty much out of luck. Because you can be certain that a quite similar set of rules are in place in whatever other place you may visit.

This may or may not bother you. If it does not I would venture the guess that it is because you have not thought it through. Surely you would rise to some level of discontent if you realised that you had been manipulated into the acceptance of this.

The most modern and ”hip” places introduced this concept into our culture and since then we have come to accept it on a daily basis. We are now at the point where we consider good service the abnormal and remember it for days when some employee somewhere gave us a personal experience. But why is this? Should it not be preferable for society to accept only bad service as the abnormal?

The reason for this rigid business model that we are all supporting with our purchases out of the lack of proper alternatives, is of course that it works. It works to cut back on the extent of service, because the extent of service mostly implies the extent of lowering expected pay for whatever service was given. Deductions and good will are concepts swept under the carpet and the consumer remains ever oblivious.

And this is just the beginning. Now that the industry has us accepting a very poor standard of service, they can easily make the transfer to automated kiosks everywhere. In the grocery store, in the café, in the restaurants and in the malls. For what is more rigid than a machine? And companies know this. They exploit it. They are very much interested in automating the process of purchasing everywhere.

Criticism

Most people today are familiar with the idea that it is easier to notice the flaws of others than the flaws of oneself. To my knowledge this is an idea originating from the teachings of Christ, which would make it a lesson from the new testament. Without needing to debate religious subjects to dig deeper, it is perfectly possible to reflect on how this has had an effect on the larger social evolution that has happened since then.

Many people revert to this mantra every time they are called out on making a mistake. Indeed it is a practise we spend considerable amounts of time on disapproving of in public. We disapprove of politicians that spend their valuable time for preaching their own mass appeal on preaching of the lack of mass appeal in their adversaries instead.

So it would be safe to assume that we have made it a cultural phenomenon to express discontent with any one flawed person or group to criticise another person or group. In this respect it becomes somewhat impossible to be honest about oneself and constructive towards others. Because by default we are all useless as critics to one another, as we are all “sinners”.

Since evolution has made us a socially dependant animal I would propose something entirely different to this approach discussed above. It is possible that we have developed in a fashion that made us superior at noticing the mistakes of others simply because we have spent so much time through history on looking outwards. At others and at society. Indeed it compliments us well in social contexts that we can function as coaches for others.

Imagine that from this instance people were better at coaching themselves than others. What would spark our drive towards mutual inspiration? How would we surpass anything previously thought of, if we were only better critics of what we had produced or proposed ourselves, rather than of the common wealth of knowledge and produce of all others?

Is it possible that this natural inclination towards outward criticism is culturally fought because if we accepted this perspective as innate, if not to our entire species then at least to our contemporary culture, we would rise towards our current potential and possibly evolve our social sphere?

Cause is mentioned here as there is conservative inclination in most social contexts to resist any change that could potentially snowball into more changes. “Controlled change” is even a phrase used by modern conservative politicians.

Ownership

What is ownership? In its most basic term it seems to imply the occupation of something by someone. This someone has since the original term was used been expanded to also include organisations and institutions such as corporations and even countries or groups of countries.

What it legally means, however, is simply that this something you have legally bought or acquired is now reserved for you by the enforcing institutions of your community. Is this just a silly overanalytic way to say that the something is yours?

No.

There is a vast difference between the idea of ownership and the actual phenomenon of ownership. You see in the idea of ownership it is possible to say that something is yours. But in the actual world nothing is really yours. It can all be taken away, if not by other people then by external elements operating outside the rule of ownership, such as your dog deciding to eat it or a tsunami washing it all away.

So what you are left with is simply this illusion backed up by real world enforcement that in the event that your something is taken away from you and still desirable for you, then you may call upon these enforcers to bring it back to you or at the very least punish the ones that took it and in some cases recieve a monetary settlement in exchange for your something. It is an illusion that only works because we are all hooked into the same feed of rules, norms and acceptable behaviour.

Just like money it only works as long as everyone operates under the same principles. As soon as someone breaks the norm and becomes a thief, then you need to bend the guiding principles of reality to incorporate enforcing parties, such as the police, to shield you from this asocial behaviour.

And just like money it is only required for society to work properly as long as everyone operates under the same principles. As soon as someone breaks the norm and becomes able to grow their own food and gather their own water from natural sources, they start breaking the need to compromise themselves as individuals to function in this game of monetary exchange.

This clash of topics will most likely raise the issue of what happens to ownership when nothing is bought or sold anymore. When money is no more.

It obviously ceases to exist as the illusion it has survived as for so long. Surely it is a requirement for society to function though?

When you think about it, it should be a perfectly viable model for adults to share rather than own. After all we are not the primates we evolved from, nor are we the child we grew up from. If you connect the reality of sharing rather than owning with the reality that our current means of production could produce an abundance of high quality items for everyone, so long as there is no need for a profit to be generated anywhere, then you will see that this idea of ownership really only serves the salesman. The buyer is left with purchasing illusions.

So this is where the closing question arises. How much do we believe in the modern social sciences proving to us that we are extremely adaptive to the rules of whatever context we apply ourselves to?

Kony 2012

I thought I would make a post about Kony 2012, considering that it is all over the internet anyway. First I should point out that I have not seen the movie. The reason for this is that I feel no need to watch a documentary about child abuse. I have read a bit on the subject, however, and I thought I would provide you readers with some extra perspectives on this documentary. Mainly because when we are done discussing how important it is to assist children in need, we should consider what ruthless powers might exploit such good will. If that was the last thing on your mind, then you are indeed setting yourself up for quite a lot of surprises as we approach the end of fossil fuels.

According to this article Uganda recently proclaimed itself as en route to becoming an oil producer, with commercial production having begun in 2009. If this does not make any bells ring, we should just leave the subject there. If it does, however, then we should explore what kind of message the movie is attempting to send.

If you believe the following interview to be anything remotely related to the state of these affairs, then perhaps there is more to this motivational documentary than meets the eye. I would argue against being a conspiracy theorist, but I'll just let the words military intervention linger here.

Next up is this personal point brought up by a young woman claiming to be from Uganda herself with relatively regular visits. While she obviuosly has not studied this matter intently, I do think it might be interesting to note that if she is speaking the truth, then Kony is indeed not the subject of daily discussions in the homes of Uganda.

UPDATE: I also stumbled across this article which certainly lays into this documentary in a very rough way. I thought I should provide it in case you like the more theory-based approaches.

News

Here Jason Read, with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, comments on the conservative notion of face value in society.

Dr. Read seems to think that the book is not to be judged by its cover. That the classes of society are not only what the media portray them as. Please remember that the media, from where you might have had your view on this matter skewed, are institutions that obviously do not act against the interest of their owners or share holders. And it should be obvious to most people that such owners or share holders portray not in the slightest the lower classes of society.

You see the news is not just the news. It is not everything that you need to know about a given situation that is relatively new. It is a perspective. Brought forth by the interest to sell it to you. You have to inspect news and information as you would a car being sold to you. Make sure that the model is not suitable for you because of how the salesman pitches it, but because it is what you need it for. A car is a vehicle for transportation. The news is your way of relating to contemporary society. That makes it vastly more important to inspect thoroughly when it is being sold to you.

For a broader perspective on matters somewhat related to my points, you can take a look at Dr. Read's lecture "The Social Individual" here:

Greece and I

It is with a blackened concience that I write today. I know I have been slacking when it comes to the blog lately, and I really do not wish for this to be a futile attempt at reaching people. The truth is not that I have been buried in work at the university, it is simply that I spend my spare time on games and movies. This is no excuse. I started this project the way some ambitious people start exercising - to expand my possibilities. Not physically but mentally.

So with that out of the way, what should we discuss today? Well how about the recent this article from yesterday? It captures the sense of depravity and desperation that was expressed in Athens lately. An echo of so many past expressions of desperation in that city. The craddle of democracy is under attack by austerity measures brought on by a debt crisis exceeding any other historically.

Is there a way out for Greece? Perhaps, but it lies deeper than what is expressed in any major media outlet. A reworking of the European culture is needed. Perhaps Greece once again gets to carry the torch that leads our continent onwards. We shall see.

Iran

Currently government officials from major power holders have been meeting in Israel to debate the future of the situation in the Middle East. Not the Afghan-Iraq war, but the recent public announcement by Israel stating that they are considering removing their status of neutrality and attacking Iran. This would be absolutely devastating for any chance of recovery in the Middle East.

Unfortunately I have not read and understood nearly enough to fully comment on this, but I can appreciate the need to relate in some way, so I will direct you towards more resourceful commentary.

A brief overview is given by Peter Joseph after his recent trip to Israel here.

The full lecture he mentions having given can be reviewed here.

Political Science

I hope we can agree that moral politics should be a thing of past. If that is the case then I would like to share an idea with you.

I thought to myself: How could politics become tangible so more people could get into it? A democracy, from my point of view, is something that requires people to be active. Voting every four years is a mockery of that ideal. The public should be a lot more hands on with this; their system of choice.

So what could spark this involvement?

Well perhaps transparancy and responsibility could. Why not introduce a new approach that requires all new bills and laws to refer to at least one relevant scientific study done on the subject? Politicians are paid handsomely to do their job, and I would find politics a lot more interesting for sure, if I could back track their work and see how they made the conclusions they did. If you can get into the mindset of the politicians you would be a lot more likely to want them as your representatives as well. It would indeed motivate them to be and work for the people.

Consider how much more sense new laws would make if it held a clear reference to a scientific article explaining in detail the research done on the matter. And as a database programmer I can promise you that it would be easy to make a central hub of politically used articles, so that the voting community can keep up to date with when the science is surpassed and obsolete as grounds for law making. It could be an online community of sharing information about what is new in social science. What do we know about society today?

I would log on to my voter's account every day keeping myself up to date with what is new from the politicians. Which articles are they currently reviewing, and what laws could be extracted from this work? Just like checking my online bank account. I would give my daily votes towards what articles I would like to see as basis for new laws, voting up the work of the progressive social scientists that used to be stuck in the old system where their work would be overlooked.

Example: Is the change in the law that reduces the age at which you can be jailed from 15 to 14 reasonable or not? The answer is: We do not know. What we need is research on the subject and proof before we come to a conclusion. What we also need is at least one clear referencing point for this potential law or bill, which will serve as a connecting hub for it, meaning that it is discarded and reverted to its prior state when new science emerges that disproves the old assumptions.

To me that sounds like a democratic society of the year 2012.

Feudalism

Before feudalism society was built and made by slaves. Now instead of a history lesson on that shift, I'll just move ahead to the point. Feudalism is economic slavery. Your survival was contigent upon what you were able to yield from your land. Does that sound at all familiar?

What you need to do to make economic slavery, which can in some cases be much more devious than physical slavery, seem appealing is to sell it off as an idea of liberation. Physically you are shackled no longer so go and prosper!

The age old residue of this is something that has shaped into an understanding of some ideal of independance. An ideal that is unrealistic for a species that is socially dependant almost from the moment of conception. Still it is considered to provide motivation for live improvement for people to understand themselves as responsible and self-providing.


The issues of this make themselves abundantly known in societies such as western culture where this independance ideal has gone way too far. There is no humility anywhere anymore. As soon as you reach voting age in your country you are legally considered old enough to be a part of the group in society aiming to be self-sufficient. And through the century old process that has made this ideal emerge and take hold we have completely lost sight of the fact that this has no natural basis.


Anthropologists would point out that tribal cultures show no signs of this striving towards self-sufficiency. They understand the interdependance of their culture and work to further the tribe as a whole rather than themselves as individuals. For each of them to try and accrue more riches than their neighbours would be sociocidal (the act of a person which adversely impacts upon a society or culture to a negative degree).

I did a highly relevant post to this topic called Meritocracy in which Allain De Botton details how it has a very negative reaction in society that everyone is responsible for their own position, when there is a sense of total equality socially. It was much easier to deal with not being the king of your country in the times of old, but it is near devastating for teenagers to get dropped off a pop star program today, because it is made to feel achievable.


So what does this advanced stage of feudalism we live in really entail for us?

Piracy

The hot topic of january certainly has been piracy. No less than three bills, SOPA PIPA and ACTA, have been discussed in order to further combat piracy. You may recall the Pirate Bay trial of 2009 and 2010. The case was appealed twice and in 2012 the supreme court in Sweden will provide a response.

The point brought forth by the defense lawyer is applicable as a general idea of why file sharing should be completely legal. It is no different than producing cars that can drive faster than the speed limit, he says. I would then start comparing that to owning a gun and other non-sense like that, but I am sure you got the point.

What is relevant to this blog is to discuss is how piracy can been understood. Obviously it can be stealing. But it has other facets to it as well. Socially it is an expression that consumers want easier access. Whether this means cheaper, completely for free, without the hassle of getting physical copies or whatever else we certainly do not know at this point. It is, however, obvious that these could be issues that made piracy so prevalent in the first place.

Regarding whether pirates are thieves you have to step outside the traditional mindset for a second to fully grasp the situation. This author agrees that stealing something physically is quite different from copying something digitally accessible. Certainly something can be said for the fact that the copy right owner may have been deprived of some income had his legal property not been copied. He may have. He probably has to some extent. But is the extent as vast as the expanded exposure his work recieved? And is that not a relevant question?

You have to remember that the entertainment industry (which holds the majority of complaints towards piracy) is more interested in keeping their produce solely for paying costumers, than they are in promoting their subjects, the artists that actually create the expressions the industry is profiting from. This means that if the industry gets to earn x amount of dollars on a product with a 0% piracy rate, that is more interesting for them than to earn x amount of dollars on the same product with a 50% piracy rate. In essense they want to fence down their work, because they see the pirates also as potential costumers, so what they want is for pirates to stop pirating and start spending money instead.
Again it is of no interest to achieve the possibly massive exposure that free file sharing can offer for the work of the artists. What is interesting is to earn as much money as possible.

I doubt they expect piracy rates to completely convert into paying costumers, but even if one pirate is turned (or discouraged through increasingly tougher regulations) then it is a win for the share holders expecting bigger turn outs.

Not only is this greed socially offensive on multiple levels it is also directly harmful. Just like the Pirate Bay regular people are being made an example of by the twisting of the legal system which is extremely toxic. It may function as an immediate detergent, but just as when you bring the millitary into another country to fight a war, you may win it in a couple of weeks, but you will have your work cut out for you with the uprisings your transgrassion will spark.

A final point that I will make is that you should consider that piracy rates far exceed what is possibly consumable, both economically but also in simple human life. The sea of content available is simply too vast. And quite a lot of that content is of medium and lower quality. Probably the majority of the content. Artists are not all Van Goghs, and a lot of them would be stretching it calling themselves artists in the first place. So in this world of currency drains I can certainly see the logic in the consumer crowd moving away from traditional patterns of purchase towards more egoistic ones. It makes perfect sense that as soon as technology arose to offer deliverance from wrongful purchases, in this time when wrongful purchases could be among the most prevalent, people starting utilising this tool to avoid disappointment.
A lot more could be said on this part of the discussion, but I will leave it here and we can discuss the issue of boredom and entertainment another time.

Also, this post will most likely be used to vault off into another post outlining an alternative system based on access rather than ownership, but since that will take some effort to piece together it might not be the subsequent one.

Economic Globalisation

Yesterdays piece on ACTA came with a comparison between the European Union and the United States. I would be unfit to furter that comparison and try to argue in political terms how alike these two unions are starting to become, but I do find it interesting to keep watching from the side lines and see what the next moves by these players will be.

Perhaps David Rovics can lighten the mood a bit with his satirical take on the similarities.



It should be clear to everyone that the east is rising to compete with the west globally, and soon the super power status will be shared, and in turn handed over. To whom is a good question. Many say China looking at their enormous growth rates. But these people often only look at numbers. Numbers that their government is responsible for, but that overlook gaping holes in their society. Some would argue that they are creating a bubble economy much greater than ours by building without respect for what their population can afford. By keeping the machines building homes and roads running you can create a sense of growth that looks good enough on paper.

That issue is again not dissimilar from what we experienced closer to home with our own bubble. What is interesting, however, is to look at how people percieve this economic breakdown. Some start swallowing apocalyptic stories, some throw their hands up before their eyes and again some try to argue for rewinding the system to a prior state.

To me it is obvious that none of those perceptions will bring us anywhere. There is only one way and that is forward. We can change direction, but the relatively docile part of history where Europe went almost without war during the past 60 years, is over. We chose to join the wave of globalism.

The hidden warfare of today is economic warfare. Nation states are trying their best to stay afloat, and when resourceful enough they also try and acrue more for themselves. They join alligiances and trade unions to benefit from the increasingly expanding amount of transactions going on in the world today, but they all do it to try and bring more riches home. A game that was much more physical and bound by the resources supplied by nature before we had paper money, gigantic oil tankers, air planes, derivate trades etc.

Just remember one thing. The situation is actually quite simple. No matter what these politicians and game players tell you, the situation really is simple. They do not see it, but the world of today is turning around one question: How to distribute the wealth nature has for us?

Most people still believe that money is the way to go. That politics is the way to go. That democracy is the way to go. But what do these institutions bring in a world where we are at a tipping point now where we can actually automate more sectors of society than what is applicable economically due to job losses? They seek to be the glue holding it all together on moral grounds. They argue and argue and argue away with symbolism and morale, but refuse to look at how far science has taken our potential.

This is fear. Fear of a tomorrow different from today. Because today is calculable, today is marketable and today is comprehendable. So by spreading this irrational fear to the public, they succeed in holding on to their power, because now everyone else is afraid of tomorrow as well. And if we are not, Hollywood can always be invested in to produce another horrifying post-apocalyptic vision of what the world would be like without government.

You might think that was a silly remark, but just try and talk to people about what is possible to automate in society and they will immidiately draw upon the illusion of knowledge they believe to have yielded from movies such as Terminator or i-Robot. This is standard psychology. They have to keep reminding the public that this process of moving into the future is dangerous, or they might just start wishing/voting/acting for it to happen.

ACTA

With the death of SOPA becoming a reality you might think it is over. The fight was won and democracy prevailed, expelling this evil dictatorial tool of opression. That is unfortunately not the case.

Behind the scenes the European Union has been cooking up something equally as toxic as SOPA. It is called ACTA and is thoroughly explained in this following introduction.



It would appear that it is quite important to keep repelling these waves of attempts to circumvent digital freedom. The issue here is more than just data protection, it has something quite abstract embedded within. The internet is irrespective of borders and it should be. These ridiculous attempts to seize control of the internet are nothing less than the objectification of a global freedom to communicate and share.

And as an object laws must be applied to regulate.