Projects and Motivation

I mentioned earlier that I’d write about some projects I had planned, so here it is.

One thing I want to use this blog for is just keeping myself motivated in these projects. I have a couple ideas for projects that I hope might create an alternative income stream at some point, but I never get around to working on them. So this blog post is mostly for me to clarify my thoughts and to help motivate me to work on them. If you want to read, feel free, but there’s no analysis here and I don’t know if it will be worthwhile to anybody else; I’m writing this solely for myself.

Website Project #1

About half a year ago, I identified a major gap in one of my hobbies that could be filled through the creation of a social website. I’m pretty sure there’s demand for the project from those within my hobby, as I’ve seen much interest expressed in something similar throughout the hobby’s websites. I’m also pretty sure that there would be a chance at significant revenues as a primary advertiser for the hobby for whoever filled the demand.

On the other hand, I’ve seen a few other sites that tried to fill this demand, but none of them achieved the critical mass of users necessary to make the projects viable, so none of them meet the demand.

That’s the problem. The website would require a lot of work (a year, likely more, of my spare time) as I would need to a lot of programming in php, which I don’t know, but I know I would be capable of doing it. I also know that if I could attain a critical mass of users the site would contribute significantly to the hobby and I could probably monetize it for a decent revenue stream, but I have no idea how I would reach the tipping point when I’ve seen a number of other similar sites that have failed to do so. I started working on it somewhat half-heartedly a few weeks back, and getting a good start on this project was, until today, going to be my goal for the 30 Days of Discipline.

Website Project #2

But today, I had a better idea. I purchased Bold & Determined‘s Spartan Entrepreneur’s Guide (I’ll review this at a later time). I don’t think I’m going to follow his plan as is, (I’ll explain in my coming review), but his ideas on affiliate marketing got me to thinking and I had another idea for a different sort of website using affiliate marketing. This website would require less work upfront, but I could create the framework in a much shorter time-frame and roll out the content over time, unlike the first project which is more or less an all-or-nothing affair. I have to do a bit of research on this to make sure the possible demand for the idea hasn’t been filled, but an initial scan looks positive. So, I’ve decided to change my goal for the 30 Days to creating the framework for this site.

Blog Series

For the blog, I have three longer series I’d like to work out, and if they are well-received, maybe roll them out into clef-published e-books a la Worthless.

The first series I’ve already started: An Economic Analysis of Marriage. Over time, I’d like this to be a complete guide to helping young men considering marriage to calculate the potential costs and benefits of marriage.

I’ve been writing the first post of the second series for over the last few days, and it’s almost completed. Hopefully, it will be out this week. The working title of the series is Biblical Alpha Males, and that’s all I’m giving for now.

The third series is still in the conceptual stage, but essentially, it will be guide for omega males.  As I’ve mentioned before, I was once an omega male, a loser; I’ve since worked my way out of this, but it was not easy. I figure if I create a guide based on my experiences it might help other Omegas in the future.

Novels

I’ve also had three ideas for books that I would like to write at some point:

The first is an idea I have for an epic fantasy series. At this point, I have a strong concept and have developed a story arc that would span at least 5 books. The concept for the series came together last summer as two mediocre ideas I had been playing with in my head came together to make one idea I think is great. I’ve thought about it quite a bit since then. I really want to create this. The only problem is motivating myself to sit down and write. I started writing about half a year ago, and have been writing here and there over time, but I find that while I can just think about the story for hours on end, actually putting words to paper is much more difficult. I’ve almost completed the first chapter and plan to continue on.

The second idea came from an idea I originally had in high school. It’s a near-future sf techo-thriller. I wrote about five chapters in high school, but realized how juvenile, derivative, and inadequate the plot and characterization I was creating were, but the germ of the idea stuck. Since then, I figured out another theme to add to it, which really makes the idea work. I started writing it again about 2 years ago. I finished one chapter, then ran into a major problem: the novel requires a large amount of research on current British culture and socio-economics. The project was dropped as I did not have the time to research this and the epic fantasy idea began to take over my creative thoughts. It does have a working title though: Rivers of Blood. I hope to get back to it at some point; if I do it right it could be major; the idea is good.

The third is the least developed. It’s a mythological fantasy novel based around the modern world. It would require a lot of research on Norse Mythology, but could be interesting; it would probably end up having to be a series, but how long, I have no idea. It’s far behind the other two ideas in priority, but could turn into something at some point.

Over time, I plan to occasionally post status updates of my projects on here to keep myself motivated to continue.

The Malaise of Wealth: the Transition to Post-Scarcity

I probably don’t need to regale you about the economic troubles of our generation. Manufacturing work has been declining for decades hurting the economic prospects of the working class. Professional occupations are now suffering as well, enough so that even the mainstream media gets it. Unemployment is near 50% for new graduates and young people are being hammered by the recession. You all know the drill.

Everybody has a solution to the problem. Obama, Krugman, and the Keynesians say throw fiat money at the economy until it moves. Conservatives and libertarians decry excessive regulations and taxes. Economic nationalists say close the border, criminalize outsourcing, end free trade, and put up tariffs, while neo-liberals call for more free trade.

They blame the rich, they blame welfare bums, they blame bureaucrats, they blame capitalists, they blame the young, they blame the old.

The thing is, they’re all wrong.

There is no real solution to Western economic malaise, as the “malaise” is not actually an economic problem.

Our economic “problem” is that we are too wealthy.

Of course, this doesn’t seem to make sense. Unemployment is high, labour force participation is declining, and people can’t get jobs. How can I possibly say we are too wealthy?

If you look at GDP, it has increased steadily for decades. The “great recession” we blame for our economic woes caused the economy to fall to 2007 levels in 2009 (and we weren’t poor in 2007, at the height of the housing boom, were we?), which was promptly righted in 2010. In terms of what we produce, the goods that actually make our life better, the effects were minor.

Our economic malaise is one not of a lack of production, but of a lack of employment.

Or stated another way: as a society, we are continually producing more of the goods we want, but we have to do less work to get it.

It is the second part of that sentence that is the problem: we have to do less work to get it.

That is the cause of our economic problems. That is why there are no jobs, there is no work for people to do.

****

The problem is that we are in the process of transferring from a capitalist economic system to a post-scarcity “economic system” and nobody is ready for it. It is something that is completely out of most people’s understanding.

Post-scarcity is a word that some of you may have heard of before, or you may not have. So I’ll explain: a post-scarcity economy is one where scarcity has been overcome, where all people have access to as many goods and services as they want, with minimal labour necessary to produce them. In a post-scarcity economy, people do not have what we would consider to be jobs; because most goods and services can be produced with negligible labour.

People will work, but it will be according to the old Marxist saw “[communism] makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

Work will be something you engage in because you want to, not because you have to. You may choose to hunt, but you will do so because you enjoy it, not because you need to eat. You may choose to design a website, but it will be in leisure, not because the boss says to. You will be able to work at whatever you want, or at nothing, because it doesn’t matter to your material wealth, or anyone else’s for that matter.

****

If you want to see post-scarcity today, the best place to look is at the music industry, or perhaps more accurately, it’s continuing collapse. Music can now be made cheaply: at most it costs a couple thousand dollars in instruments and a couple thousand in recording costs. With music creations software, all it costs is a computer you already own and some pirated software to create music. Once the original act of music creation is completed it costs absolutely nothing and requires almost no labour to create another digital copy.

And that’s the whole problem; that’s why the music industry is collapsing. Music executives are finding that it is very hard to justify charging people for what they can get for free. They are fighting free music tooth and nail under the guise of copyright to protect their profits, and they are losing, badly. The economic spin-offs of this are that everybody in the music industry is going to lose their jobs eventually. Why buy a CD when I can download it for free? Why sign with a label when I can distribute my own music on the internet? Why hire a producer when production software is so cheap? Why go to HMV when I can download music at home?

The producer loses his job, the CD manufacturer loses his, the marketing exec loses his, the sales clerk loses his. Thousands of jobs are lost.

Yet, are we poorer? No. Every person in the west now has functionally unlimited access to almost every piece of music ever created at negligible costs. My music library is functionally unlimited and it costs me nothing.

Bill Gates has no greater access to music than I do and I have more access to music than even the richest of men in existence prior to a couple decades ago.

That is post-scarcity.

****

Now the problem with post-scarcity is that every economic system we have had to date has been based on scarcity; there was only a limited amount of resources to go around, so we need some way to distribute those resources. Goods required work, so we needed some way to encourage people to work. That’s why capitalism works, it distributes resources to an individual according to how others in society value the individual’s contributions to society.

But in post-scarcity, capitalism breaks down. With resources being unlimited, nobody can profit off the production of those resources.

Nobody knows how to handle post-scarcity.

The RIAA fights music pirating as post-scarcity means they can’t profit off of the goods.

Politicians back copyright law and fight pirating, not realizing that everybody is getting richer in actual terms as everybody now has unlimited music access, but because they aren’t paying for it it doesn’t register in GDP. In addition, the ability to create nigh unlimited music with negligible labour becomes “unemployment” according to economic measures.

****

That’s all well and fine for music, but it’s not a material good, it’s easily digitized. Certainly the manufacturing of hard goods requires labour.

Does it really?

We can look at 3D printers.These printers can take raw materials (usually plastics or metals) and convert them into durable goods. Industrial printers are expensive and the technology’s still being developed. Simple home printers can now be purchased for less than a used car. Compare their development to that of computers; 30-40 years ago, home computers were a primitive luxury good for businessmen and geeks, large mainframes were commercial technologies, and the internet was a military project. Now, everybody owns a computer with internet access that easily dwarfs the power of those older commercial mainframes and that has hundreds of applications pre-installed.

Why wouldn’t 3D printers advance like this as well? They may be primitive toys for nerds right now, but a couple of decades from now?

Think about it. If your knife broke (or bowl, or computer, or phone, etc.), you just download plans (which was created for free by an online 3D printing design community) for a new knife  to your desktop 3D printer, feed in some metal and plastic, press the start button, and a minute later a new knife.

If you need a bigger object, say a car, you just go to the free neighborhood printer (why wouldn’t it be free, when another printer can print a printer for almost no cost?), stick in your old car to be broken down for raw materials, then have it print out a new car from plans you downloaded to a flash drive earlier.

Think it sound implausible? Why?

We have the basis for the technology, it’s simply a matter of refinement and scale. Remember what happened to computers.

****

Also remember what happened to the music industry.

When this happens (and I believe it’s a when, not an if), why would you need to work, if you could print whatever you wanted? Why would someone pay you for your work if almost anything was free? Why would you pay anyone else for something?

The capitalist market would collapse. Scarcity would disappear.

According to official measures though, GDP would plummet and unemployment would skyrocket.

In addition to the printers, robotics will be used to cover some production.

(I will say this: even in post-scarcity, we will probably need a few people keeping an eye on things, but the prestige, trappings of power, and/or conspicuous altruism of such positions will likely be enough to get the requisite number of people to do this).

****

What about raw materials? The printers couldn’t create those.

At first, out-sourcing. We’d pay poor foreigners to mine or grow raw materials with easily duplicated goods. Robotics could also be used.

At some point, recycling would be enough. There is a limit to what you could possibly want.

If you already have three cars and want a new one, just break down the old one and have a new one reprinted. Same with anything else.

What if you want more than what you have? My question would be why?

Most goods are simply positional; they are used for showing off your wealth.

If anybody can print a Lamborghini for the same material cost as a Pontiac (free, except for the $100 of scrap metals and plastic), the Lamborghini would be worthless as a positional good.

Once you have what you need: food, transport, housing, recreation, positional goods made by someone else would  mostly meaningless. Any positional good that would bring you status would have be something deliberately created apart from the printers/crowd-sourced plans.

****

What about the services?

These would mostly be made unnecessary.

Amazon has made bookstores completely irrelevant. Steam is making video game stores irrelevant. In the future, 3D printing will make stores irrelevant.

Robotics and AI would replace some of the rest.

Communities of interested individuals would take care of the rest. If you had unlimited free time because work became unnecessary, you would pursue and master your favourite activities would you not? So would others. They would form communities and groups just as they do now. They would provide community members services and teaching, just as they do now.

****

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that these are not all going to happen together. Different occupations will be effected at different rates.

Manufacturing has already been dying a slow death for decades as robotics and off-shoring has replaced domestic labour. Unskilled blue-collar labour is already pushing towards post-scarcity conditions.

On the other hand, the trades are still doing well. Skilled blue-collar work is harder to replace.

Unskilled white-collar labour has been going there as well; filing replaced by digitization, clerks were replaced by Excel, etc.

Skilled white-collar labour is harder to replace with technology, but even so, we are approaching the tipping point.

In addition, different industries are effected at different rate. The music industry is in it’s death throes, book publishing will follow soon after.  On the other hand, health care still requires human workers and will for a while to come.

So, while the transition to post-scarcity is occurring, we need a way to incentivise those we need to work to continue working. At the same time, we need to keep those who society does not need to work from causing trouble.

****

As a society on the road to post-scarcity, we are already so productive that we already pay a large chunk of our surplus to those who aren’t contributing, and we have been doing this for decades. Social security and retirement, welfare, EI, disability, foreign aid, and the like are all us paying some of our surplus to the unproductive.

The problem is, as soon as we start paying people to be unproductive, then people have less incentive to be productive. If we start just distributing good income to the unproductive with no pretense, then we might not have the people we need producing, producing. So all the above usually have some conditions attached, so it is not a generally usable condition.

Yet, we have a lot more people who need employment, than we have work that actually needs doing, so we have to find ways beside just giving people money to keep them occupied.

****

We have created a number of strategies to keep unemployment low while post-scarcity works itself out.

First is the welfare state. Welfare and disability, properly stigmatized, can keep the unproductive lower classes from causing trouble, while the stigma keeps productive people from pursuing this option.

Second, jail. If we jail the unproductive that cause trouble, they stop causing trouble.

Third, government. I’m a government worker, but we have to face it, government is on the whole unproductive. Some parts of government are productive, such as infrastructure or health care (assuming a public health system), but the majority of it is not. Redistributive government programs do not produce anything, they just shuffle wealth around while destroying some of it in the process. The regulatory functions of government actively destroy wealth and hinder wealth creation. Not to mention that the taxes necessary to fund government discourage wealth creation. But the government keeps a lot of white-collar people employed.

Fourth, the military. The US has no real external threats and it’s military is vastly superior to anything else on the earth, but the military keeps a lot of people, particularly those people who may be inclined to organized violence, employed.

Fifth, the subsidized. the government subsidizes a lot of economic activity and organizations that would otherwise be unable to continue to exist.

I’m not saying that these were actively created because the people creating them knew we faced unemployment problems due to the transition to post-scarcity, but they do help keep the problem of unemployment in check.

****

So, what should I take from this?

It’s simple, the next few decades are going to be very painful economically. Our wealth will increase, so we’ll continually have more goods and services over time, but at the same time our unemployment will increase and GDP might not accurately reflect the increase in goods and services as post-scarcity resources (such as pirated music) will be outside official measures of wealth as they will not require economic transactions.

Economic inequality will likely continue to increase, as the productive capacity continues to rely on fewer people, while more people are replaced by technology and have less access to wealth.

As each industry faces it’s own movement into post-scarcity each will push it’s own form of blowback as they realize their profits and jobs are going to disappear as technology replaces them.

Together, these forces will create great societal tensions. Government redistribution will continue to grow to keep the lid on these tensions.

At some point though, we will reach the tipping point into post-scarcity. After this, work as we currently know it will no longer be a thing and society will rearrange itself to adapt to a totally new situation.

Lightning Round – 2012/05/01

Everybody enjoying May Day? I hope you are.

Did you know that the average person could be making $100,000 a year? The Captain does the math.

A great speech given to the Fed. Long, but read it.

“The president has a very difficult time with the business community. Most people in business and most people who are successful are Republican that’s just a fact of life.” I wonder why?

The system is hungry; it must eat. Poor Sweden.

Marriage is fundamental to the church: when it declines, so to does the church decline.

Related: Why Evangelical Princesses are un-marriageable; a great post from CMDN.

We won! Yay!?!???

How you create a mass-murderer: Teach him to hate himself, then act surprised when he externalizes that hate.

Becoming as weak as your foes doesn’t help you or them.

Shame the beta month; it looks like it could be interesting.

(ht/ SDA, AMN, CC)

The Bookshelf: 30 Days of Discipline

Tonight, I was going to read and review Ferdinand’s two essays: The Age of Onanism and How to Stop Masturbating, but Smashwords is not letting me download them and I don’t have a Kindle reader, so I’ll have to do that another time.

On the other hand, I discovered Bold & Determined today (h/t the Captain), and I mostly like what I’ve read. So, I downloaded Victor Pride’s essay/short book 30 Days of Discipline and it just so happens that tomorrow is going to be the start of a new month. So, in my quest for self-improvement, starting tomorrow, I’m going to give his recommended habits a try.

There are 12 habits he recommends (buy the essay if you want to know what they are, I’m not going to steal his income). Of them, I’m going to modify four habits:

  • For #1, I will make an exception for snacking when hanging out with friends.
  • For #2, I’m going to wake up at 6 am, rather than 5 am, which is acceptable under his plan.
  • For #5, I’m going to do 4-point presses rather than push-ups as it meshes better with my martial arts training.
  • For #6, I’m going to dress better (business casual, rather than jeans), but I’m not going full-tilt with a three piece suit, for two reasons: 1) That would look really out of place at my work. and 2) I only own two suits which I need to get refitted. I’m also dressing lazy on Saturday as well as Sunday.

Out of all of them, #4 is going to be the hardest and is what I’m most likely going to fail at. Which is why I wanted to read Ferdinand’s books. (I’ll discuss that issue more when I read and review his books, hopefully, Thursday).

For my specific goal, I am going to start work on a project I’ve been meaning to do. This is a large project requiring learning skills I don’t have, so there’s no way I’m going to be able to finish it in a month, but I want to at least get started on it. I will write more on this project and others at a later time, probably in the next week.

I might do the occasional update on here to keep me honest and after the 30 days, I’ll do an after action report (here’s hoping I don’t wash out).

Now a review of his essay:

It’s short (25 pages), to the point, and written in a clear, straightforward style similar to how Victor writes on his blog. The essay is a list of 12 habits you have to follow for 30 days, followed by a couple pages of clarification of the purpose of the habit and support for why you should adopt the habit.

Some of the habits seem like they’re going to be hard (aw… poor baby) and others are not as physically demanding, but are the kinds of things that would be easy to forget about in the moment. It’s not an easy plan to follow, but if it was, it would be 30 Days of Leisure, not 30 Days of Discipline, so at least the book follows through on the title. I’m pretty sure that anyone who could master these habits would be a better person for them.

So, if you’re interested in improving yourself and looking for a challenge, check the essay out; it’s not that expensive. That being said, I’m not actually starting on this until tomorrow, so I can’t say it will improve you yet.

I’ll put out a second part to the review when I have my AAR.

Since when was Covetousness a Christian value?

Here’s one Mr. Sirota at Salon discussing left-wing Christianity and spouting ignorance. (h/t Secular Right).

in England 1) “religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues,”

Same in North America. In fact, in North America conservative religious people donate and volunteer more than liberals. You see, conservative religious folks believe in these little things called charity, community, and loving your neighbour, rather than using the state as a device for sanctioned mass looting so individuals can feel free to ignore the poor.

First, they tell us that, contrary to evidence in the United States, the intersection of religion and politics doesn’t have to be fraught with hypocrisy.

Notice how Sirota thinks an ideology based upon freedom, tradition, and/or order is contrary to the Bible, but left-wing ideology based on greed and covetousness is somehow congruent with it.

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations.”

The Creator of the Universe never spoke much about the political economy, except in relation to the tribal polity of Israel in the Old Testament. To assign God to any political ideology is simply silly.

In addition, plutocrat-boosting capitalism is primarily an ideology of liberalism (be it the neo-conservative, socialist, or progressivist kind). Actual right-wingers believe in a neutral free market of uncoerced exchange.

Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible.

And most liberals who cite Christianity to justify their economic theft don’t believe the Bible is truth.

No doubt, only a few generations ago, such a conflation of religion and right-wing economics would never fly in America.

That’s because a few generations ago, the left hadn’t begun waging all-out-war on Christianity.

Anyway, I dislike when anybody tries to say there’s a “Christian” political or economic system.

There’s a few political and economic systems that might be inherently unchristian, such as those based on gassing Jews, massacring priests, or purposely starving millions of people, but unless your system requires those kinds of atrocities, there is no “Christian” or “unchristian” system, because Jesus didn’t much talked about the political economy. He mentioned something about rendering unto Caeser his own, but that’s more or less it.

Jesus never said, “woe unto thee who opposeth the welfare state” or “truly, I say to unto thee goods should be exchanged freely in an open marketplace” or “blessed be those who raise taxes”.

Jesus’ message, the Christian message, is spiritual, not material and not political.

So, please Mr. Sirota, refrain from making yourself look silly.

Unplugging

I was reading the Hawaiian Libertarian archives, and came across this post on the media. It got me thinking about my own media consumption habits, which reminded me of this passage from CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape, a greater demon, advises a lesser demon on tempting a man:

As this condition becomes more fully established, you will be gradually freed from the tiresome business of providing Pleasures as temptations. As the uneasiness and his reluctance to face it cut him off more and more from all real happiness, and as habit renders the pleasures of vanity and excitement and flippancy at once less pleasant and harder to forgo (for that is what habit fortunately does to a pleasure) you will find that anything or nothing is sufficient to attract his wandering attention. You no longer need a good book, which he really likes, to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday’s paper will do. You can make him waste his time not only in conversation he enjoys with people whom he likes, but in conversations with those he cares nothing about on subjects that bore him. You can make him do nothing at all for long periods. You can keep him up late at night, not roistering, but staring at a dead fire in a cold room. All the healthy and outgoing activities which we want him to avoid can be inhibited and nothing given in return, so that at last he may say, as one of my own patients said on his arrival down here, “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked”.

The Screwtape Letters (which I’d heavily recommend reading) was written before TV became the dominant form of media consumption, but is an excellent description of what TV does.

I’ve was always more of a gamer, but years ago I would watch TV regularly. Often I found myself watching TV, but not enjoying it. I would watch shows that I didn’t find entertaining simply because I was too bored or lethargic to do anything better with my time.. I would stay up late watching crap or simply flipping through channels watching nothing in particular, neglecting my sleep, but not really having fun either.

Then, I moved into a friend’s house. He didn’t want to pay for cable and neither did I, so we went without. I found I didn’t miss TV at all. I would occasionally have a hankering to watch the Simpsons, but other than that I found there was no loss to my life or happiness, and I had more time for other things.

Now, I still watch some shows (such as Archer and Futurama), because sometimes I just need to lie down and relax for a few hours, without having to read or think too much.

But I only watch shows I have specifically downloaded or purchased on DVD. So, when I do watch TV, I only end up watching what I know I enjoy, so I never find myself wasting time on boring stuff.

I’ve been considering subscribing to Netflix as there’s a show or two on there I want to watch (Community and Arrested Development, specifically). My concern though, is with that much easy selection I might again be tempted to waste more time watching TV than I would like. So, I haven’t subscribed yet, but am considering it.

As for other media. I never listen to the radio anymore and haven’t since I got an MP3 player; I find the talk radio boring and music radio plays only crappy music (ie. non-metal).

I never really watched TV news; I found it was really hard to see through the bias to the deeper meanings at the speed of television and so many of the stories were complete wastes of time.

I did read newspapers regularly, but I’ve been trying to cut back. I still read newspapers as part of my job requires it, but I try to avoid it on my own time.

Keeping up with the news is mostly a waste of time and can actually be harmful. Nassim Taleb wrote about this in the Black Swan (another book I’d recommend); the best filter for news is what you hear from others and too much news can actually be harmful to your thinking as you become trapped in minutiae and narrative.

Besides, the news almost never changes, you can predict exactly what your average newspaper will have each day, all that changes is the details:

  • Local violent crime
  • Heartwarming human interest story
  • Political scandal
  • Political leaders debate bill to remove freedom
  • Middle East violence

If anything is novel enough to care about, you’ll learn about it from somewhere. If you really want to keep up, choose an aggregator, such as Instapundit, it will summarize the bigger stories without requiring much time.

The last form media is the internet; this is where most of my media attention goes. I try to read most of the sites on my blogroll fairly regularly, and I have no regrets about that.

What I do find is that it is very easy to waste time just clicking around doing nothing, rather than doing something more useful. Facebook, and political debates on there are especially bad for this. I find I can waste a lot of time debating useless politics with my friends. I enjoy it, usually, but it’s not really productive. I’ve been trying to post less in the last few weeks, and this blog is helping in that. When I can use the Lightning Round to make snide remarks and larger posts to talk about other interesting topics, I think I waste less time posting and debating things on FB, but it’s something I’m working on.

One other special difficulty is late night; it is very easy to continue to waste time, even when not really having fun or learning anything useful, rather than going to bed to get the sleep I need, but I’m trying to work on that. I did quite good in going to bed at a decent time for a few weeks when I first started trying primal living, but have started staying up late again in the last couple weeks. It’s something to work on.

In conclusion, some tips for readers: if you have cable, get rid of it; you probably won’t miss it. If you need to watch TV, use DVDs or downloads, possibly Netflix, so you can ensure you only watch TV you enjoy. Don’t read newspapers or try to keep up on the news, it’s an unproductive waste of time. Subscribe to an aggregator and/or follow a couple of blogs you like; you’ll get all the news that’s actually important. Try to go to bed on time; that important thing on the internet keeping you up, isn’t really that important.

The Bookshelf: Worthless and Freedom 25

Today, I am going to review two books from the manosphere: Worthless by Aaron Cleary and Freedom Twenty-Five by Frost. I read these books a month or two ago, so the reviews will be fairly short and based on what I remember, but these were the first manosphere book I read and I figure I should give some props to them for their influence, as both the Captain (though more his blog than the actual book, as I graduated a few years ago) and Frost really made me reconsider aspects of my life.

Worthless is more or less a guide to choosing a university degree. It’s a fairly short book, but it goes through a lot of the considerations someone entering university should think about. It outlines which degrees are worthwhile; ie. the STEM fields (or at least most of them) and which you should avoid ie. the liberal arts. The book pulls know punches and presents the harsh reality of the current post-secondary education system. It’s an enjoyably written screed that presents the necessary information without having so much data it overwhelms the narrative.

The one criticism is that a lot  fair amount of the data was Minnesota specific. I don’t think national data would have changed the book much, but would have been somewhat more convincing.

If you are thinking about university buy this book; if you have a loved one thinking about university, buy them this book. If neither applies to you, check it out if the subject matter interests you; it’s still a good read, but not essential.

Freedom Twenty-Five is essentially a short guide to red-pill living. If you’ve been around the manosphere for a while, you probably already know most of what is in the book. On the other hand, I’ve never seen anything else that collects and distills red pill thought in such a convenient matter. The information in there, while mostly basic red pill knowledge, covers information that would otherwise require reading hundreds of posts on dozens on blogs to acquire. The book reads well. The only complaint is that he has some braggadocio that can at is at times be tiring.  The book spoke to me because as I’ve mentioned I found a fair number of similarities between his life and mine prior to when he started his blog and quit his job. It prompted me to try the primal diet (I had known and read of it beforehand, but never tried to apply it). It was also a driver in me starting this blog to explore things for myself.

I heartily recommend the book, especially for those who are just starting to learn of the red pill. Even if you’re familiar with the manosphere, it’s a handy summary of knowledge.

Sexbots

That probably got your attention.

Researchers are now claiming that sexbots will replace prostitutes in the future. Of course, they’re only a half decade behind Roissy (but thanks for coming out, anyway).

The wide-scale use of either sexbots or virtual reality sex seems inevitable. Males’ desire for more realistic pornography and masturbation aids is insatiable.

“The biggest part of the sex experience … is interaction with a woman,” he noted. “He wants to tell her stories, wants her to listen, wants her to act like she cares – a robot’s not going to do that.”

It’s not going to matter. While sex with a real woman will generally be preferable for most men, the people who will be driving the demand are likely those who do not have that option. Roissy more or less has the general trends down.

Omegas will flock to sexbots; the herbivores in Japan have already started to use dating sims, virtual girlfriends, hentai body pills (sorry, no link to that), and other such pre-sexbot aids in large numbers. North American omegas have started to pick up on RealDolls (sorry, again) and the Japanese stuff as well. Omegas have little hope of having sex anyway, so the lack of interaction with women is not going to effect their decisions in the slightest.

For betas, it will be a cost-benefit analysis. Is the expected marginal benefit of a real women over a sexbot worth the cost of putting up with all the crap of dating? For many, I don’t think it will be.

The demand for alphas will increase, but even then, alphas may demand sexbots. They also have a cost-benefit analysis; some alphas might use sexbots once their realistic enough simply because it will be easier than spending hours tolerating painfully stupid conversation in a nightclub.

What Roissy misses though is other major drivers of demand, those who can have the sex they desire with real women due to consent and legality issues.

About a third of men have rape fantasies, something that can not be legally acted upon. Up to 7% of males are clinical pedophiles, something which they can definitely not legally act upon. Then of course, there are the array of fetishists with fantasies that are biologically impossible, such as sadists, furries, or those interested in dickgirls (no links here).

I think that these groups will be some of the biggest customers for sexbots, so they can enact their fantasies which are either impossible or illegal in real life. There will demand for a sexbot that resists, cries, bleeds, and generally acts like it’s being raped and/or abused. There will be demand for sexbots that look eight-years old. There will be a demand for sexbots created in ways that are biologically impossible.

The demand for pornography is already nigh limitless. The demand for realistic sexbots is as well.

The technology will eventually get to the point this demand can be met. Realdolls have become increasingly realistic. Conversational AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Robots are becoming increasingly capable. Artificial sex organs are becoming increasingly widespread as masturbatory aids. At this point, it’s simply a matter of degree and putting it all together into an affordable package.

When this occurs, the introduction of sexbots into the marketplace is an inevitability.

Of course, Half-Sigma could be right, the state could ban them.

Social conservatives will also fight them tooth and nail, but will lose the fight as they’ve eventually lost on every fight they’ve fought.

Feminists will most assuredly fight sexbots, as they would greatly reduce females’ power in the sexual marketplace. Feminists have traditionally had great sway over policy, but in this case, I do not think they would realize their power was slipping away until it was too late. At first they will ignore them, as who really cares if a bunch of creepy nerds pleasure themselves with some fancy toys? Then it will slowly move up the sexual value chain from omegas to lesser betas to greater betas and finally to alphas. By the time it’s removed enough betas and alphas from the dating pool for feminists to notice that there are fewer men to date and that those men are demanding more, sexbots will likely already be a fait accompli.

What I think will be the most likely to lead to their restriction introduction will be this:

“And the robots can assume any identity virtually … though we just have 18-plus as the age that the robot behaves like.”

While this company might avoid it (at first), someone will eventually create a sex doll that looks and acts like a five-year-old (or worse, a child-like sex-bot designed to cry and act afraid and in pain); there is too much demand for them not to.

When a child-like sexbot is created, the disgust most people have for pedophiles will boil to the surface and create a general backlash against sexbots. This backlash may succeed in having them banned (barring, of course, the unlikely event of a general rise in acceptance of pedophiles similar to the acceptance of homosexuals, bdsm-types, and the like).

If they are banned though, this will simply create a black-market for the products, just like there is for child pornography and prostitution. The ability for men to be able to act out their most depraved fantasies without suffering the guilt of actually hurting a real person is something that the government will not be able to stifle.

Also, I expect some psychologists and the like to come forward defending deviant sexbots, as it will allow deviants to engage in their sexual activities without harming people, which will probably be good for their mental health,s reduce the likelihood of deviants actually hurting someone, and reduces the demand for prostitution. This could tip the balance towards the liberalization of sexbots.

With sexbots being inevitable, what will be the effects of their introduction? Well, generally not good. As the sexual costs of reclusiveness, unemployment, social awkwardness, etc. decrease, more men will go their own way, leave the marriage market, and contribute less to society economically. Marriage rates will further decrease.

On the other hand, the improved options for men will force women to increase their bids for men still in the market, so the problems of frivolous divorce and unjust family courts and laws may be ameliorated. On the other hand, improved options for men, might increase mens’  instigation of frivolous divorce and tip the scales in the other direction.

Lightning Round – 2012/04/25

Public schools do not exist for the benefit of students. They are holding cells to employ teachers and free women to teach other women’s children.

When you sell your children’s souls to secular culture, why be surprised when secular culture claims them.  (h/t CMDN)

When you sell your soul to those who hate freedom, why be surprised when they try to take yours? (h/t Glenn)

Man up.

On the other hand, some remain free of secular culture and the state. In my province, this would not be possible just living together for a few years means the state controls your domestic relationship.

You mean after they lied to us, stolen from us, and betrayed us at every turn, we’re losing faith in them? How could that possibly happen? (h/t Glenn)

The rabble should know their place.

Nothing to see here. There is no bubble. Related.

Who could have guessed that when the US started towards a European-model economy, they’d have European levels of unemployment? Enjoy that 50% OWS. (via the Captain)

The state wishes to control even the foods you eat and the advice you give. Be wary of advocating paleo, they may come for you. (h/t DG)

Why trying to reason with pro-abortionists and feminists is a waste of time. When they can not even conceive that the other side may have an argument beside being mentally disturbed, there is no point.

A ginned up show trial ends. He won’t be serving time, but since when can failing “to hold cabinet meetings focused on the spiraling crisis” possibly be considered a crime.

A union boss being hypocritical. Colour me surprised. (h/t Glenn)

Choice and Freedom

Slate had an article from last week I read today. For the most part it’s typical liberal feminist rhetoric: women are oppressed, men are treated better, Republican’s are waging “war on women” but the “mommy wars” don’t exist, etc, etc.

But, there’s an interesting question asked in the middle:

For starters, ask yourself why we talk about American men using the language of “freedom” and women in the language of “choice?”
…
Why is it that women are the sum of their “choices” and men get to just live their lives?

Having asked a rather interesting question, the authors then simply blame it on evil Republicans who hate women, a thoroughly unsatisfying answer to any who aren’t ideologically-blinded feminists.

So, why do we talk about freedom when referring to males, but choice when referring to females (or at least to feminists)?

The first, and most obvious, reason would be abortion. Feminism has irreversibly joined itself to pro-abortion policies and uses the language of choice when discussing the mass killing of the unborn.

But, even when not addressing abortion, or even feminism for that matter, the dichotomy of male freedom and female choice remains in political discussion. Why?

First, we have to look at what is meant by the two words:

Freedom is generally used to mean the ability to act without external constraint. Some have tried to pervert the word with the phrase “positive freedom” (ie. forcing someone else to help you to act), but the original conception, sometimes referred to as “negative freedom”, is the most commonly accepted: the ability to do as you wish with yourself and your resources without someone else using force to stop you.

Choice, on the other hand, refers to the act of selecting an option. Choice implies that options are available and one is selected.

So, how does that relate to politics and sex differences?

Nobody else can give you freedom, others can only take it away. Freedom also implies responsibility: if you are free to act, you are free to act stupidly and will have to live with the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, freedom does not imply that you have the ability to act; just because there are not external constraints, does not mean there are no internal constraints. I am free to fly, but not being Superman, I have to walk.

Choice can be given by others. Choice also implies that I have the ability to act. Because I am not Superman, I can not be said to have the choice to fly.On the other hand, if I lived in Metropolis, Superman could offer me a ride; if he did I would then have the choice of flight.

Knowing this, we can see why men have freedom and women, or at least feminists, have choice.

Men are encouraged to act and when they fail, they are rarely given help; they are expected to pull themselves up. Men who do not provide for themselves are shamed. In the political sphere, the more masculine ideologies (libertarianism and conservatism) are based on freedom.

When men (rarely) organize politically for the benefit of their sex, it is never to demand they be given special privileges or for others to provide for them, it is always to be left free: the fair enforcement of marriage contracts, to not be discriminated against when applying for jobs, to not be treated as de facto guilty when accused, etc.

They advocate for freedom. Men in politics are more inclined to work towards freedom and are not inclined to requiring other to provide for them.

On the other hand, females are encouraged to rely on the state. When they fail, the surrogate husband will take care of them. Women who are provided for are not shamed. In the political sphere, the more feminine ideologies (liberalism, feminism, and progressivism) are based on choice, on giving people choices, even if it requires the state help them, redistributing resources, or removing freedom. They also tend to advocate that the state prevent them from having to live with the consequences of their actions.

When modern females organize politically for the benefit of their sex (ie. post-second wave feminism), the demand for other to provide them with choice is always there: affirmative action, quotas for hiring women, state-funded daycare, state-funded abortions, mandatory contraception insurance, ending sexist jokes, sensitivity training for others, increased welfare, gender parity, increased alimony, etc. Feminists demand choices and demand that others provide these choices for them.

That is why we talk about men in the language of freedom and women in the language of choice.

If feminists do not like being consigned to the language of choice, they can accept freedom.

They would have to accept that freedom may limit choice. If a person can not afford daycare, they go without.

They would have to accept responsibility that comes along with it. If a person has children, they are responsible for raising them and paying for them.

They would have to accept that freedom means that others won’t be forced to provide you with choices. There would be no affirmative action or gender quotas, no state-funding to support choices, little to no welfare, etc.

But, until feminists embrace freedom, they will be consigned to the language of choice.