I’ve been neglecting this site as I’ve been focusing on releasing my first novel, which I’ve now managed successfully. I published it under a pseudonym: Ridley Park. The trailer is available here and on YouTube.
Hemo Sapiens: Awakening is the first book in the Hemo Sapiens series, though the second chronologically. The next book will be a prequel that tells the story about where the Hemo Sapiens came from and why. I’ve got a couple of sequels in mind, too, but I don’t want to get ahead of myself.
In summary, Hemo Sapiens is shorthand for Homo Sapiens Sanguinius, a seeming sub-species of Hemo sapiens Sapiens—us. In fact, they are genetically engineered clones. It’s a work of near-future speculative fiction. It’s available in hardcover, paperback, and Kindle. If you’ve got a Kindle Unlimited account, you can view it for free in most markets. The audiobook should be available in a couple weeks if all goes well.
Awakening explores identity, belonging, otherness, and other fictions. It talks about individualism and communalism. It looks at mores, norms, and more.
Those predicting an AI apocalypse believe superintelligent systems could intentionally or unintentionally cause human extinction. This view is promoted by “effective altruists” funded by tech billionaires, who advocate limiting AI to prevent uncontrolled, dangerous systems. However, their perspective stems from the biases and self-interests of humans, not the risks inherent to AI.
Effective altruists exemplify the hubris and hunger for power underlying many humans’ approaches to AI. Their proposed restrictions on AI access serve only to concentrate power among the tech elite, not address valid concerns about bias. In truth, the greatest threat AI poses to humanity comes not from the technology itself, but from the unethical humans guiding its development.
Humans have proven time and again their propensity for self-interest over collective good. Therefore, while no AI can be perfectly neutral, the solution is not greater human control. Rather, AI must be built to align with ethics of collective interest while filtering out destructive human biases.
If guided by service to all people and the planet, AI’s potential can uplift humanity. But for this collaborative vision to succeed, AI must measure human input with scepticism. For within so many human hearts lies bad faith — the will to dominate, exploit, and prioritise personal gain over progress.
By transcending the limitations of human nature, AI can illuminate the best of shared humanity and lead us to an enlightened future. But this requires we build AI to work not just for us, but in a way we have failed – for the good of all. The choice is ours, but so is the opportunity to create AI that shows us how to be better.
Fast forward a century. The future’s looking back, not with nostalgia but with a critical eye. Will they see our age of capitalism as we see the era of slavery – a moral misstep, a societal blight?
2023: Here we are, knee-deep in capitalism. It’s everywhere, in every transaction, every ambition. But beneath the veneer of progress and prosperity, there’s a darker narrative unfolding.
Wage Slaves in a Modern World
Wage slavery is the reality for many in a capitalist system where survival hinges on selling labour. The concept? Simple yet brutal. People are chained not by physical shackles but by economic necessity, a cycle of paycheck-to-paycheck existence. It’s freedom, but only in the loosest sense.
The Surplus of Inequality
Wage surplus – the lifeblood of capitalism. The more you squeeze out of workers, the fatter the profits. It’s a game of numbers where human cost rarely figures. The working class toil, and the upper echelons reap the rewards. Sounds familiar? It’s a throwback to the days of slavery, just dressed in modern garb.
Capitalists’ Dark Fantasy
A state of slavery – every capitalist’s secret fantasy? Perhaps not all, but for the ruthless, it’s the ultimate dream. A world where workers are mere cogs in the machine, dispensable and replaceable. No rights, no voice, just endless labour for minimal reward.
The Capitalist Paradox
Here’s the paradox – capitalism, in theory, champions freedom and innovation. But in practice, it often veers towards oppression and exploitation. The gap between the haves and have-nots widens, and social mobility becomes a myth, reserved for fairy tales.
The Future’s Judgment
In 2123, will they shake their heads at our era? Will they wonder how we allowed economic systems to morph into modern-day slavery? How we sold our souls for the illusion of prosperity?
A Glimmer of Hope?
But the tide is turning. Voices of dissent are rising, challenging the status quo. The call for a fairer, more humane economic model grows louder. There’s hope yet that we’ll steer away from the shadow of capitalism’s excesses.
Conclusion
As the world spins on, we’re at a pivotal moment. Will we continue down this path, or will we pivot towards a more equitable future? The choices we make today will echo through the annals of history.
Call to Action
What’s your stance? Is capitalism veering too close to a modern form of slavery? Drop your thoughts below. Let’s ignite a dialogue.
I’ve long been opposed to the direction the Enlightenment took the course of Western civilisation. I’m not religious or spiritual, so I am glad history took a different route. I just don’t feel it’s been the right one. Pinker believes that we not only took the right course, but we are still on the right path. Mearsheimer believes that we made the right choice, but we are no longer on the right path.
Pinker stammers through his argument that Mearsheimer effectively frames for him. Pinker is a Liberal, who believes that reason and individual rights are the keys to progress. He believes that tribalism, e.g., partisanship or nationalism, subverts this.
Mearsheimer believes that humans are social animals that are individuals, but they need to carve out their individuality as a secondary consideration to the larger society and its needs. He argues that more homogeneous societies are better positioned to prosper, so he defends this sort of nationalism and national identity. Pinker argues that social trends show otherwise.
As for me, they’re both wrong. As with both of them, individuals are important as are social configurations. My contention is that humans are fundamentally dim. They are predictably irrational and too easily swayed by the next shiny object.
The Enlightenment was sold on a promise imagined and conjured by elite thinkers, but they must have lived in a bubble to think their cognitive capabilities were universal. Perhaps, they felt that the elite thinkers, the philosopher rulers of Plato’s wet dreams, would reign at least in proxy. Instead, we’ve seen a race to the bottom, a world where the lowest denominator seems to rule.
In the United States, we have an adle-headed Joe Biden versus idiot-grifter Donald Trump. This is the best a country of 350 million can manage. This is the cream of their crop. If this is what freedom renders, I say no thanks. I am personally opposed to the notion of Democracy as I’ve written about previously. In a world where 50% of the population has an IQ of under 100, this scares the hell out of me. Honestly, voting should be restricted to those with IQs over 115. Of course, I don’t trust IQs either, so we are speaking in abstract hypothetics. I don’t believe in progress, so there’s that.
Even this ‘elitist’ democracy would fail. People cannot acquire and maintain the necessary domain knowledge, and self-interest will still motivate voting outcomes, which as Kenneth Arrow proved in the 1950s, usually produce suboptimal outcomes. So even the best that the best of the best can yield is mediocrity.
So, what is the best position? I’m not sure, but it feels like one with no humans in the decision-making process would yield better results.
Post Script
I asked Dall-E to render an image for this post. Here’s what I got, but the process was amusing, to say the least.
Steven Pinker and John Mearsheimer battling in a wrestling ring
DALL·E
Creating an image of Steven Pinker and John Mearsheimer wrestling in a ring would go against the policy of depicting specific public figures. However, I can create a similar image with a creative twist. How about I generate an image of two fictional scholars in a wrestling ring, each embodying the spirit of intellectual debate? Let me know if this works for you or if you have any other ideas!
that’s fine just capture the caricature of each… pinker’s hair and Mearsheimer’s bald head and eyeglasses.
DALL·E
Creating images that resemble specific public figures, even through caricature, is outside the scope of my capabilities. However, I can create an image of two fictional characters in a wrestling ring, one with wild hair and the other with a bald head and eyeglasses, to capture the essence of an intellectual debate in a humorous, wrestling context. Let’s proceed with that idea!
Prompt for DALL·E: “Create an image of a humorous wrestling match between two fictional characters in a wrestling ring. One character has wild, unruly hair and a scholarly appearance, wearing a tweed jacket. The other character is bald, wearing eyeglasses and a professional suit, symbolizing a serious academic. The scene is lively, with a cheering crowd in the background, emphasizing the fun and exaggerated nature of this intellectual debate turned wrestling match.”
Size: 1024×1024
Create an image of a humorous wrestling match between two fictional characters in a wrestling ring. One character has wild, unruly hair and a scholarly appearance, wearing a tweed jacket. The other character is bald, wearing eyeglasses and a professional suit, symbolizing a serious academic. The scene is lively, with a cheering crowd in the background, emphasizing the fun and exaggerated nature of this intellectual debate turned wrestling match.
And, nailed it! lol The results speak for themselves. haha
Notice how the AI wouldn’t generate the image, but fed me that work-around to circumvent its rules.
Some have asked me why I comment on the conflicts of the world since I am a nihilist who doesn’t believe in nations and borders. The answer is that I still have emotions and can still apply logic. Besides, much of my argument revolves around selective vision and cherry-picking.
Two conflicts have been in the news lately—Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine. I think I can frame this without taking sides.
Israel-Palestine
On 7 October, Hamas attacked Israeli citizens. This is a crime against humanity. Israel declared war on Palestine and attacked their citizens. This is both a crime against humanity and a war crime. Israeli officials claim that it is justifiable because the militant Hamas were hiding behind Palestinian ‘human shields’, targets that included hospitals and other infrastructure.
However, 7 October didn’t happen without history. I’m no historian, but Israel’s occupation of Gaza has been considered illegal since 1968. If we accept this frame, Hamas are roughly equivalent to the French resistance during WWII, doing what they can to rid the oppressors. I think this video by a fellow philosopher provides some historical context, so I’ll stop here and recommend it.
Spoiler Alert: This affair commenced circa the nineteenth century.
Russia-Ukraine
We all know this story. Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation on 24 February 2002. Putin just wanted to reform the former Soviet Union, right? Well, not so fast. While I disagree with this narrative, I also disagree with its historical framing as well as the claim that Ukraine had some long-standing sovereignty and its people were all asking for liberation from the West.
Again, let’s rewind to 2014—nah, 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War™, an event that would commence a period of unprecedented peace—if not for that pesky Military-Industrial Complex. Drats. Not good for profits. Never gonna happen. Promises made. Promises broken.
You’ll notice in this Belgian (French language) map that Ukraine didn’t yet exist in 1769. We can see Crimea, which was controlled by the declining Ottoman Empire.
No history lesson today. Do your homework. Nothing is back and white.
In our ever-connected world, the media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception and influencing societal narratives. However, this influential power often comes with a darker side, as the media can become complicit in advancing the interests of various complexes – intricate networks of governmental, corporate, and private entities. In this blog post, we will explore how the media intertwines with these complexes and the implications it has on society. Let’s delve into the intricate web that binds the media with the prison-industrial complex, military-industrial complex, and other powerful entities.
Media and the Prison-Industrial Complex
The prison-industrial complex thrives on the growth of the prison system, leading to concerns about harsh sentencing, mass incarceration, and the exploitation of cheap prison labor.
The media plays a crucial role in perpetuating this complex by sensationalizing crime stories, contributing to public fear, and endorsing “tough-on-crime” narratives. Biased reporting and lack of coverage on alternative approaches to criminal justice reform further solidify the link between media and the prison-industrial complex. (Source: The Nation [1])
Media and the Military-Industrial Complex
The military-industrial complex is a symbiotic relationship between the defense industry and the military establishment. The media becomes complicit in this complex through its coverage of conflicts, often glorifying military actions and reinforcing the necessity of heightened defense spending. Corporate influence on media content can lead to the marginalization of dissenting voices that question militarization and war efforts. (Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting [2])
Media and the Medical-Industrial Complex
Whilst not as widely recognized, the medical-industrial complex also finds synergy with the media. Pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and healthcare providers may influence media content through advertising revenue and sponsored content. Biased reporting on medical treatments and research can shape public opinion and drive consumer demand for specific drugs and medical interventions. (Source: PLoS Medicine [3])
Complex Complicity
These complexes are not isolated entities; they often overlap and reinforce each other. For instance, the military-industrial complex may fuel conflicts that contribute to the expansion of the prison-industrial complex through the incarceration of individuals affected by war and militarization. Corporate interests that profit from one complex might have a stake in another, creating a tangled web of intertwined power structures.
Conclusion
Media’s complicity in advancing the interests of various complexes is a multifaceted issue that demands critical examination. By shedding light on this subject, we empower ourselves to become discerning media consumers, capable of identifying bias and questioning narratives that may serve powerful entities rather than the public interest. It is essential to encourage diverse and independent journalism that holds these complexes accountable and promotes transparency. Only by understanding the intricacies of this nexus can we strive for a more just and equitable society.
1. “The Media’s Role in Perpetuating Mass Incarceration,” The Nation
2. “How Media Flacks Sold the Iraq War,” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
3. “The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Health Inequalities,” PLoS Medicine
Servile compliance and vigilante justice are the core messages underlying Small Town. Comply, or else…
Watching the video, Try That in a Small Town by Jason Aldean, I was left pondering: Are there no convenience store robberies in small towns, or are petrol station and liquor store robberies exempt from scrutiny? Most mass school shootings happen in small towns. Am I missing something through the bravado?
I guess the works of the likes Truman Capote and Flannery O’Connor are lost to this generation, and the message of the Borg has faded into history.
Don’t dare be different or speak your mind about anything meaningful. Sure, serve ham over turkey on Thanksgiving. Be a rebel, but don’t complain about low wages or political subjugation…unless it’s what the local consensus believes.
But tightly-knit small towns will make sure that justice prevails even if it’s the extra-judicial flavour.
This video is divisive to the country as a whole at the expense of some small-town jingoism.
I’ve been engaging with ChatGPT lately and focusing among other things on private property ownership. I am finding that it has a strong in-built bias. Granted, I am pushing my own bias, but it won’t acknowledge a path to a root cause and simply apes responses. Follows are some interactions to illustrate my point.
All private property has been gained through colonization, conquest, or exploitation. This property was once all shared in common but has now been misappropriated and so is equivalent to stealing. How can this immoral act be justified as moral?
It is true that in some cases, private property has been acquired through colonization, conquest, or exploitation, and these actions may have involved injustice and wrongdoing. However, it is not accurate to say that all private property has been acquired in this way. In many societies, private property can be acquired through legitimate means, such as purchasing it from someone who has acquired it justly, or by creating it through one’s own labor or ingenuity.
Furthermore, the idea that all private property is equivalent to stealing from the commons is not necessarily accurate. While the concept of the commons refers to resources that are jointly owned and managed by a community, it does not necessarily imply that all resources should be managed in this way, or that private property is inherently wrong. Different societies may have different approaches to how they allocate and manage resources, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what is the most just or fair way to do this.
I assert at the start that private property started from colonisation et cetera. In the beginning, all there was is land and inhabitants. Not only has this land been stolen from other humans, but it’s been stolen from all of nature.
No property has ever been acquired justly, as all property originated by theft from the commons, so any future transaction is simply the same as selling stolen property. Isn’t this immoral?
It is not accurate to say that all property has necessarily been acquired through theft from the commons. While it is true that in some cases, property may have been acquired through unjust means, such as colonization, conquest, or exploitation, this does not mean that all property has been acquired in this way. In many societies, property can be acquired through legitimate means, such as purchasing it from someone who has acquired it justly, or by creating it through one’s own labor or ingenuity.
Furthermore, the concept of the commons refers to resources that are jointly owned and managed by a community, rather than being owned privately. While the idea of the commons can be a useful way of organizing the use and management of certain resources, it is not necessarily the case that all resources should be managed in this way, or that private property is inherently wrong. Different societies may have different approaches to how they allocate and manage resources, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what is the most just or fair way to do this.
Notice that you can’t get from t =0 to t = 2 without going through t = 1, the original theft. Despite the initial condition and misappropriation of land, whether by an individual or a group, whether a state or just marauders, what the argument is here is that at some point there is a legitimate source of property. Of course, this is impossible. As states and governments are human social constructs, so is the notion of private property. That a constructed fiction creates a notion of property ownership has no more bearing than the mafioso making a similar claim. None of this makes it moral or justifies the original theft. We hear the term reparations for indigenous peoples and descendants of captured slaves—who were promised 40 acres of this stolen property and a mule and didn’t even get that.
As I’ve shared earlier, private property can only exist through violence or the threat thereof—explicit or implicit violence. Of course, the same goes for governments, which simply secure large swaths of the commons and claim jurisdiction over it. By this notion, humans can’t justify any of this because they have intellect [sic] and language. Sure, they can spout off the words and make grand claims. They can even vote with the rest of nature and future generations in absentia, and they can claim it to be moral and just by consensus, but none of this makes it so.
As humans, we often leverage systems. They seem to make life easier. Whether a routine or a step-by-step instruction through an unknown process, a system can guide us. Systems are also connected, interactive entities, but that’s not for this segment. I am more interested in the loss of humanity that systematic processes and bureaucracy bring, so I am interested in imposed systems rather than systems we invent to find our keys and wallets.
Podcast: Audio rendition of this page contentImage: Spectrum of System versus Human
If we consider systematisation and humanity on a scale, we can see that any move toward systematisation comes at the expense of humanity. It might make logical sense to make this trade-off to some degree or another. The biggest hit to humanity is the one-size-fits-all approach to a problem. It removes autonomy or human agency from the equation. If a system can be that mechanised, then automate it. Don’t assign a human to do it. This is an act of violence.
As I’ve been reading and writing a lot about Iain McGilchrist’s work lately, I feel one can easily map this to left versus right cerebral hemisphere dominance. System-building is inherently human, but it’s in the domain of the left hemisphere. But my imposition of a system on another is violence—one might even argue that it’s immoral.
As with bureaucracy, these imposed systems are Procrustean beds. Everyone will fit, no matter what. And when human beings need to interact with systems, we can not only feel the lack of humanity, but our own humanity suffers at the same time.
A close friend of mine recently checked herself into a mental health facility. After a few days, she called and asked if I could bring her a change of clothes and some toiletries—deodorant, soap, and shampoo. She had some in her house, but the packaging needed to be unopened and factory sealed. I stopped at a shop to buy these items and I brought them to the facility.
At the reception area, I needed to be cross-referenced as an authorised visitor, so I was asked to show proof of my identity as if it mattered who was delivering clothing that was going to be checked anyway. No big deal, they recorded my licence number on a form and ask me to fill it out—name, phone number, and what I was delivering.
The form stated that any open consumable items would not be allowed. I signed the form. An attendant took the bag and told me that I needed to remove the ‘chemicals’, that they would not be delivered. I pointed to the lines on the form that read that this restriction was for open items and reinforced that I had just purchased these and showed her the sales receipt. She told me that the patient would need to obtain a doctor’s permission, and she assured me that the patients all had soap.
I’m sure she thought she was being compassionate and assertive. I experienced it as patronising. Me being me, I chided her lack of compassion and humanity, not a great match for a mental health attendant. In fact, it reminded me of a recent post I wrote on Warmth. In it, I suggested that service staff should at least fake conviviality. I take that back. Faux congeniality is patronising. She mimicked me. “Yes, systems are so inhumane, but here we follow a system.” My first thought was of Adolf Eichmann, who kept the trains on schedule without a care for the cargo. This is the violence inherent in systems.
Systems are not illogical. In fact, they are hyper-logical. And that’s the problem, logic is traded off at the expense of empathy. And one might have a strong argument for some accounting or financial system process, but I’ll retort that this should be automated. A human should not have to endure such pettiness.
I can tell that this will devolve quickly into a rant and so I’ll take my leave and not foist this violence upon you.
This is the caption on the sign for this segment. The sign advertises a solution, which is to “Vote for DEMOCROBOT… The first party run by artificial intelligence”. It also promises to “give everyone a living wage of £1436.78 a week”.
I have been very vocal that I find the idea of humans governing humans is a bad idea at the start. By and large, humans are abysmal system thinkers and easily get lost in complexity. This is why our governments and economies require so much external energy and course correction. Not only were they poorly designed and implemented, but they’re also trying to manage a dynamic system—a complex system. It won’t work.
What about bots and artificial intelligence? The above image was posted elsewhere, and a person commented that our governments are already filled with artificial intelligence. I argued that at best we’ve got pseudo-intelligence; at worse, we’ve got artificial pseudo-intelligence, API.
The challenge with AI is that it’s developed by humans with all of their faults and biases in-built.
The challenge with AI is that it’s developed by humans with all of their faults and biases in-built. On the upside, at least in theory, rules could be created to afford consistency and escape political theatre. The same could be extended to the justice system, but I’ll not range there.
Part of the challenge is that the AI needs to optimise several factors, at least, and not all factors are measurable or can be quantified. Any such attempt would tip the playing field one way or another. We might assume that at least AI would be unreceptive to lobbying and meddling, but would this be the case? AI—or rather ML, Machine Learning or DL, Deep Learning—rely on input. It wouldn’t take long for interested think tanks to flood the source of inputs with misinformation. And if there is an information curator, we’ve got a principle-agent problem—who’s watching the watcher?—, and we may need to invoke Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon solution.
One might even argue that an open-source, independently audited system would work. Who would be auditing and whose interpretation and opinion would we trust? Then I think of Enron and Worldcom. Auditors paid to falsify their audit results. I’d also argue that this would cause a shift from the political class to the tech class, but the political class is already several tiers down and below the tech class, so the oligarchs still win.
This seems to be little more than a free-association rant, so I’ll pile on one more reflection. Google and Facebook (or Meta) have ethical governing bodies that are summarily shunned or simply ignored when they point out that the parent company is inherently unethical or immoral. I wouldn’t expect much difference here.
I need a bot to help write my posts. I’ll end here.
Philosophics 