Eden's Economy

Let us pretend.  Let us pretend about an ideal economic utopia. 
What kind of people would we wish to be?  What would be our means of organization?  How would choices about resources be made?

A Thought Experiment

Imagine some future world where we have built robots.  

Lots of robots.  
Robots that act cleverly.   
Robots that crunch enormous amounts of data but do not think.  
Robots that can solve problems. 

Robots clever enough can build other robots.  
Robots clever enough to design other robots to do things.  
Robots clever enough to gather resources.  
Robots clever enough to transform those resources into goods and services.  

In this thought experiment, robots would do all the work.  
A human would never need labor except when she desired.
Every human want could be met.
Most human desires could be served.
In such a world, our desires would be limited only by the amount of resources available.

Economic Utopia

In such a Utopia words like "profit", "inflation", "wages", "debt", and even "money" would have no meaning. 
In such a utopia hard work doesn't mean much, as human labor would be unneeded. 
In such a system education would not be needed.
Some could say that the mythical Eden might have been like our imaginary economic utopia.   

Finite Resources

The only limits to our needs and desires would be resources.
The planet is only so big, the solar system has only such much matter and energy.
Like all eco-systems, eventually people and their desires would overwhelm the energy and material available.
Some kind of decisions would need be made to who gets the energy, who gets the material, how the resource is distributed.

Distribution Dilemma

So how then would we distribute the finite resources?  
What moral value system would we use to determine who gets goods and services? 
How shall we balance between need and desire?
What limits shall we place on humans?

If hard work has no meaning, what reason could be used determines who gets medicine?
If education is irrelevant, what reason could be used to determines who gets food?
Is how beautiful a person is the right way to divide resources?
Is how strong or fast or agile a person is the right way to decide who gets what?
What moral value system shall we use to achieve a just distribution?
What basis shall we use to determine what a "good life" is and reward it?


Economy Morality

While this thought experiment could probably never happen, it does illustrate what I think is a fundamental problem with many economic theories.

We, as human beings, seek each to have a "good life".  
Each of us may view what a "good life" is differently. 

Economics systems are only tools used by humankind to allow its individuals to seek "good lives".

Concepts about hard work, education, beauty, or strength are arbitrary ways to distribute resources, they are not necessarily the most moral means of distribution.

What ever economic system we seek, we should first and foremost have a moral code that values humans above all else.

The value of each human being ought outweigh the circumstance of their birth.
The value of each human being ought outweigh their beauty, strength, or lack of opportunity.
No system of economics which does not place morality at its core will serve its participants well.

It is in the best interest of the entire population of humankind to ensure a distribution of resources that works for the majority of the population.


Dismal Reality

To date, no one has come up with a moral economic system that actually works.  
Instead we trend between the extremes of "I got mine" or "Everybody gets the same".  
Both of these polar opposites are only vague approximations of moral distribution of resources.

I do not know the answer to how a moral economy could be achieved.

Capitalism, socialism, communism,laissez-faire, and objectivism all are only poor attempts at a moral economics.

Although many pretend; no one, in fact, seems to know the answer to this ancient puzzle of Eden.  

Justice, Revenge, and Punishment

When we say "We are going to make an example of him", what do we mean?

What is the purpose of inflicting pain and violence on others in the name of "justice"?


Revenge is Payback

Should an angry parent be spanking a child?  Is the spanking about revenge or helping the child become a better person?  Is the parent working through their frustration or helping the child to think morally?

Is the grownup inflicting pain through spanking going to be a better person for the act?

What is the effect on the child to know that anger expressed as violence drives its pain?  What lesson is really being taught to the child?

Why would we think its wrong when a stranger spanks our child but assume its right when we do?

How is society different when it inflicts pain on an individual who commits a crime?  When society acts in anger and revenge does society become better?

Irony or hypocrisy?

Are humans more likely to stop their criminal behavior because they have had violence or pain inflicted upon them?

Punishment is too often about revenge.

Retaliation may be momentarily gratifying, but it is not a sound basis for law or education.

Retaliation is about spite and vindictiveness.  Taking joy in the delivering pain to others dehumanizes us.

Increasing the severity of punishment makes us feel like we are hurting the criminal.  We desire to inflict pain upon them.  When our law becomes about revenge, we lower ourselves to the level of the crime.  When we  use our anger and pain as the tool of expressing justice, we subvert it.


Means to and End

The purpose of of punishment is to stop a child or criminal from actions that are bad for themselves or society.  The purpose of punishment should never be so that the victim of bad behavior gets vengeance.  Vengeance is morally wrong.

There are four kinds of punishment; physical, verbal, withholding, and penalty.

Physical and verbal punishment have been shown in research to not work (see here and here).  Physical and verbal punishment may make us feel better, but simply do not accomplish the goal of justice.

Withholding and penalty punishments have been shown to be strong behavior modifiers.  Systems of justice based on withholding and penalty create a better society for individuals to live in.

People get better when they acknowledge they did wrong and strive to change.  This change toward better behavior ought to be the goal of justice.

Change comes from the inside.  It is our desire to be better that engenders change.  Change enforced from the outside rarely works.

Physical Punishment

A swat on the bottom is a mild physical punishment.  While it may do no permanent physical harm, it does not help the child develop a conscience. Instead, it teaches that physical violence is an acceptable way of dealing with problems.

Many of us grew up with being spanked and think we came out "OK". When you were spanked, how often was anger involved?  When you spank, how often is your desire for revenge involved?  What is the real lesson that was taught?  If we look at our own souls in the mirror can we not say there could have been a better way?  Is using violence to solve problems what we want to teach our children?

If this is wrong, why are other body parts right?

Parents who use physical punishment are setting an example of using violence to settle problems or solve conflicts, Children imitate their parents’ behavior. When parents use physical punishment, children are more likely to use violent acts to settle their conflicts with others.

Consider that if there is a way to teach the child that does not involve violence, why are you using violence?  

Teachers are able to maintain disciplined classrooms without resorting to violence.  It shows that there are other effective means of achieving discipline.

Physical punishment of criminals also has been shown not to be effective in changing behaviors.  Physical pain allows the individual to think they have "paid for the error".  It isolates the error behavior and the punishment as a single transaction.  Physical punishment frees a person from feelings of remorse.  Without remorse, there is no change to behavior.

When thinking about physical punishment, is may help to remember an ironic old saying "The beatings will continue until morale improves."  Morale or morality never improves because of violence.


Verbal Punishment

His concern is not justice.

Verbal aggression is just words right?  As the nursery rhyme says "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me".  This rhyme simply is not factual.

Words have the power to shape our minds.  Words can do great good or evil upon our persons.  Research shows children who are verbally abused are almost twice as likely to become juvenile delinquents or adult criminals.

Verbal aggression toward adults frequently leads to more violent acts by the criminal.  Telling someone off, giving them a piece of our minds is about our desire to express our emotion and not about changing the behavior of the person who did the crime.

Verbal punishment is too often really a form of bullying.  Violence of the mind is still violence upon our person.


Withholding

A time for reflection.

Withholding could be a "time out" or a "take away".  When an action or object of desire is removed from a child they have to deal with their desire as a result of the punishment.  Dealing with desire for a toy or freedom to play sets up a situation where the child can evaluate what they have done.  Time for self reflection is where we develop our conscious and learn to control our will.

Isolating a person from what it wants give it time to reflect.  Isolating a child is not about punishment, rather about education.  When we give a child a "time out" we help them become better.

Removing criminals from society is an effective means of giving them time to reflect on their crime.  Putting a bunch of criminals together in a crowded room often can subvert the purpose of isolation, however the failings of our current criminal justice system are not the topic of this blog entry.   Removing criminals from society also protects society from the bad actors.

Sometimes a person can never learn to be better; perhaps they are mentally ill or psychopathic.  In these cases it may never be possible to return a criminal person to normal society.  For the protection society  the criminals permanent removal is a necessary tragedy for both society and the criminal.


Penalty Punishment

Is this Justice?  Will it make their society better?

Consequences teach responsibility.  The world in which we live are full of consequences.  Often using the real world consequences of actions can help motivate us to change our behaviors.

Penalty punishments are about  using consequences, results of our actions, to change our behavior.  Penalty punishments are not about doing violence upon our persons or minds.

To be effective, penalty punishments must engage the person to do better.  The errant child or convicted criminal needs to see they must change what they do in the future.

To be effective, penalty punishments must relate the penalty to the offense.  If one doesn't wash their clothes, then they must either be naked or wear dirty clothes.  If one doesn't brush their teeth, their teeth will rot.  If one doesn't do their homework, they will fail in school.


Deterrence and Discipline

If our goal is deterrence then it is not the severity of the punishment, but the certainty of the punishment that matters.

If a person thinks they can get away with crime, they are more apt to try it.  If a person is fairly sure they will get caught, they will be deterred.

The death penalty only stops people from doing a crime if they think they will be caught.  A less severe penalty will also deter if the potential criminal knows they will be caught.

Severe punishment is about revenge.

Teaching discipline through non-violent means

There is a world of difference between "discipline" and "punishment".

Discipline is about learning to control one's actions.  Discipline can be learned without punishment.  Discipline can be learned by example, practice and reason.  We can teach our children discipline through sports, chores, and the example of our lives.

When we use the world "discipline" as a synonym for "punishment" we are often trying to justify to ourselves our desire to do violence.

The more effective we are at teaching good behaviors, the less need there is for punishment.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in justice as well as medicine.

So where do you draw the line between justice and revenge?



Note: If you think spanking is a good thing, here is a pamphlet used to train teachers about effective discipline from the Virginia Tech.

War on Death

Declaring a ‘War on Death’ may be more productive than declaring a war on taxes.  It may even be technologically possible.  Why then don’t we declare a war on death?

In a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy in 1789, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” 

Death and taxes

He wrote this letter in French to his friend within a few weeks after the founding structural document had been adopted.

In recent times, many have spoken out that we need to reduce taxes.  Some, like Grover Norquist, have even declared an informal ‘war on taxes’.  The basic idea is to reduce the percentage of taxes paid by citizens.

What if, instead of taxes, we declared a “war on death”?

The battlefield of such a war would be to push the length of productive life for humans to as long as we can make it.  Not just healthy habits to live longer, but technologies to extend life-spans dramatically.

Why We Struggle

Assume for a moment that it is technologically feasible to double the length of a person’s life.  What would be the result?

Longer lives give each person more time.  More time to learn, more time to work and more time to play. 

Longer childhoods

With longer time to learn we could become smarter and wiser before we begin to impact society.  Extending childhood by ten years or more would give parents more time to build character and values into their children.  Education could be extended to cover more information allowing a better educated electorate.

With longer time to work, each life would be more productive.   As time goes by, people become better at their vocations, so skills would have more time to be practiced and used.  A longer working life would also allow more time to save for retirement and old age, reducing individual’s burdens upon society.

With longer time to play, the quality of our lives could be increased.  Investing effort into our families, communities and culture could improve the quality of our lives.

Progress So Far

As fantastic as the idea may seem, we have already more than doubled the average life-span in developed countries. 

In medieval Britain, the average length of life was about 30 years.  By the 1600’s the average age of death had been pushed up to 35 years.  By the 1900, the average jumped to over 50 years.  Now it is typical to live until our mid-70s.

Much of the historical improvement in length of life has been due to nutrition, hygiene, and reduced infant mortality.  Science and cultural practice worked together to allow doubling of years lived.

Assuming one made it through childhood, had healthy habits, and disease or dangerous conditions did not kill a person early, the maximum length of life has stayed fairly stable. 

Our progress so far has been about eliminating the causes of death rather than extending the length of life.

Cells degrade

Technology and Habit

To achieve long life-spans, we need to make progress on the causes of aging.  We would have to increase the longevity of each individual to make new gains in life-span.

If we view our bodies as a process, we can work on extending the functioning of the components that make the process work.

Aging and eventual death are caused by accumulative changes to the complex molecules and cells that we are made of.  Several factors contribute to aging and death. 

Most cells only divide about 50 times before toxins, irradiation, and errors break down DNA so it is no longer viable. 

Some plants and animals have genetic repair capabilities that could be researched in order to build technologies in order to overcome DNA breakdown.  Learning how the regenerative capacity of these creatures work would be one place to start looking.

There are other technologies that could be developed to extend life-spans. 

Current sources of
pluripotent stem cells

Pluripotent stem cells can be induced to become other types of cells.  Although previously controversial because of embryonic stem cells, it is now possible to induce adult skin cells to become other cells.   We may soon be able to use our own cells as building blocks.

Researchers have recently discovered technology that allows a mouse skin cell to become a brain cell.  Extending these tools could allow us to grow our own, custom built replacement parts.

Each individual would have to improve their own habits in order to minimize cell and DNA damage.  Bad practices already can lead to shortened lives. 

We could choose as a society to institute cultural institutions that would promote better behavior.  Parents, teachers, churches and other influencers could help instill the virtues of healthy habits.

Dangers Overcome

With current birth rates, more people would place more demand on resources.   We may have to adjust our rates of consumption or improve our technologies in order to not deplete some limited resources.

With more time and education, we may be able to overcome these kinds of challenges.  With more at stake in a longer future, individuals could be motivated to be more prudent in their choices and habits.

If a revolutionary technology were to appear that suddenly and drastically increased life-spans, there would be social upheaval to deal with.

Those unable to afford the technology could become quite jealous.  Those who control the technology could become quite powerful.

I will not pretend that the consequences of life extending technologies will not present difficult challenges.  However to turn away from the technology because of the challenges seems a foolish reason not to try.  As a parent, I find it a moral imperative to give my children the opportunity for long, healthy productive lives.

Cost Benefit

Each year the U.S. economy is about $15,800,000,000,000 (almost $16 trillion).  This only represents about a quarter of the world’s economic output in a given year.

Even if it costs $16 trillion to develop and roll out a technology that would double life-spans, the payoff in productivity would greatly outweigh the costs. 

On average each person works over 30 years of their life now,  doubling working time to 60 years of productivity is one payoff. 

The labor return on capital investment for such a technology could be as high as 3000% on the one year investment. 

Even taking the ultra-conservative approach that the benefit would cover the costs is still a wise move.  Who would not want to live twice as long if the costs to do so were covered?

The extra years of labor a person could have are added on to the end of their current careers meaning their expertise would be greater.  The payoff to society for each person who gains a doubling of lifespan would be more than a quantity of dollars, but also be a qualitative improvement in labor.

With life expectancy in the mid-70’s a person is employed over 90,000 hours in their lives.   Even improving this number by half would be an enormous gain in professional output.

Who Should Fund it?

Like with the Atom Bomb, life extending technology would have to be controlled by society to ensure power was not concentrated in the hands of the few. 

If at some future time a private institution were to fund and discover technologies that dramatically expand life, they would be in a position of vast power.  With current patent law, this could upset cultural and societal structures beyond repair. 

Currently, no institution but government has the capability to focus and fund such large scale research. 

Allowing government funding could make the research publicly available and keep the power of such technologies focused on the whole of society rather than just a few people.

Baby's future in the balance

The nation that achieves this technology first will be at great advantage to those nations that do not have it.  The first mover advantage of longer life-spans could be enormous. For this reason, peaceful nations may even want to share the burden of costs and the benefits of discovery.

The research would not have to be funded all at once.  Given the potential outcome, even some public debt would be warranted as payoffs could easily overcome its risks and costs.

Even if the effort were to fail, the knowledge that it is not possible to future generations would be a boon.  Knowing that a war on death is not winnable is information that can effect how future generations would live our lives.

How long can we delay?

Dream On

It is easy to dismiss such ideas “out of hand”. 

Some will think their religious doctrines threatened.  Others will doubt it is even possible.

It seems reasonable that Aristotle, Isaac Newton, or even Madam Curie would have seen the idea of putting a man on the moon as fanciful science fiction. 

Consider for a moment the alternative.  If we could make life longer and do not, are we not acting immorally to future generations?

Perhaps extending life-spans is fanciful. 

We must however ask ourselves; what if it is not?  What if it could be?

Are Corporations, Embryos and Aliens Persons?

What is a person?  Our debate defining ‘person’ is emotionally charged and rarely logical.  Words like ‘baby’, ‘corporation’, ‘human’, and ‘person’ are used interchangeably.  We all may have an opinion, but there is no common agreement on what is a person.

Is he a person?

Historically women and slaves have not been considered persons, even in my own country.  Others wish to consider animals as persons and wish to grant them moral and legal rights.  Science mixes it up with tradition, religion, and law to give us a mind-numbing view of what a ‘person’ is.

When we have an opinion and seek facts to prove it, we are not being honest with truth.  Only when we seek facts first and keep an open mind can we seek truth.  Let’s examine some facts then consider what we mean when we say ‘person’.

Person

There is no legal definition of person agreed upon by states or nations. 

In most societies today adult humans are usually considered persons.

If you look-up dictionary definitions of human and person they are circular.  A human is a person and person is a human.

Frederick Douglass was not a
person until he bought it.

To many a ‘person’ can include non-human entities such as animals, artificial intelligence, or extraterrestrial life.

There are even legal definitions that include entities such as corporations, nations, or even estates in probate as ‘persons’.  In some legal definitions those with extreme mental impairment or lack of brain function have been declassified as ‘persons”.

Religious fundamentalists want to push the definition of person to the moment of conception.

Meanwhile science is struggling to find a clear definition of what constitutes a human. 

Some lawyers and politicians maintain that corporations are legally persons.

Legal Definitions

Initially, only white males over 21 years old who owned property were considered persons in the United States.  Individual states were allowed to determine how much property they must own to achieve personhood.  All others, including the young, poor, women, slaves, and indentured servants were legally considered less than people.

Are corporations persons?

There has been a long struggle across the world to expand the definition of what it is to be a person. In the United States, slaves became persons with the passing of the 13^th Amendment. Women became persons with suffrage. 

Today, children are not considered full persons before the law, only partial persons.  Their rights are limited and controlled until they reach 18 or even 21 years of age.  Voting, driving, and even the freedom to be alone are controlled for children by law.

In 1819 Dartmouth College was granted an initial form of person status as a corporation with Dartmouth v. Woodward.  Later rulings have expanded the definition of corporations giving them many of the legal rights as persons. 

In our most recent election for President one candidate even declared “corporations are people, my friend.”  He meant that corporations are a means for people to enact their powers as persons.

Corporations are widely considered to be owned as property by people and therefore are an extension of the persons who own them.  With multi-national and stock owned companies, the line between what constitutes a person is legally blurred.

Embryo

Conception occurs at the meeting of sperm and egg.  After cells begin dividing they are known medically as an embryo.  At conception a single cell has human genetic material.  If no replication errors occur, there is a potential that an embryo cell will develop into an adult human being.

Is an embryo a person?

Mississippi is attempting to define embryos as a persons.  The legislation says that:

“The right to life begins at conception. All human beings, at every stage of development, are unique, created in God’s image and shall have equal rights as persons under the law.”

Arkansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma have similar legislation in process.  

Recent attempts to define embryos as persons have run against In Vitro fertilization technology.  Couples who have difficulty reproducing may use In Vitro fertilization to generate 15 (or more) embryos. Two or three of those embryos are then implanted into a woman’s womb.  The remaining embryos are kept in storage or destroyed.  Defining an embryo as a person classifies this technology as murder.

Others are claiming that a distinction can be made between In Vitro and sex-based fertilization, by denying person-hood to what they call ‘pseudo-embryos’.

Stem cells are cells that can become any other cell.  Stem cells can theoretically be used to clone a human being.  Embryos created using cloning technology could also be granted person status.  Many nations are actively working on an international ban for cloning humans.

Another consideration about embryos as having life is an often unconsidered moral dilemma.  If a In Vitro fertilization clinic is burning and you only have time to save the technicians inside or the embryos in the freezer, which would you choose?  The most popular choice by far is the technicians, yet thousands of embryos would cease to exist.

Fetus

At nine weeks, the embryo is redefined to be a fetus.  Human-like features only begin to appear after this point of development.  In the first trimester all mammals appear similar.  There are no uniquely human characteristics that can be observed until the second trimester begins.

Is a fetus a person?

The Catholic Church has legally argued for fetuses to be considered persons.  Lawyers representing the Catholic Church have also argued the opposite case that fetuses not to be considered persons. 

Often the debate about a fetus being a person struggles around the issue of when human thought starts.

Brain waves do not start until the 30^th week of pregnancy. Brain waves are not a sign of humanity, rather of animal-like brain function.  Cats, mice, elephants and human fetuses are highly similar in brain function at this time.

Some have been pursuing a definition of a person that starts at independent viability, when a body can live outside of its mother.  These advocates claim that the fetus is a part of the mother until it separated from her body.

Some technologies have been developed that can substitute for a womb, however prior to nine months of development, death outside the womb without these tools is almost certain.  Fetuses are generally not able to live outside the mother until birth.

Most agree babies are persons

Baby

Medically, upon leaving the womb a fetus is redefined to be a baby.

It is scientifically inaccurate to use the word ‘baby’ when referring to an embryo or fetus.  While this may be emotionally satisfying or appeal to our paternal or maternal instincts, it is not a factual scientific or correct legal definition.  

Religion and Spirit

Some religions, like Sunni Islam and fundamentalist Christians, claim that souls are attached to bodies at conception and are therefore persons.

Jewish law defines the legal status of a person at birth, claiming that a fetus is not yet a person until the umbilical cord is cut.

Sunni Islam maintains
persons start at conception

There is no scientific evidence that a soul is attached to a developing human at any point in the development process, embryo, fetus or baby.  Only religious claims based upon faith use this terminology, not the law or science.

Attempts to use the religious doctrine of some to make law for everyone are the equivalent of trying to establish religious law.  In the United States this is expressly forbidden by the constitution which states: 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  

A Fourteenth Amendment was passed to say that rule is also applied to individual states.  

Since not all religions or even sects within a religion agree on person-hood, no one church can say what a person is for all persons, only their own.

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that until objective evidence can show a soul is attached to a body, declaring an embryo as a person will remain a matter of religious opinion and not law.

Animals

Are dolphins persons?

Some view animals as persons.  They advocate vegetarian diets and rights for animals.  Some even go as far as advocating non-violence on animals.  While it may seem extreme, their moral and logical arguments are worth considering in our quest for a definition of what is a person.

Gary Francione thinks we should go so far as to enact animal welfare laws.

Desiring protection for a special subset of non-human species, they wish to see rights defined for animals like chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins and even some birds.  They claim that if we would not do it to a human, we should not do it to these animals either.

If we were to make a genetic modification to an animal, like we do with engineered plants today, that allowed them to speak with us even in a limited way; would we start to see them as persons? 

Science

The debate in science about defining person is not from over by a long shot.  Several definitions have been tried and each has failed in its turn.

Birds use tools, have language, and act morally

At one time, persons were those who used tools.  Evidence that birds, primates, and other species built and used tools took this definition away.

For many years language was seen as the division between person and animal.  Slowly dolphins, chimpanzees, crows, and even ants were seen to have language.  Language alone can not be used a definition for what is a person

Morality is often used as a way to separate humans as persons from other animals.  This definition is under serious threat as sharing, fairness, and even intentional self-sacrifice is documented in animals.

If we could create a clone from a Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon would we consider them a person?

If we meet an alien life form that can think, communicate, and has morality would we give it rights as a person?

How much of a brain can be taken away before stop considering a human body to be a person?  If the brain mostly dies and the body is kept alive by machines, are they still a person?

Conclusions

We do not share a common definition of what a person is. 

Science provides no clear definition.  Religious views vary.  The law adds entities that disturb us.  New technologies will push the boundaries even further.

For any one of us to claim they have the one and only answer is only opinion.  There are no clear facts defining person-hood. 

Attempts, largely by religious fundamentalists, to enshrine their opinions into law, will fail.

Perhaps we should simply admit we are not sure?  Perhaps we should allow ourselves to be more open to others views?

We single persons do not have the right to pick for all other persons what a person is and what a person is not.

Extending compassion and understanding seems like minimal steps for persons to share.

Endlessly Unique

Are you unique?  Perhaps there copies of you existing out there, somewhere in the universe?  If the universe is infinite then there are infinite copies of you.  What is morality if there is an infinity of  you?

What is Infinity?

Infinity  (∞)  is a tough concept to wrap one’s head around.  Definitions like “without any limit”, “unbounded”, or “endless” allow labels, but not understanding.   

Our mind tends to think of a large number that keeps getting bigger.  We can not really imagine infinity directly, only stand close to it and pretend we grasp the immensity.

Is there really such a thing as infinity?  

Some say that infinity is only an imaginary idea, like Spock in Star Trek.  

Others say a circle is infinitely long, going round and round and round.  

No one knows for sure, despite centuries of thought and experiment.  We may never be able know if infinity is real or imagined.

We can prove infinity comes in different sizes.  Georg Cantor showed how not long after the U.S. Civil War.  

You in a bounded universe.

We can prove that infinity comes in different shapes.  One-third goes 3.33333333... While Pi (Π) starts 3.14159265358…  Both infinite, both different.

These thoughts are only logic based on guesses.  Tricks our minds can play with symbols.  Infinity is an imagined reality.  Let us see what other magic our mind can hold.

Always Repeating

One thing infinities share is local repetition.  If you divide a piece of infinity you’ll find it again and again.  In the one-third number this is obvious.  There are many, many “3” pieces in 3.33333333...  

Repetition is true inside the Pi number too. The pattern “62” is repeated several times in just this short piece of Pi:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939

937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482

If you go far enough, you will find infinite copies of  any piece inside an infinity.

The larger the pattern, the rarer our piece becomes.  Rare is only a relative thing.  Like with the odd numbers and whole numbers, there can be infinite copies of any piece in infinity.

A big enough universe
for several copies of you.

Repeating Universe

We have come to know our universe is very large.  Is our universe infinite? Does it have a limit, bound, or end?  Some have guessed at the answer, but there is no proof yet.  We do know it is much larger than we can directly observe.  What facts we do have suggest it's edge would be vast beyond our comprehension.

Atoms and sub-atomic particles can be compared to numbers.  There are limited types of these parts, just as there are limited numbers we count with.  Both are pieces, divisions of an infinity.

There are only so many ways you can combine particles together.  It may be a big number of possible ways particles can be mixed together, but not an infinite numbers of ways. 

Particles and numbers are organized into patterns.  Bits of matter that form little copies over and over again through out the universe. 

If you look far enough you find that patterns repeat.  Patterns of matter behave as the “62” in Pi.  The larger the pattern, the farther you may have to look, but it will eventually be there.

Copies of You

If the universe is infinite then you are but one of infinite copies of you.  Every variation of your life exists repeatedly.

If the universe is large enough, but still has an end, then there may copies of you somewhere far away.

If the universe is small enough, there may be only one you. You may be unique.

An infinite number of you in an infinite  universe.

A Moral Mess

I am not sure if I like these ideas; one of me, many of me, an infinity of me.

If there are infinite me’s, then I am irrelevant to the universe.  Every mistake I could make would be made. Every good thing I could do has been done.  My choices then are only my experience of life and have meaning only to me.

If I am the only me, unique and special, then the pressure for morality in the universe overwhelms me.  Any mistake I make has consequences on the universe, limiting or expanding its potential.  Although my impacts are small, they are permanent and of unimaginable consequence.

Perhaps it is better if there are many copies of me.  My mistakes might be overcome by another copy.  I may be able to do better than the other copy.  There is room to still find the potential of what the universe could be, without the pressure of being it's only hope.

It may be best if I have no meaning at all to the universe.  Then one, many or infinity, the universe will go on it's merry way no matter what I do.

 Be sure to subscribe!

Mine! All MINE!

I am precioussssss

Do you want a healthier economy? Want to sell your product? Want more equal rights? Getting large groups of people to take action is a messaging problem. How can we best motivate people to take action? It turns out that calls to collective action are not the best. It turns out people respond better to selfishness motivation.

John F. Kennedy's inaugural address got the messaging wrong when he said “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” His desire may have been to do good.  The cry for self sacrificing service was not the best way to deliver the idea. We citizens do not react well to calls to actions for the society at our own expense.

To act together we must be motivated alone. We get more done for the group when given messages of self interest. This paradox is at the heart of our political debate between social responsibility and individual freedom. A new approach to motivation may contain solutions to our most difficult societal problem. Individuals acting freely do best for the group.

Bad messaging?

A new study shows that individual people acting in self interest are more effective at positive social change. Scientists at Stanford have done a series of experiments showing interesting results. Appeals to care, act, and think for a group sap motivation. The studies also show that when people emphasize their independence to be free in their actions they will be more motivated to do good for the group.

United States culture is a reflection of all of us as a group. Often the message from society to individuals is that we should act as a group. Messages like “Everyone should go do <fill-in-the-blank>” act as de-motivators to action and get less done.

A series of experiments were conducted trying to figure out what inspired people to work the hardest at solutions. It focused on the relationship between self action and group action. One experiment tested the persistence of people while another tested to see how motivation effected actions.

The first test examined how long people would persist at a physical challenge when they were thinking about independence versus interdependence. Those who thought about independence (self) worked at the challenging task longer. When primed to think about interdependence, the subjects gave up on the task sooner. Thinking in terms of self interest makes us work harder.

Good messaging!

Another test was designed to have people describe how descriptions of future actions affected their desire to complete the action. In this experiment, when the future tasks involved working together, understanding, and adapting to a group, subjects predicted they would work at it less. When told that the future effort would emphasize self discipline, being unique, and understanding their own viewpoints better, subjects predicted they would work harder. Thinking in terms of self interest makes us more motivated.

The study is about desire, not goals. The suggestion is that if we want effective change in behaviors we need to motivate the individual as a free actor. It is better to appeal to individual effort and self interest to cause changes in how people act.

If we desire to have a better world through politics, business, and morality then we must call on individuals to seek self-interest. Cultural inspirations to better 'me' work better than calls to better 'us'. Call each and every person to action, each to themselves. Mahatma Gandhi got the messaging right when he said “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”