Sunday, March 3, 2013

Meme Wars (Part 3)



A war for mind share is going on around us.  Ideas struggle for territory in our brains.  In Part 3 of Meme Wars we continue our journey considering the war of memes that occurred when printing technology became common.

Meme WarsPart 1 - Part 2 - Part 3  - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7


Libraries held memes
Minds  Begin to Specialize

The secular world began to form as old minds were rediscovered.  A fight for control of minds was waged in books.  Facts and myths memes struggled for control of the human mind.

For many centuries it was possible to read all the books.  The total sum of human knowledge could be, and often was, put into individual brains.  With the advent of printing, knowledge accumulated.  Past voices piled up and libraries spread. 

With this revolution specialization in knowledge began to occur.  There was more information available than a single person could know.  The concept of knowledge experts was born. The number of professors, physicians, philosophers, and lawyers grew exponentially. 

People of wealth and power had greater access to new, growing piles of knowledge. 

Those with freedom and time to read could explore others ideas, while most occasionally continued their lives as they were and read newly translated Bibles.

Catholic and Protestant meme's competed for minds

Past Fights Future

Fictional ideas competed with factual ideas for access to people minds.  Old power bases created ideas that kept their power intact.  New discoveries by inquiring minds demonstrated that the old power bases were wrong. 

Memes about King’s power struggled with thoughts about individual freedom.  Memes about human rights struggled with beliefs about Church dogma.  New art forms emerged that threatened traditional moral values.  Old taboos on corpses struggled with dissection and forensics.

To traditionalist and conservatives of the Renaissance era the world seemed to shift from under their feet.  Old, assumed values, the very nature of what was right and good and proper came into question.  Books were burned that had profane, secular knowledge.  Inquisitions from the Church tried to stop new and threatening ideas. A violent reaction from the status quo, threatened to unseat new ideas and discovery.

Erasmus created a humanist meme
leading humans to seek new learning
Martin Luther advocated abolishing Church control of marriage.  Descartes said that wisdom could come from discoveries outside Church teaching.  Galileo pointed out that the earth went around the sun.   The first stock companies and international banks formed allowing money and power to be accumulated without church or king.

The progressives and liberals of this time saw new hope for the future.  They advocated changes to society that were shocking and disturbing.  New ideas led to understandings that transformed views of what a human life could be.  Seeing the old order as a threat to new possibilities, a war of new ideas was waged upon the old thoughts.

The concept that each person must perfect their mind and body while on earth in order to achieve salvation became popular.  This humanism drove individuals to seek excellence by learning all they could.  New learning threatened the established order.

Copernicus challenged conservative thought
showing earth wasn't the center 
Meanwhile established order and power saw each advance of ideas as a threat.  Many thought the world would end or society crumble as it changed in front of them.

These struggles often led to violence and strife wars between new and old lasted for generations.  Mankind resorted to terrible actions to enforce their world views upon the other.  Religious wars between Catholics (old bible conservatives) and Protestants (new bible liberals) killed huge numbers of people and ruined many more lives.

Eventually a truce between conservatives and liberals evolved, allowing localities to identify with their own ideologies.  Parts of Europe remained largely traditional, adapting some new ideas where it did not threaten church or king.  North-western Europe adapted the new ideas and prospered until its culture spread around the world.  However, spasms of violence continued until the French Revolution finally over threw the conservative powers continent wide and the modern age brought a new kind of nation states into existence.


Meme’s Meet Reality

Some new ideas were not factual and failed or brought great disaster upon societies. 

Combining memes of progress and king
Conquistadors brought down civilizations
Conquistadors thought to grab wealth for personal gain and destroyed civilizations, ruining centuries of development and diversity.  Slavery, almost unknown in medieval times, restarted allowing people to become property.  Frequent, violent political upheaval in emergent city states caused populations to live in terror for decades. 

Many new ideas were factual and changed the world for the better.

The seeds of the scientific revolution where planted and fertilized by wide spread transfer of thoughts between minds.  Our sharing of knowledge about anatomy allowed more people to survive.  Improved farming techniques disseminated holding back famine.  Novels and plays could be performed and enjoyed far from their authors, by printing the words and actions into books.

Those ideas that aligned with the factual reality that existed did well.  Other memes that did not, slowly or rapidly failed.  The competition between ideas was fought on a battleground of reality and myth.  Ideas that succeeded tended to be based on facts.  Ideas that failed were often believed fictions.


In part 4 of Meme Wars we begin our journey into our current information revolution.

Meme WarsPart 1 - Part 2 - Part 3  - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7

Meme Wars (Part 2)


A war for mind share is going on around us.  Ideas struggle for the territory in our brains.  In Part 2 of Meme Wars we examine how printing technology started a war between memes. 

Meme WarsPart 1 - Part 2 - Part 3  - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7


German Information Revolution

Hand crafted meme
Prior to Gutenberg’s popularization of printing presses, communication was largely by hand or mouth.  Scratching surface of clay, putting ink on papyrus, and carving in stone where skilled manual labors that few could master. 

Access to communication was limited to those with wealth or power.  This focused writing for future minds and listening to past minds on a small subset of humanity.

The printing press took the power of communication from the hands of a few and democratized it.  Meme’s could spread from central places to many minds.

Before printing presses (about 1450) there were only a few thousand books in all of Europe.  A hundred years after Gutenberg’s invention, there were 20 million.  By 1650 200 million books had come into existence. Literacy, listening to past minds and speaking to future ones, became common.

Before mass printing, Bibles where read almost exclusively by priests and nobles.  These fountains of wisdom were under tight control.  The Church doctrine was that lay people would not understand the Bible’s mysteries and should be sheltered from actually reading its words for themselves. 

It is no accident that a Protestant Reformation occurred when it did.  Among the first mass produced books were Bible translations from Latin into local languages.  Within three generations, Church thought control was challenged by Martin Luther

The meme’s of the Bible spread and flourished into fertile and unfilled minds.  This initial wave of meme growth had profound effects on culture, thought, and how people lived.

As literacy spread, wisdom became democratized.   Access to information promoted independent thinking.  As more people came to read past minds, they changed their futures.


Gutenberg's meme reproducer
Reading Past, Making Future

With the printing press came an immediate and overwhelming demand for new content.  Previously written books were mass produced profitably.  New content was rare, old content readily available. Ancient Roman and Greek books became the stock and trade of these new high tech printing firms. 

Reading the minds of the long ago dead became common and easy.  The ancients spoke to people about philosophy, mathematics, and politics.  Old ideas created revolutionary new memes jumping from mind to mind. 

Challenging Church’s interpretation of the Bible, people began to challenge other ideas.  Copernicus revealed the earth was not the center of the universe.  Columbus sailed beyond the known, finding new lands.  Northern Italy began to discover and translate Roman and Greek knowledge beyond the Bible.

With each new discovery of ideas from past minds, new ideas were explored.  When people read good thoughts from the past, society can benefit.  Good memes entered into to peoples brains and were passed around.

Machiavelli, after reading Plato and Aristotle, described a world of princes acting outside of religious doctrine and control.  Reading Roman thoughts from long ago, the first Republic in a thousand years formed in Florence.  The humanist movement sprung from revived ancient ideas that each person could study poetry, grammar, history, morality and rhetoric to advance their lives and their communities.

When people read bad thoughts from the past, society can be hurt.  Bad memes fight for a share of mind and communication with good memes.

Nostradamus published prophecies that distorted later minds with false ideas about the future.  Reading from the mind of Dante, irrational concepts of hell placed irrational fear into ignorant brains.  Ancient ideas of leech bleeding and laxatives killed thousands as old misconceptions about medicine became popularized. 


In part 3 of Meme Wars looks at power struggles between ideas/memes occurring in renaissance minds.

Meme WarsPart 1 - Part 2 - Part 3  - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7

Meme Wars (Part 1)


There is a war for minds occurring, enabled by revolutionary technologies.  New ideas struggle with old ones to shape our destiny.  Our brains are the battleground between thoughts about how we should play, work and live together. 

Meme WarsPart 1 - Part 2 - Part 3  - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7

Meme battleground
Idea creators build mental weapons that clash with one another in minds across the planet.  Mind share is the spoil of this war in this conflict of ideas.

When I read, I listen to past minds.  When I write, I speak to future minds.  This is true for all forms of communication.  Our literacy of what was said in past times will limit our future thoughts. 

The printing revolution allowed past minds to speak to many future minds.  Our current information revolution allows all current minds to speak with each other in almost real time.

As books created rebellions from medieval ideas, this new revolution of communication will lead to changes in how we live our lives.  The winners are not yet clear, but our culture and the nature of the human experience is in the balance.

In this series, we will consider past battles for brains and see how they might help us better understand our current mental wars. 


Memes and Memetics
Ideas striking the brain

Memes are ideas that spread from person to person in a culture.  Memes reside in our brains and affect our understanding of the world.

Memes are the mental equivalent of genes in the cell.  They have structures that create understanding in the minds they occupy.  Ideas can change the very structure of our brains and therefore our actions.

Memes reproduce by spreading from brain to brain through communication. Printing provided a means for memes to spread widely from a central source.  Printing could be thought of as a new method of meme reproduction.

Each mind can only hold so many memes.  Memes compete with each other for human minds like genes compete for resources.  Memes struggle for limited mind share in people’s brains.


In part two, we will consider Gutenberg’s printing technology revolution.  Examining how old ideas created new ones, we will illuminate battlegrounds and combatants in a war for minds.

Meme WarsPart 1 - Part 2 - Part 3  - Part 4 - Part 5 – Part 6 – Part 7

Friday, March 1, 2013

Trees for Forest


My family must live in a balanced budget.  If we spend more than we make, we fail.  Comparing my family to country, a balanced budget seems needed by government.

A tree house
A tree has different needs than a forest.  Forests may be made of trees, but have different rules for success.  So to, rules for governments are different than individuals.  We confuse needs of individuals with needs of the group at hazard to us all.  As educated voters, we need to see a forest through the trees.


Money Tree
Viewing of forest from a tree

An individual tree desires sun, water, and soil.  Its growth is governed by managing limited resources to its personal gain.  When resources shrink, growth is limited.  When resources disappear, a tree can die.

A tree must be efficient in how it uses its small supply of water, soil, and sun. 

Each extended branch or lowered root comes at an opportunity cost.  When water is low, seeking water is more important.  When sunlight is rare, branches must grow tall to grab what light can be found.  When soil is bare, a single tree may never thrive.

Each tree is concerned only with its own survival and growth.  Trees nearby are competitors.  Each tree struggles to gain advantage for light and liquid in a local supply.  

There is a local market of resources.  Those trees that are able to access and then use resources efficiently grow and prosper.  Trees that do not strive wither and die.


Healthy growing forest
Forests of Wealth

It takes many trees to make a forest. 

Success for forests is tied to individual trees.  When more trees grow, a forest becomes larger.  Many healthy trees yield a more robust forest.

Forests live on, when any one tree dies.  When many trees die at once, a whole forest can be threatened.  A forest is unconcerned with any one tree, but hopes that many will thrive.

Diversity in trees helps a forest be more robust.  When many kinds of trees compete, disaster to one species of tree will not decrease odds for forest survival.  A self interested forest desires competition between trees, encouraging the fit to prosper.


Tree Herding

If a single type of tree becomes dominate, forests are at risk.  A mono-culture is more prone to disease.  Lack of diversity creates vulnerability.

If only a few trees cover a forest, it is in greatest peril.  Monopolizing resources must be avoided so a forest will not die.
Fires kill trees and threaten the whole forest

Forests want corpses of some trees to fertilize others.  Regular, localized death in a forest promotes growth for a majority of trees. 

To promote diversity and stop monopolization, a strong forest will redistribute resources.  Some balancing of sun, water, and soil helps a forest remain strong and growing.

Over balancing resources will limit competition between trees.

No balancing of resources will allow one kind of tree, or even a small number of trees to dominate a forest.


Disaster and Growth

Forests under stress must do things that individual trees can not.

When fire ravages many trees, only a few kinds of trees will sprout from the ashes.   Local lack of diversity is necessary until a more robust ecosystem can revive.  Temporary differences in diversity are necessary sometimes.

Floods will kill many trees and redistribute soil and dead trees so that another area can start to thrive.  Forests will change shape to accommodate this disaster for individual trees.

Regrowth after disaster takes time
Forests promote growth toward areas rich in nutrients, water, and light.  It is in the best interest of a forest to grow toward these areas, even if single trees are stuck in a place.  Trees have more prosperous children by being on near an edge of the forest.

Forests promote death to move away from poor resources.  When some trees may struggle on weak soil, flood prone areas, or even upon a shadow of a mountain, a forest will not prosper there.

In times of trouble and danger, forests that use up soil and water more quickly will return to states of stability faster.  When a forest is under stress it is the wrong time to conserve soil and water.  Forests invest in their future by using more resources now.

Overuse of resources can not be maintained forever.  Some trees may have to die in order for a forest to survive.  Forests slowly move toward more abundant resources, abandoning old, used up land.

When disaster is gone a forest will start to build up resources again, saving up for the next disaster. 


Metaphorical Return
  
A tree may die, but a forest will grow.  Some people and companies will get hurt in our economy.  Government’s role in an economy is to help as many of us survive as are fit. 

My tree house is not the national forest.
Sometimes key trees must be saved for a whole forest to be safe.  Sometimes governments must intervene for a tree or local grove.  Individual intervention is often in the best interest of a forest.

Encouraging a forest to grow after a disaster is prudent.  Cutting back on growth after a disaster makes the return to a healthy forest take much longer, if it ever even recovers.

When a nation faces a disaster, government must act like the forest.  Government helps those areas in need in order to keep a majority healthy.

When an entire forest is stressed, it will use up stored resources. Resources are used when needed the most.  Running a deficit in a time of trouble is necessary by governments in order for economies to recover.  Only government has an ability to borrow on shared futures, a forest does not.  Wise borrowing can be healthy for an economy.

When we fail to help those areas hurt by financial disaster, we hurt the nation.  As individuals some of us may have to give more to help those in need.  Sectors of the economy may need assistance during crisis in order to help us all in the long run.  United we do better.  Divided we fail.

Controlling interest rates, boosting the money supply, and transfers of wealth by taxation are the tools the government has at its disposal.  These tools can and should help some sectors in crisis.  We will not return to prosperity by letting sections of the forest permanently die off.

Taxes are not paychecks for the nation.  Taxes are our universal will writ large.  Paychecks are payment for labor.  Confusing the two as being the same leads to bad assumptions about proper government action.

In times of plenty, we should save up for future disasters, as forests store nutrients in the ground.  The time to balance a economies budget is during times of growth.  When we fail to put by for a dangerous future, we fail that future.  Our mistake has been to not  save.  Now we all must pay a price in the future.

Families do not behave this way.  Families and businesses tend to spend in good times and scrimp when fortunes wither.  Families can not manipulate the money supply, change interest rates or tax.  

Resource budgets for forests must be managed differently than resources budgets for trees.  Likewise, government’s budgets work differently than families.

Be sure to see the forest, even when you are only a tree.



Note: The economist Kenneth Boulding should be given credit for the forest/tree economic metaphor.  If you desire to have better understanding of the difference between micro and macro economics, his books are a great resource.  He is also famous for the Spaceship Earth view of economics moving from a infinite to a finite resource based economy. Additionally, J. Doug Ohmans provides a great summary of Professor Boulding's ideas.

Cancelled Conjugal


Careful cool
Cagey Captain
Careless caress
Carnal cacophony

Check clear
Calculate camouflage
Caution caprice
Campaign cohere


Clever King
Clarify claim
Kismet Captain
Cornered caught


Candid cable
Captain cut
Cool cusp
Clear crash


Culpable Captain
Collapsed cohabitation
Cleaved calm
Kinder clipped




A small poetic diversion:  a cautionary class in careless carnal caresses.
We will return to our regular programming post haste.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Give and Take




Where tax money gets spent by government matters.  Some states take in  more dollars in federal spending than their citizens pay out in taxes.

Good citizens pay their taxes to the federal government. Other citizens in greater need  receive distributions from  central treasuries.  Taxes are also spent on more generic services like  highways, military, and science research benefiting us all.  

Being a curious sort of fellow, I decided to go look at raw data and see who was taking and who was giving.  Below are documented the results of my quest.


Top 10's

The top 10 states that give more than they take from our common coffers are largely Democratic states.  Nebraska and Texas are the only two Republican leaning states in the top 10 whose citizens are net givers to other states. 

The division between those states who take the most per person does not fall into party lines.  Taker states seem to be largely rural, poor, or remote.


Total Contributions

When the total contributions by Republican and Democratic states is added together and average, there are some startling results.

The data shows that, in total, Democratic states give more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  

States that are Republican controlled states take much more benefits all together than they pay in taxes.  

Neutral states are those that have less than a 25% majority Democrat or Republican.  These states are also net takers, but less so than Republican states.

Democratic states tend to be more populous than Republican states, thus the bars are not identical in size.

Nationally, Democrats gave each spent $1,114 more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.  Republicans took $1,540 each on average.  States with Neutral party affiliation took an extra $1,467 per person.


States that Lean Heavily Democratic
Democrats Divisions

Heavily Democratic states are a mixed bag of givers and takers.  

I could find no clear trend in the most Democratic states were takers rather than givers when considered along party lines.  

The data indicates there is a broader trend for states leaning Democratic to pay more even though the most Democratic states do not always give more.


States that Lean Heavily Republican
Republican Takers

Heavily Republican states were much more likely to take more from the taxes than they gave in.  

These states are often rural or poor.  Of course not all rural and poor states are Republican. 

These taker states tend to be in the south and west.  

It is telling that there is a lack of major east and west coast states from the taker lists.  


Givers and Takers

In the chart below, the states are ranked by how much they contribute or take from the general federal taxes by large green and red bars.  The thin blue (Democratic) and thin red (Republican) bars indicated the strength of the part in each state.  Clicking on the graphic will provide an expanded view.



Conclusions 



Pundits have been saying that Democrats are a nation of 'takers' while Republicans are 'givers' whom Democrats take from.  Even Presidential candidates have used this idea as campaign strategy.  

The Givers and takers argument has become a center of our economic debate.  It now seems common wisdom that some people give more and other people take more and that they can be divided upon party lines.  

The facts, however, disagree.  It turns out that on average Democrats give more taxes per person and Republicans take more benefits per person.  Perhaps it is time to change the common wisdom?


Be sure to subscribe to Philomeme for more articles like these.



Methods and Sources


First came taxes and spending divided by how many people are in each state.  This yielded an average giving or taking by person allowing apples-to-apples comparisons.  

Next was counting the political parties of state and federally elected officials, including Governors.   Averaging Democrats and Republicans Congressmen at a state and federal level gave a % Party Factor. A reasonable means to indicate if a state leaned heavily to one party or another.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

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 sizesGeorg 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!