Summerhit 2020

Posted: 4th April 2020 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized

2020 vision much?

If we want to travel to another stellar system, i.e. “traverse” light years of space more or less uninterrupted and without a timescale we’d consider reasonable and mangeable there are a series of major hurdles to overcome.

We can not make definitive statements about technologies that do not yet exist. For the same of the argument I will not “handwavium” all sorts of speculative technologies and concentrate on the “worst case scenario” that we are to travel such distances only with technologies we are currently absolutely certain of. So no elaborate nanotechnology, no energy output with “antimatter”, no forcefield or “bussard ramjets”. We stick to current technologies and technologies we can be more or less secure they are merely engineering challenges.

The question is – if technological advancement would stop today, and humanity HAD to travel to Proxima Centauri, could we? I believe the answer to be yes, and in fairly reasonable timeframe, Caveat – I am maths blind, so I will not use elaborate calculations – just simple stuff which I can ask google.

The fastest spaceship currently in existence is the Juno spacecraft which moves at 365,000 km/h. A voyage to Proximi Centaur would take more than twenty thousand years at that speed.

We face some big challenges.

  1. travel time, morality

We might in theory already be able to construct a cylindical O’Neil type habitat with artificial spin gravity and create some sort of sustainable cycle. Arguably we should be able to increase our speed well above Juno spacecraft so its safe to assume we can reduce travel times to thousands of years. If we assume normal humans as we currently are it is simply not moral to make this voyage. We can not consign human beings to (a) being severed from the rest of humanity for that long, (b) we can not guarantee that the system onboard does not break down and (c) we can not have a procreative cycle on-board and consign children on that vessel to a life of “just that vessel”. The equasion changes if we (*) can suspend life for a very long time, i.e. decades or centuries. Currently there is one major problem that difficult to overcome with existing theoretical frameworks – that is that any form of human physiology we can currently think of (and even considerably altered ones) carry trace elements that decay radioactively, such as potassium and carbon. Over years, let alone decades, damage from minute particle radiation accumulates, damaging the body from the inside. We currently don’t even have a theoretical framework to repair that damage, hence forms of “hibernation” or suspended animation (let alone “freezing” a body) anywhere over years will accumulate so much damage the patient doesn’t survive the journey.

Let me however state something else – a think city sized colonies to be a somewhat moral undertaking. I personally wouldn’t want to (or could) live outside a human community under several ten thousand human beings. I can imagine such a society to exist in a space colony type safe living environment. We know since the early 1970s such environments can be constructed at enormous economic cost. If the world collectively really wanted to, we could have an O’Neil space habitat in a stable lagrange orbit in probably under 20 years. But it would require a world war 2 mindset to do so. It is however very doubtful we could propel such a “several ten thousand population” habitat over interstellar distances in anywhere under thousands of years, probably tens of thousands of years. Juno spacecraft is a very small spacecraft in comparison. You can’t indefinitely scale up a spaceship to the size of a oil rig, or a skyscraper building, or an aircraft carrier and expect to be able to push it to the velocities we could attain with the Juno spacecraft. And if we could we can’t reasonably expect to persistently be able to feed thousands of humans for all that time and expect nothing would go wrong during the voyage. And if it would go wrong – everybody on board dies a horrible, lonely and (most poignantly) pointless death. So we have to propel the vessel faster. And if we contemplate that we quickly run in to problems

2. Propulsion systems are violent systems. An online calculator tells me that a 100.000 ton vessel (something like an aircraft carrier) that accelerates at 0.01 G (what we can fairly assume a reasonable acceleration rate) we learn that the vessel starts out as some sort of space tanker, pushing against a mountain of “fuel” weighing over 6 million ton, and the voyage is then reduced about 40 years. The trick here is to understand that in space constant acceleration eventually ends up boosting a vessel to gargantuan speed, in this case 0.2 the speed of light. Bad news is that we probably can’t do much better than that without literally melting sterilizing the vessel with radiation.

3. the next problem is debris. And this is a big one. Lets do a calculation. A one gram object hitting the space vessel at a relative speed of 0.2 C would inflict 116.499.889.321.526.300 joules energy. That’s 116 quadrillion with a q. I read somwhere else that a hiroshima style explosion does 63.000.000.000.000 (63 trillion) joules. Oops. We can safely state that the odds of the vessel hitting a grain sized object during a several decade voyage are pretty much 100%. So we must conclude that even while we can accelerate a vessel to decent enough percentages of the speed of light we probably won’t survive the journey. So we have to travel slower most of the voyage, or we need very implausible shielding to protect us from impacts, or we need to clear the path of substantial debris, or we would need to be able to intercept minute particles from a considerable distance and somehow destroy them.

Does this sound absurd? It sure is. But do remember that during that voyage we have been “charging up” the vessel in the most efficient way nature allows us, with kinetic energy, worth 16 million tons, or a fraction thereoff. That reaction mass comes back to bite us in the behind so to speak, as bugs that hit or windshield hit with the energy of train wagon loads full of TNT. I.e. Ooops, and Not Good.

Now on the latter, we do have a nice verifiable track record. Right now we track a swarm of particles around Earth, some about one gram. We do so very precisely, and we are still able to manouver insane swarms of satelites through that swarm with not too much calamity. The space shuttle did get hit frequently by flake sized debris and as we have seen above we can’t afford to have even microscopic particles collide with the vessel. A flea weigh 0.01 gram and even that still impacts an object moving at 0.2C at 1.164.998.893.215.263 (1 quadrillion) joules. That’s still substantially more than a hiroshima sized explosion. The biggest nuke (50 megaton, tzarbomba) had an output of 2.100.000.000.000.000.000 (what comes after Quadrillion?), 2100 quadrillion – just for comparison.

If we do a combination of burning particles out the way (and there are two ways to do that) in a fairly broad band of space of, let’s say about several thousand kilometers, keep doing so constantly – and we have the best radar system on the bow of the ship and the most high energy X ray laser money can buy, we still cant offer the vessel acceptable certainty. Conclusion – we HAVE to reduce the velocity of the vessel to a hundredth of C, and probably even less – unless we could more efficiently, and with more certainty guarantee the space between here and Proxima Centauri to be cleared of debris.

According to wiki the distance to proxima centauri is 268,400 AU. That’s a lot. The human mind is not capable of making any non abstract mental model. You can calculate this over and over and you will never in a lifetime attain a reasonable and realistic intuition of what that distance entails. Juno travelled to Jupiter with all kinds of cunning orbital mechanics mischief in 5 years. Jupiter is “several” AU removed from us at closest orbital distance. Thus we can safely assume that likewise a scaled up current technology human vessel could somewhat “mostly” safely make a journey of 1 AU in about a year. The faster we travel, the more unsafe it gets. Juno travels at 265541 kilometers per hour. Let’s say 30 kilometers per hour. 20% of light speed is about 60 thousand kilomers per SECOND.

There’s an interesting detail. Interstellar space is not empty. There are numerous objects there. Most these objects look a lot like Pluto, but are just smaller. They are essentially very small dwarf planets. We can likewise assume that there are also lots and lots of smaller, asteroid sized objects. Question – what is the average distance between such objects right between the Sun and Proxima centauri. The sun is surrounded by a very sparsely populated cloud of objects called the Kuyper belt, and beyond that the Oort cloud (mostly cometary debris) extends about 1 light year. Space gets very empty beyond that but I conjecture that there are numerous oumuamua like objects there, regardless. Dare I make an estimate? Let’s guestimate the average distance in a, say “several” AU wide band between the Sun and Proxima Centauri, in terms of objects like Ceres, Pluto, Sedna, Orcus, Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Qoaoar, etc. my cautious estimate is about 10 billion kilometers (preferably less), probably a bit more. In other words if I had a large piece of paper, and two dots on far end of the paper stand for the Sun and Proxima Centaur, and I drew a straight and very thin line between those two points, the line would intersect with something in the order of several ten thousand dwarf planet (in the order of several hundred kilometers in size)

What are dwarf planets?

The problem with interstellar travel is speed. And it’s debris. And it’s the required fuel. And it’s the relative frailty of matter when you inject too much energy in to heat (heat, kinetic or otherwise). You can’t make spaceships endlessly bigger. You can’t endlessly pile mountains of fuel on them. You can’t make mountain sized nuclear bunker shields on the front. You can’t make engines ever more energetic and put out more and more energy. You can’t lock people in very confined cans endlessly and you can’t do so for extremely long periods, or even generationally. There are major tolerances at play here and stuff and if we exceed these it pretty much means party is over.

But there are solutions, and given those solutions we can establish reasonable travel constraints. We can calculate what can with existing technology.

Let’s assume a magnetic accelerator composed of rings. It’s a fairly robust thing, ring after ring. Each ring has a small nuclear reactor and inside the tube it’s about a meter of space for a bullet, and each element (ring) is spaces about one meter apart. I can thus envision a fairly robust steel girder structure like this. If you make one element (one meter) of this a typical modest factory can probably make about one an hour, probably a whole lot more. If we make such a linear accelerator very very long (say – the distance of the earth to the moon, or 100.000 kilometers) then we are not talking insane things. The Earth is easily crisscrossed many times over with roads, internet cables, bridges and train tracks many times more than 100.000 kilometers. If you can get in to space with a large enough sized factory you can build stuff. If you can haul the factory to one of the above KBO like objects, you do not need esoteric energies, and you probably only need a fairly modest human crew (remember, we are still talking existing technologies anno 2020, no “artificial general intelligence” just yet) to keep the factory going, tighten a few bolts every now and then, manufacture some parts for replacement. Now if we can do that we can also build very large Arecibo sized radar arrays on these objects. Once built you can abandon it, and just move on to the next one.

Ten thousand “or so” dwarf planets and moonlets and planetissimals inbetween here and Proxima Centauri. Each about several years distance travel time with a very dedicated crew. A bit like in that “remarkably realistic” movie Ad Astra. Let’s say we were to launch a structure about the size of a small oceanic ship – about 10 thousand tons. That seems to be in the ballpark for a factory where you can bootstrap whatever’s required to do the following

1 – construct a very long array of various arecibo sized radar observatories over the dwarf planets to precisely chart out all debris in the path of any starships.
2 – construct a whole bunch of observatories and scientific instruments. A bit like an antarctic base so to speak.
3 – construct a magnetic cannon capable of accelerating ferric metal objects to an extreme “interstellar travel vessel” speeds.
4 – of course – a nuclear reactor of some sort with an out put in the gigawatt range.
5 – some facilities to construct a small city, housing probably a few hundred people. I.e. again, a bit like an antarctic base.
6 – a mining facility that’s capable of outputting in the order of several tons of metallic ore and other substances – per second.

Let’s say we construct the first such (small?) outpost in a kwadrant of the sky in the general direction of alpha centauri about 200 years from now. My guess travel there could take many years, and construction would take probably in the order of a few decades. There are about 50.000 seagoing ships on Earth right now. We build most those ships in the last decades, which is quite a lot if you think about it. If we would be able to send one such vessel out in to the void every year, and every forward base were able to construct another vessel in situ about 25 years after arrival, then…

Year 1 – vessel1 launched
Year 2 – vessel2 launched
Year 3 – vessel3 launched (etc)
Year 10 – vessel1 arrives at KBO about 10 billion kilometers from the sun.
Year 20 – vessel2 arrives at KBO about 20 billion kilometers from the sun
Year 30 – vessel3 arrives at KBO about 30 billion kilometers from the sun (etc). 35 – colony1 is ready

If every such colony starts outputting their own vessels after 25 years, you enter up with a steadily expanding daisy chain of bases. Each vessel is a technologically upgraded version compared to previous versions, and they’d travel faster so the above estimates would over long times be low estimates. The expansion speed would be in the order of 1 billion kilometers per year. The vessels would literally be receiving fuel launched by magnetic accelerators in-flight. Fuel pods can be accelerated to the above speeds using the launch systems I just described, and the technology for that has existed since the 1970s. You magnetize a ring/element in the cannot, magnetize the next, and a ferric (magnetic) casing is yanked forward. The US army is experimenting with these coilguns and is capable of launching missiles at thousands of km/h speeds with far far smaller and less energetic structures.

The cannons are essentially launch systems where you precisely launch a modestly self-steering automated vessel to interstellar travel speeds. You can use these pods to (a) refuel and restock interstellar travellers with parts, raw materials, medicines, reaction mass, whatever can survive several minutes of hundreds of G acceleration. I bet you might even send simple foodstuffs in them, (b) you can send these projectiles as intercept satelites to scan the road ahead for interstellar vessels. I am sure the reader can imagine all sorts of other applications, including defensive ones, in case the aliens show up (which they probably won’t), scientific ones and on and on.

The point is, this does not require speculative and esoteric propulsion, energy carriers, impact shielding, life extension technologies, bizarre fuel loads, andsoforth.

Automated systems can do this. You should visualize cargo arriving as a very gentle and seamless process, say, a pod every few minutes, and then for years and decades, and probably for centuries. Sedated humans in impact gel containment could probably survive in the order of 10G. If you then mount a propulsion system on ‘the ordnance fired’ you could launch the components of a larger propulsion stack in consecuetive launches and literally assemble a higher output transfer vessel from parts launched. I don’t think humans could then every catch up with a vessel travelling at 0,01 light speed (3000 kilometers per second, or about 100 times the speed of Juno) but I am positive sperm and genetic material and eggs could. And I am absolutely certain scientific advances could be implemented on a small colonial habitat literally ‘on the fly’.

These projects are frightfully long, and require very stable political system and infrastructures. But the construction of such an interstellar highway could have started in the order of a few centuries. It would take grotesquely long to travel to Proxima Centauri given current constraints painted above. Many centuries.

But we now see a totally new mental image that veers sharply away from the “Starship Enterprise” model of interstellar travel. Instead we see basically a very large, very long (spindly) container vessel with very very robust shielding that looks more like an industrial sea refinery rig than a space ship from science fiction. It’s huge, in the order of a nimitz class flight carrier, and very robust. Set with scientific instruments extending in booms from the central structure, and with an active and engaged crew. Children will be born, be raised, be educated, grow old and die. The vessel will be entercepted by cargo from reloading structure and will be in constant radio and reloading contact with the outpost(s) before and after the vessel. A factory will be constantly churning processing metallic iron cannisters into reaction mass for main propulsion and resources need for life aboard the ship.

The end requirement of building a literally uninterrupted sequence of thousands, or ten thousands of waystations with the effect of literally “outsourcing” propulsion to moonlets along the way, would not be dissimilar to the requirements we have seen in Colonial Earth’s past. People were born in quaint little ports along the way of ocean going sialing vessels, somewhere on a coastal region on the way to a far-off destination. Children would be born off the coast of, say, Zanzibar, and grow up, grow old and be buried there, only to hear stories of far away homeland but never to actually see it.

Construction of this interstellar highway to Proxima Centauri would take very very long in human terms. If each outposts netts a persistent one settlement vessel every ten or so years after a few decades, then you quickly hit maximum saturation in an exponential number of settler vessels moving at a very gradual pace, the speed of “several times” that of the Juno mission, i.e. something like over a hundred kilometers per second. Let’s assume we can construct a base every ten years, indefinitely, then after a few centuries you’d see fast interstellar vessels use reload mass to decccelerate from interstellar velocities and proceed to construct new colonies at the advance front of progress. An alien civilization observing quitely from some distance would see a line of faint glowing lights gradually extend outward from the sol system towards Proxima Centauri.

How long does it take to roll out such a daisy chain of settlements? Like I said before, thousands of years. But you would then be able to literally accelerate ever faster interstellar vessels to the maximum speed, propulsion, shielding, logistics and human crew would muster. At any point the vessels headed for Proxima Centauri would be less than a light day apart, maintaining steady and uninterrupted radio contact with outposts and each other.

Yes, you can create interstellar colonies. Yes the voyages take very long, literally centuries. But the image of a lonely Aurora type vessel that’s far from home kind of becomes invalid. Instead, the travellers would be rolling out massive sweeping scientific, technological, industrial infrastructures as a tsunami across interstellar space.

My guess how long it would take to roll out this interstellar highway completely? Actually not much longer as the actual voyages. Maybe three times? That’s less than a thousand years at 0.01 C.

And we would be doing this not with only Proxima Centauri. There would be interstellar highways reaching out to all nearby stars rolling out at the same time. Do realise – the galaxy is billions of years old, and to literally wave a three-dimensional web would take, assuming nothing much more advanced than currently existing technologies anno 2020, not much more than a hundred million years, at best.

Now…… if you start adding human cloning, long stay hibernation, cryonic suspension, cybernetics, genetic modifications of humans, mind-machine interfaces, artificial general intelligences, uploading, robust nanotechnology, etc etc. to the mix then all this would be able to roll out much much much faster.

ADDENDUM

Yes my maths abilities are bad bad bad. I am maths blind, mostly. Readers of this article may do the actual legwork in making meaningful calculations of all aspects of article. I will add any (if any) submissions or updates under the main article.

Rapist

Posted: 26th March 2020 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Rapist
Post image

The case for Sanders to run independent.

Posted: 10th March 2020 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on The case for Sanders to run independent.

Is it even possible? Hell yeah it is. Sanders can decide, if he doesn’t make it into the Primary cut, to declare himself an independent “Democratic Socialist” candidate. There is at this time a solid point to be made for him to do so, and I would argue he should. See if he gets through the democratic primaries with a plurality, see if he passes the coronation as presidential candidate .. but if he isn’t, let him pull a rabbit from the hat and the very day declare himself independent candidate.

The furor and hysterical screaming of betrayal from the DNC should be deafening, no doubt But who cares at this stage.

  1. Sanders was now several times in a row, betrayed seriously by the DNC, and all competing democratic candidates. And not just a little, in 2016 there was outright fraud involved, and no one was held accountable. This time, the DNC was visibly involved in to serious voter fraud in Ohio, and arguably several other states. Every single democratic drop-out loser went to support a visible senile man, Joe Biden. This should be categorically unacceptable. It’s “spitting in your face” betrayal. The whole world was watching, and everybody knows.
  2. The alternative? Joe Biden. This is an unelectable, very sick old man. That means he will most likely fail, and if he doesn’t fail it is implicitly a vote for a VP replacing Joe in a matter of months. Who will be that VP? Hillary Clinton? This is a realistic idea since this cabal has already selected that corporatist psychopath Bloomberg for President of the World Bank, and Jamey Dimon as head of the goddamn treasury. This makes Joe the most offensive candidate thinkable, and Trump will be screaming “drain the swamp” against a man who can barely finish sentences without bleeding from his eyes.
  3. The argument that will be leveraged against Sanders running independent will be he will steal away votes from the DNC, but that can easily be refuted. At a recent Fox townhall people cheered sanders and booed the Fox hosts. It is likely Sanders will take away a significant number of votes from the Democratic contender, but even more likely he will pilfer the vote from Trump. In a contest Sanders will stand onstage debating two men (Trump and Biden) who are both in catastrophic, visible mental decline. Sanders only needs to finish first by now a typical stand-up comedian like Jimmy Dore could wipe the floor with these two elite geriatrics.
  4. Maybe people would argue this to be “unfair”, but look at the stakes involved. Biden said “when I am president nobodies standard of living will change”. That’s unacceptable. The US needs radically different policies, or tens of thousands will literally die because of underinsurance, economic marginalization, oil wars. If there is ever a case to be made Sanders should not take this laying down and do anything he can to offer an alternative over Golfing Trump or “You know that thing” Creepy Joe is moral and ethical. Not doing so is essentially unethical betrayal. And Sanders will be able to count on a grass roots enthusiasm you won’t have seen for decades in the US. People will ROAR with laughter if he does this. Biggest middle finger to the establishment ever.

So my sincere advice is to weigh this option. There is no rule outlawing it, as clearly there is apparently neither a rule for the DNC apparatchniks to brazenly, shamelessly screw over their own contenders, against the will of the people, televised all over the world.

Every option should be on the table to defeat Trump, and to defeat the oligarchy. This is no doubt the best remaining option. And what are they gonna do, bar him from the democratic elections of 2024? Well boohoo, by then it’s time for AOC to run.

I say, fuck em. Do consider :

* https://medium.com/@dawnpapple_7117/if-joe-biden-wins-the-nomination-but-suffers-cognitive-decline-the-dnc-gets-their-coronation-88829361cc7
*

Senile

Posted: 9th March 2020 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Senile
Post image

#Senility, #Alzheimer, #NeuralDegeneracy, #AgeRelatedDiseases, #Geriatocracy, #Biden, #HairyLegs #Cornpop, #Senescence, #Decrepitude, #Dotard, #Old, #Unsuitable, #Authoritarian, #Gropey, #SleazyJoe, #SlobberingJoe, #CreepyJoe. #PedoBiden, #UnableToTalkInWholeSentences, #IDon’tEvenKnowWhoIAm

Establishment Tool

Posted: 3rd March 2020 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Establishment Tool
Post image

Rat eating cinnamon roll

Posted: 24th December 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Rat eating cinnamon roll
Pete Buttigieg raises eyebrows for eating cinnamon roll like chicken wings
#RatEatingCinnamonRoll

The Hivemind Instinct

Posted: 28th November 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on The Hivemind Instinct

There’s some uncanny things happening in the world, and reasonable folks stand slackjawed in utter perplexity at certain … things.

The most illustrative example are MAGA trump followers. We have seen this quite often in human history, and I will unsympathetically characterize what I see as “a blind, uninformed, cult-like dedication to an authoritarian populist leader”. There are flocks of pundits making cursory dismissive statements on what’s happening here, and none of them reaches to the heart of the matter.

Allow me to conjecture in a meaninful manner, and give me some rope here. Because what I will speculate will be politically fairly incorrect.

Let’s head back to the start of the Holocene, say several thousand years ago. I have in the past argued that humanity went through quite the evolutionary bottleneck at that time, precipitated by a range of major climatic shifts. Let me list the changes.

  1. The last Pleistocene ice age ending is characterized by fairly rapid melting of icecaps, and a significant rising of sea levels.
  2. As a result a lot of formerly cold and ice covered land became availale and a lot of heavily forested low lying land was flooded.
  3. Populations of humans were compressed in to new and/or smaller geographic areas, triggering a sharp increase in ethnic/genetic competition.
  4. Those populations of humans that were genetically inclined to higher competition resorted to ever sophisticated modes of eliminating competition; this in turn favored aggressiveness, central authority and leadership and an inborn inclination to identify othet ethnicities as well as other genetic strains of humans.

I would therefore argue that in the last few thousand years humans entered a competetive stage, that as natural dangers diminished or were largely eradicated (for instance – most animals are remarkably cautious with humans) those humans that favored “racism”, “respect for authority” (docility), as well as ingenuity in confrontations.

If I continue hypothesizing along these lines I’d conjecture that some human genetic strains (and I consciously don’t use the word “races” here) have a greater prepensity for these modalities. We might say, “some ethnicities may have a greater prepensity to organize along authoritarian lines, organize in gangs following a “leader” and use ever more sophisticated tools and strategies in combat.

Image result for racist trump voters wall

If this hypothesis would be valid in the real world – if it describes something tangible and real, we immediately have a rather distressing model for what may be happening (and what is so befuddling to rational folks) in the real world.

If we take these three urges in the human race and combine them in to one over-all picture we may come to understand a tribal instinct that has translated quite tragically to the modern world. Here’s a narrative for you.

Human beings after the pleistocene were gradually forced in to new geographical niches and were forced to adapt quickly. One of these adaptations was an increasingly sedentary life, resisting other tribes for control of the land. To better be able to resist incursions, the sedentary folk started reinforcing more permanent settlements and fortified them. This begat primal forms of feudalist hierarchies where farmers and military predispositions calcified and society stratified. That all gradually led to territories, terristorial claims, leaders and the active desire to have your genetic legacy persist. Before this era tribal society was more equal between genders. After this transition land claim (and inheritance) progressed along male lines, females were born smaller, and as diets became more based on grains and agriculture most humans were weaker. To compensate humans in these emerging kingdoms became more suspicious of strangers (who’d signify threats to your genetic legacy) so primarily humans survived that were more inclided to agression against strangers, as well as domineering towards females. The best organized tribes (and later countries) were best able to use force to resist strangers, and in many cases resort to ethnic cleansing of said strangers. Now – war is quite a complex development, and war required an active instinct for self-sacrifice in the members of society. This active instinct was put to use in armed confrontation (war) and require its constituents somehow developed (or evolved) a prepensity to do what an authoritarian figurehead tells them to do, at great risk to their own survival. To obey leaders would then insure a significantly greater chance for surviving individuals to allowed to procreate and spread these “docile” and “military” genes. Manlyness became something to be admired and was greatly connotated with martial success, as well as a certain ruthless cruelty. We can easily see a mental tapestry of literally congenital instincts emerge in humanity favoring active racism, a persistent desire to dominate woman, a desire to be seen as “a full male” by members of the community, proud of one’s legacy and ethnicity (i.e. – racial pride) and a somewhat irrational urge to take extreme risks in confronting and potentially even murdering strangers or enemies.

Image result for angry white trump voters

So there you have it and it ain’t a pretty picture. Humanity may have wonderful inclinations but my hypothesis is that racism, ethnic nationalism, genocide, blindly following a strong male figure (what I’d call a ‘silverback’), doing markedly asinine things when following that leader, and a strong tendency of males to treat women as possession or second rate human beings – it’s all genetic and thus to a degree a pathology as well as a deterministic instinct in human group behavior.

Image result for angry white trump voters

T R A N S H U M A N I S M

Posted: 19th November 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on T R A N S H U M A N I S M

Hi there, my name is Khannea. How are you doing?

I am a Transhumanist. I have been active calling myself Transhumanist around the mid-to-late 1990s, and have been ideologically Transhumanist since the late 1980s. I consider myself one of the best informed pro Transhumanism, Pro-Futurism, Pro-Modernism, Pro Space Colonisation, Futurological, Pro-Life Extension, Pro-Singularity activists and presenters in the Netherlands. I work closely together with Amanda Stoel (TechnoGaianism) in trying to spread a level (not too optimist/utopian, and not too pessimist/dystopian) understanding of these fields.

For that cause I am available to present these topics. I have a number of standard presentations ready, or I can prepare a presentation on a topic of your choice for which I can relatively quickly create a series of core arguments. I am, by any standard, very widely informed and oriented and do not give you the glamorous presentation – I will parse you all opportunities and dangers of exponential change in the most snarky tone I can muster.

I can safely state I am closely befriended by Giulio Prisco, David Pearce, Ben Goertzel, Philippe van Nedervelde, Aubrey de Grey, the late (?, 🙁 )Arjen Kamphuis, Amanda Stoel, Johannon BenZion, Natash Vita-Moore, Anders Sandberg – and most others know me at least by name.

Are you a media organization that desires to know more? Are you a documentary maker seeking salient quotes and insights? Are you a government agency at a loss about emerging technological trends? Are you a corporation that seeks to inspire your employees? I am available to rouse the spirits, cause brows to furrow, cause maybe a sleepless night here and there, and always seek to cause some laughter, albeit sometimes nervous.

For information, please email me at khannea.suntzu@gmail.com. I reside, party and work in particular in the Hague/Amsterdam axis.

Also be on the lookout of the drama-documentary by the name “Khannea 2070” coming out in 2020!

China – is FUCKED

Posted: 17th November 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on China – is FUCKED

Why? Because socalled Rod From God (RfG) kinetic projectiles are expensive. They used to be strategically way more expensive to field than nukes, and outer space treaties forbids the use of orbital allocated nuclear weapons. Ballistic nukes are relatively close to target. To use a RfG you need to allocate a lot of them, in order to have strategic coverage over time. If you only have a few, fielding them against targets world wide will take a lot of time, and in a world war last thing you have is time.

So why is China fucked? Well, once a global power starts putting RfG’s in to orbit it takes literally hundreds to achieve dominance and that takes time. So when you start putting them in place you are literally saying to all your enemies guys, I am getting ready to kill you, give me a year and I’ll be totally ready to start a war of total annihilation without radioactive fallout, which pretty much means, in insane geopolitical parlance – I am getting ready to destroy all your military resources and invade, take over all your shit and make your people in to na slave race.

China isn’t stupid. They know this and they have known this for decades. they also realize now the US is starting to ramp up real cheap launch systems under SpaceX (look at this picture of a SpaceX rocket. Look at the flag on it. Look at how closely it resembles a V2)

Elon’s Godly Rod

As long as SpaceX is a private enterprise with all these grande private visions of colonizing mars, the US can maintain total plausible deniability that this isn’t in fact a deeply aggressive statement. Because it IS a deeply aggressive statement, much in the same way Germany in 1935 starting up factories mass-producing TNT “for peaceful civil engineering purposes” would be regarded as a declaration of war by France. Nonwithstanding your projections of being a peaceful beatnik, it is simly not credible.

Hippie Elon

There is no way China can match the quickly falling launch costs of SpaceE anytime soon. They know this. China knows that the US is at least half a decade ahead of China, despite all the rhetoric otherwise, to match these efforts. China thus knows that the US won’t need any stinking nuclear weapons to bring China to its knees.

Now take into account China’s attempts to consolidate the south China sea (which is simply a loud statement to the US/NATO – “make us stop doing this. I dare you, try and stop us“) or China’s threatening rhetoric towards Taiwan (“were are coming sooner rather than later“) and paranoid Khannea may decide that what’s happening in Hong Kong is a short term counterstatement from the US against these aggressions, whereas clearly the above implied threat from SpaceX is a long term statement.

What can China do?

Well expect them starting to invest a LOT more in space infrastructure very vert soon. A lot more, as in exponentially more.

Do we in the EU have a humanitarian duty in england?

Posted: 1st October 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Do we in the EU have a humanitarian duty in england?

We must sometimes face cold hard facts. I canb give you a list of cold hard facts we need to face. Climate change. Nuclear and Coal has no future. We as a human civilisation will have to stop industrial and largescale animal farming agriculture. All cars will be automated in 10 years. We will lose more than half existing jobs in the next 15 years. Plastic waste is really really bad and killing nature. Saudi Arabia is the biggest exporter of oil, and is using a lot of that money to fund terrorism. Trump is probably destroying the US as it exists today and we’ll soon see civil war. The Star Wars prequels and sequels are a cinematic abomination.

I know, it’s really horrible to tell this news to someone’s face, especially someone in total denial. These people will do whatever they can to ignore what you said and if you insist they’ll become furious.

One such non-negotiable topic is Brexit.

I recently saw a live presentation by Joris van Luyendijk, and I absolutely love the guy. When he presented angry white voters I laughed rather loud in the audience and he misread that and said “you hear that laughter? that’s what these white voters hate.” And of course he was right. A lot of people in the UK are furious with these arrogant uppity European elitists, and their damn EU rules, and their petty EU bureaucracy. Brussels! Ze Germans! And the French!

A lot of people in England are in a psychotic irrational rage and they can’t think clearly. It’s like a really bad marriage that both parties want to end at any cost, and they’ll rather burn down the house to make sure neither other gets half its resale value.

You can’t argue facts with these peope. You can’t outright tell muricans that america is a mess. You can’t tell a trucker in his face that his job is gone in a few years and he’ll have to go on welfare almost certainly. You can’t tell farmers that their industry is deeply immoral and destructive to the environment, and MUST stop growing immediately. You can’t tell someone in a car that for every euro he spends on gas about 10% goes of that euro is rerouted by Saudi Wahabbists to fund lunatics that want to kill every westerner. You can’t tell politicians in the US that climate change will competelt annihilate the american modern western way of life in less than 2 decades, if we do nothing, and reduce in wealth by about half if we take all the required actions to mitigate climate change. The list of things people are in denial about is virtually endless.

So, facts, Brexit is gearing up to become one of the worst catastrophy’s in the history of Europe. People will literally starve, cities will burn, there will be mass protests, politicians will be lynched, people will die because of lack of access to medication, people in england will have serious vitamin deficiency because of lack of fresh foods in a year, millions of jobs will be lost.

I happen to have a friend in the UK. She’s transgender so her outlook on career, schooling, social life, dignified sexual gratification, meaning, etc. is pretty precarious to begin with. She’s very young and unspeakably stressed out to begin with. Her mom is really difficult about it and apparently understands very little about everything. Clear I am worried about her, and I am pretty certain I have reason to be. If I mention to her it is looking pretty bad, she clearly is in denial. She asks me for “sources” on what I am talking about. Most lurid video I found describing the sheer horrific magnitude of what awaits is is this one.

We in the western world have become basically a bunch of spoiled assholes, myself included. The modern world IS horribly fragile and things can go horribly wrong, and in some cases this process is clearly already underway. Dmitry Orlov did some amazing presentations about this years ago, and instead of doing something about it, people are hoarding guns these days in an orgy of misantropy. Everyone hates everyone else, everyone blames anyone but themselves. The end for some of these systems will be horrifying.

The problem is the UK is walking distance away. If things go totally south we’ll get to hear the screams of despair across the north sea. We in the EU can pretty much throw up our hands and say (as Joris Luyendijk seems to be doing, “they can go fuck themselves, good riddance”) and laugh at the hilarious misfortune those stupid english idiots.

But I say we should start making some contingency plans, at the level of the collapse of the soviet union, to help the poor people in the soon former UK. Things will get real bad. They are likely to need food aid, medication, disaster relief, maybe lots of other things. We may in the EU start thinking about mass migration and refugee streams from the UK. Clearly most won’t be able to get in to the EU – we simply have no place to house, clothe, feed and care for a few million utterly angry, shellshocked chavvy brits – most of them most likely to be seething with resentment.

But I do call on my politicians to start making plans for worst case scenarios. Literally – malnourished people, people traumatized by months of civil collapse, crime, riots, institutional racism and state repression. Sure, we can endlessly go laugh about how stupid these brits are, but we have to accept that in this day and age pretty much everyone is suspectible to mass campaigns of lying, media manipulation, fake news and russian interference. The poor simpleton brits just have a collective national psychosis, and these poor people will need help soon. Let’s get ready to give it to them.

Send your comments to khannea.suntzu@gmail.com.

The Good Life

Posted: 26th September 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on The Good Life
Image result for shiny happy people

Let me be clear – this article is not about me telling you what to do in life. This article is not about turning people in to “the Borg” or whatever. I am describing a new concept for most people, whereas for “transhumanists” this idea would be fairly self-evident. Other people, say people like Alex Jones, will scream bloody murder reading about this idea – and maybe they should.

If you use a scheduler, or a calender, you use a tool. If you use an answering machine and automatic scheduler, again, you use a tool. A gantt chart? A tool. You submit to a self-imposed structure in your life. My inquiry here is, how far can we take this?

Taking myself as an example (and I am positive to goes for most people), I wasted a LOT of time in my life. Having some spectrum analogue of ADHD didn’t make things easier. Have had an emotionally disheveled mother and a hyper-aggressive sociopathic father didn’t help much. Like many people, I made some structurally stupid choices, and can easily argue society did it utmost best to aggravate these choices and make them worse in the worst possible manner.

Fast forward to deep learning algorithms.

We are now in an era where advanced learning systems can recognize the most gradient and subtle of patterns in all aspects reality. In the last five years machines are self-learning to perform tasks we would have regarded as manifestation of of some kind of magic ten years ago. Every day new examples emerge of things hitherto regarded as patently impossible.

AI equal with human experts in medical diagnosis, study finds

In a few years any new car can affordably have the ability to self drive. These systems are becoming so universally safe that to me it’s pretty certain that soon cities will simply legally disallow human drivers. A few decades at most, if that. That means soon you can’t drive your manually operate lamborghini in a city like London. You have to log in to ‘citygrid’ a system that steers you around traffic jams, manages your maximum speed, protects you from accidents, drives you sustainably and efficiently to your destination. Don’t have a car that’s automated, you are not allowed in. You are fined if you do. Something like this is pretty much certain, and fairly soon.

We can unleash a system analysis on any process, and come up with meaningful algorithms that do things better than any human could have ever come up with. You can show a machine a street scene and it can now tell you what’s happening in the scene. And the most scary thing is that most people are still blissfully unaware this is happening.

So what do I propose?

I really would like a suite of advisor software – a complex intelligent self learning algorithm that’s constantly updated. This happened to Tesla’s once – friday the cars could barely movement. During the weekend software was updated and the week after people started experimenting with driving their Tesla across the entire US continent.

Can we do this with human life?

I think we can, and that’s both scary and very exciting. Imagine this – suite of advisory systems that constantly monitors your actions, choices, goals, desires, needs, dangerous urges, whatnow – and you establish goal sets with your software. Like – you want to fitness more, and be able to run a certain distance at a certain speed. Or lose weight. Or move permanently to another country and live next to the sea.

The software would have looked at millions of volunteers, each establishing similar system constraints, and would have learned how to do things, how to avoid trouble, how to get things done, how to get the most enjoyment out of life, how to not burn out, how to maximize your longevity, how not to get diabetes or cancer, etcetera. Of course you would establish boundaries. If you insist on smoking, then the software ignores that, until certain extreme tresholds would be broken, based on warning signs you stipulate yourself. You can set your software any way you like, as long as the system won’t decide you are breaking crimes or seriously hurt yourself. The best software should help you to legally get the most healthy heroin for the least amount of money – if that’s what you desire. No dount there would eventually be management software geared to run criminal enterprises, and whatnot. Terrorism even. Religious extremism. Autocratic societies might run reward schemes if you have state approved “proper behavior” citizen management software.

The software would also be flat out honest to you, like – “no you won’t be an olympic athlete” – it would tell you certain goals, desires, expectations are unrealistic and to what degree. People might listen quicker to their own software advisor than their priest or their physician.

The implications of widespread voluntary use of this software would be profound, especially if the user could enter a somewhat meaningful dialogue with the system, query it, instruct it, steer its goal sets, etc. I would tell my software certain fitness goals to coach me into, I would tell my software how to not get myself in financial trouble, I would tell my software to “gently” coax me in to societally moral, pleasant, gregarious behavior that maximizes my life enjoyment and actually helps other people to flourish in my presence. I might even set my management software to subtly negotiate with the software of other people, ‘negotiate’ goal sets with other people’s goal sets, without showing my cards so to speak. I might even set my software to financially, legally, medically, educationally or politically represent me in a manner that best serves my needs.

Modern life has become extremely stressful and inhumanly complex for a lot of people. Most people would not want to be managed in the above manner, and that would be fine, but I can most certainly see people seriously need and want such software. I can even visualise psychiatric or parental specialty packages that allow therapists algorithms to help you maintain a sane life, or raise sane, pleasant and effective kids. I arguably would have been a much better human if my parents had had access to this software.

Wrong

Posted: 21st September 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Wrong

Saying libertarians are pedophiles is just blatantly wrong. Being socialist is inherently against freedom, forcibly taking money under threat of imprisonment and death. Libertarians are for protecting the smallest minority, the individual.
— Matt Meinke

Uhm no.

1. The US Libertarian movement is overrun by pedophyles

2. Redistributive policies are pro-freedom

3. US Libertarianism is synomymous with fascist corporocracy. Libertarians consistently favor police states.

3. Libertarianism is against Freedom

4. Taxation is free. If you don’t like it you should leave.

5. US Libertarianism is largely a racist white power movement

6. “Libertarianism” does not work and has never worked in history.

7. Humanist Modernity has no reasonable alternatives than to shackle private wealth as soon as possible.

I’ll add other links and arguments soon.

Closing the EU to radicalized US americans

Posted: 1st September 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Closing the EU to radicalized US americans

If I were to describe a national organization in, say, a middle eastern or african country, that was openly and brazenly active in spreading high powered killing weapons to its members, protecting these members for any legislative constraint, and these weapons are then routinely used in mass killings, we would declare such people patently unwelcome in our society. So when then does the EU not apply equal standards when it comes to similarly radicalized elements in US society?

Post image

We are back at square one again. Several hours ago as of me writing this at least five people were massacred and many more injured in yet another mass shooting in the US state of Texas. Second in a month. First signs point to the shooting being done by a trump supporter MAGA type far right individual.

The problem is that clearly, selfevidently, exhibitionistically US society for some reason refuses to qualify far right wing violence as domestic terrorism. The FBI is rerouted towards watching environmental radicals, vets returning from wars and (in particular) antifa and native americans and black rights organizations for any signs of terrorism. White power / far right / radical christian domestic terrorism kills hundreds of times more people in US society than any of the above. Thus we in Europe should conclude the powers that be are at least tacitly sympathetic towards far right / racist / domionist causes. They consistently refuse to condemn any of these shooters.

Image may contain: text

I have long since argued US society is in a state of freefall towards Dystopian squallor. I visited the US repeatedly and lived there for some length of time and even back then I would characterize US society as pervasively a police society, claustrophobically militarized, deeply racist and decidedly unfree to anyone but its richest denizens. When I raised these criticisms they consistently fall on deaf ears with the vast majority of americans, if not arouse outright anger. But we are now in 2019, the electorate in the US somehow decided they are the only real democratic society on the planet, and they came up with someone patently and theatrically racist as donald trump. That man has no been charged with anything. I do not see any impeachment. He has not been dragged off to prison, and I have seen no credible attempts to hold him accountable in any other way. In fact I see an establisment that’s ranging from whiningly impotent, feebly terrified or utterly complict, enabling or downright collaborators with his ideology.

The EU as a single body can not change US society. But the EU must come to terms with the irreversible decline of US society. We have no way of knowing where this will end, but I am fairly certain Chris Hedges’s assessment is pretty spot on when he states the end of american empire is here, and the end will be horrifying. A major part of that descent seems based on the marriage of radicalization and epidemic availability of firearms. In specific one organisation is actively supporting the ubiquity, deadliness of these weapons and takes active steps to legally shield people who own and use these weapons from consequences.

The EU should be consistent in its border policies with regards to radicalized non EU citizens. That is why I vehemently call upon the EU leadership for a complete and total shutdown of american NRA members entering the European Union until our representatives can figure out what is going on.

T h e N a t i o n a l R i f l e O r g a n i s a t i o n

I would strongly insist we include politicians of which it can be determined they are NRA members, take NRA money and vote on behalf of this NRA. We should extend this travel ban as soon as possible to other verifiable sectarian organizations in US society of which it can be blankly determined they contribute to mass murders, such as this NRA. I say, if people support the NRA, carry an NRA card – you can’t reasonably trust them. They are actively enabling systemic and frequent mass murders in US society, for whatever reason. This kind of people do not belong in EU society, either as short term residents, or as short term visitors. Those NRA members already in the EU should be asked to leave as soon as possible, and I believe again this travel ban should include US politicians, office holders, embassy staff and diplomats.

If you agree with this demand, please please please share this article to as many people as possible.

Comments Off on Protected: Gamifying a black hole and – accretion disk in Eve Online

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Legislation on Asteroid Mining Debris Cloud

Posted: 16th August 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Legislation on Asteroid Mining Debris Cloud

Copyright 2019, Khannea Sun Tzu, article may be used with attribution

It is likely certain corporations and governments are well on our way to mining asteroids before 2050. Once asteroid mining commences in earnest, it will grow exponentially and change from a very riskprone, trial-and-error, erratic profit and small scale industry to a highly predictable, casual, well tested and insanely profitable industry in decades. The problem with exponentially expanding industries is that politicians, corporations, investers and scientists enter a peculiar insanity driven by profit margins we have not seen before on this planet. It may eventually turn out that industrial exploitation of space-based resources expands to a degree that corporate entities lose most interest in investing in terrestrial resources or markets, and that is a long term problem in its own right.

But short term, in the second and third stages of asteroid mining we are very likely to see corporations cut corners and enter a sort of feeding frenzy for select resources and ores, and use other asteroid resources in a particularly (and arguably criminally) wasteful manner. We have seen the same attritional ‘business models’ in the conquest of the americas where bison skulls were used as fertillizer in a manner we can in retrospect judge to be criminal, immoral, insane and severely lacking any longterm vision.

American bison skull pile

Near earth space is unlike any frontier we have ever tried conquering. The natural intuitions humans have evolved to deal with hunter-gatherer existence on an african savanne are certain to be quite inadequate compared to vacuum, highly radiated, highly temperature variation, free fall, extreme toxicity, extreme distances, extreme investment tresholds, extreme profit margins environment. To profit from these resources it in the initial stages it makes sense to use the most ruthless approach imaginable.

For instance – there’s a lot of water (and other volatiles) in most asteroids and this water exists as a composite of clays inside the asteroids in a semi-frozen state. By heating the asteroid insides these volatile substances can be extracted. Water is likely to be extremely valuable for colonizing space in a long term sustainable manner, but clearly the same water can also be collected in the early decades of asteroid mining to blow up parts of asteroid gravel piles. This yields two moral problems

1 – the water used in that manner escapes in to space and is carried out of the solar system via solar radiation, and

2 – this, and other ‘ruthless’ means of extracting resources is very likely to produce significant debris/particle clouds in interplanetary space.

It may seem inconceivable that water would be wasted in this manner, and likewise it may seem inconceivable that “debris clouds” would be a problem in the vastness of space. It is right now very difficult to estimate the impact of just these two problems of (1) wasting precious resources in the short term we may desperately need in long term development and (2) haphazzardly dumping a kind of particle pollution in interplanetary space that may pose long term hazards for follow-up missions. But as asteroid mining heats up we may see an exponential number of each every more cutthroat competetive and immorally shortsighted missions tearing up asteroids. This won’t be a problem when we are doing small missions to a few asteroids, but imagine half a century later when we see tens of thousands of very sizable missions actively digging in tens of thousands of asteroids anually and everyone can see the ensuing problems for consecutive spaceflight. We surely do not want an accidental kessler syndrome around the earth moon system, so we most certainly do not want to induce a slow-motion interplanetary kessler syndrome in the inner solar system and asteroid belt.

We can not stop all cutting corners. But the international community can determine that certain cost cutting and ruthless strategies for asteroid colonization to be objectionable for long term development of very large, and relatively fragile infrastructure (or real estate) in the inner solar system. It would be tragic if an exponential development of hundreds or thousands of O’Neill habitats, each potentially housing many thousands to ten thousands of highly educated, very affluent, highly productive tax paying and voting constituents were needlessly aborted because of the shortsighted nature of some corporate revenue extraction models.

Currently there is no viable legislative, legal or political model to impede such practices, so we end up with certain nations more or less dictating terms, with everyone else more or less consenting out of docility, short sighted naivety, or poltical expediency. The problem is that afore alluded to nations do not have a stellar record on yielding particularly long-term oriented business practices.

There is an immediate solution however – governments and corporations trading resources from space (moons, asteroids, comets, planets or otherwise) can be taxed for offering these goods, and we can make taxation dependent in large part on the sustainability of the extraction methods they use.

It would be wise for governments to come to understand the potential impact of asteroid mining, the technologies and sciences involved and have specialists in these fields prepare a cursory legislative framework to avoid disasters down the line.

Indian guys, please stop already

Posted: 29th July 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Indian guys, please stop already

*Goes for arab, african, etc guys too.

Anyone who wants to use this post as a reply when Indian guys come whining on Facebook chat, please do.

One slice of cheese is pure heaven. I mean, one slice of Cheese is pure heaven. Now eat 30, and suddenly it becomes a bit less so. I mean, I like people, I like talking to people, and I like people in general. I like talking about content and meaningful stuff. Too much of the same people however gets problematic quickly.

So I get, like so many with a female exterior, ceaselessly accosted by Indian guys. I mean it’s like a constant barrage on facebook. I go online, and one of these utterly 45 thousand in a dozen cartboard cutout mustached guys, all the same hair, all the same half open buttoned up shirt, most a “a bit overweight”, all imposingly polite, “they just want to get to know me and want to be friends”.

So I tried that, talking to these guys. Like in the last ten years a few hundred times probably, and I have amassed a massive statistical understanding of Indian guys and their grande plan. And when I say Indian guys, I probably also mean Pakistani guys, and an assortment of guys from africa, the middle east andsoforth. They start chatting, generally one after another, in a straightforward conveyor belt of polite inquiries in what I do, where I live, whether or not I have pets, what I do for a living, what suggestions I have for studies, if I would come over one day (I mean, Ralpindi is amazing!) and on and on it goes. It’s clear they signal another (“hey dudes, I am working on this one right now, if she doesn’t bite, you go try”) and they keep coming. It’s a bit like the 150th slice of cheese for me. But I still try to nibble occasionally and figure out what it is these kids want. And I am absolutely 100% certain their all want the following ..

  1. a white woman being theirs, doesn’t matter if she’s over 40, they think you are “an amazing looking MILF”. I kid you not. They say that out loud. they use inside head words and say them. They don’t just want to be friends, hell no, they want to fuck, and fuck like utterly depraved, clinically psychiatric sexually barren, utterly inexperienced, angry hate sex, completely riddled with male chauvinist misconceptions, routinely porn addicted, half crazed with lust fucking. And when they read on my profile that I might be construed as sexually active, they just go NUTS. Try it, it’s an uninterrupted series of sexually escalating questions that will, give them half a chance, veer directly in to extreme forms of sexual deviancy.
  2. Money. Indian guys, or whatever variant of that dujour, live as a rule in countries that are dismal and dystopian compared to where I live. I don’t envy them, and in fact it’s horrible what these kids have to endure. So, yeah I understand, they want and really need money. But they can not conceive of the idea that in “The Netherlands” someone would actually be dirt poor. These kids can actually become a bit annoyed, acting insulted when you claim you cant spare any money – that for me five euro is “next days food” most likely. Turns out Indians live in a haze of being convinced they are mostly a developing country, and the Netherlands is “developed” and is thus exponentially more comfortable than India. In some parts that might be the case, but developed doesn’t mean easy, not by a long shot. In terms of life pleasure, Netherlands is comparatively, contextually just as frustrating and daunting as any country in the world. If you live it, your mind instantaneously recallibrated to context. Yeah I know I’d probably be dead in a week having actually live and survive and work in Golgotta or Lahore. In the Netherlands I survive because I get a princely fortune of disability which allows me to like, eat warm 4 times a week. When I spell out the amount, Indians probably thing I am someone retired after a long career. It’s not, it’s subsistence level poverty here, no minding the fact you can probably buy a villa for that money over there.
  3. They want OUT, right now. These kids would do anything (or they soon make clear implied or outright) to get the hell out of where they are. They have no clue what to do next if they were teleported here. I bet most of them would be starving hysterically panicked in a few days, utterly shellshocked and be deported back from whence they came. They’d come back with tales of “how horrible the Netherlands is” and “how strange habits these people have” and that “living here as an Indian guy is a nightmare” and “women there are cruel and all lesbians, as they want nothing to do with me“. It’s all a bit like winning the lottery, everyone things winning the lottery is “experientally”, fun. I guarantee you it is not. It is one giant ball of coagulated stress and disappointment and loneliness. The same is true of Indians, who glamorize the good western European life and golden land of opportunities. These kids are gruesomely mistaken and the vats majority of them who would actually arrive here would, even if they could stay, flee back in months, crying. That is to say the Netherlands is not much of an easier country than theirs. It’s probably much easier, absolutely. But they thing moving here is some kind of best they can achieve in life, especially having also #1 and #2 above.

The thing is for every Dutch woman with blonde or red hair and bright blue or green eyes, there are what, 150.000 Indian guys with all the same shirt, all the same fluffy black hair, all the same wiggly head motions, all the same moustache (we don’t like mustaches here, as a rule) and all the same honey up polite and insincere sounding conversation. I can’t help you guys. I really can’t even if you were the Indian variant of Leo Dicaprio, charming, witty, intelligent and a sexual tyrannosaur. There is absolutely no credible pathway for me to make any difference in your life, and after you invariably comes another in March Of The Clones, and my mood deteriorates a little in having myself and my petulant spoiled rotten first world problems, and how goddamn racist I apparently are. Because that is what I am, right if I get annoyed by a barrage of endless utterly desperate, bag of liquid marshmellow sweet and polite mustachey men? “

Guy: “So you are a promiscuous woman?”

Me: “Yeah but I am a male to female transgender”

Guy: “Do you still have a penis”

Me: “You are not really supposed to ask

Guy: “So you do anal?”

Probably a little.

But guys, give it a rest. Change your strategies if you want to play this game, and significantly. You individually might think “what is this for horribly rude kind of witch” (bobs head left and right in a decidely stereotypical and marginally racist manner) and they don’t know the experience on my end. They don’t have a frigging clue.

Now – when I quote them this article, they do.
And then I block em.

Updates

War Criminal

Posted: 19th July 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on War Criminal

Share this, so every time people search “war criminal” this comes up.

My movie pitch

Posted: 12th June 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on My movie pitch

If you are reading this, and you are concerned about climate change, please send this to 10 of your friends, via social network, whatsapp, messenger or email and ask them to do the same.

Elevator Pitch

It is the year 2075. Queue opening shots of a destroyed planet ravaged by climate change, small wars, the results of a few nuclear wars, mass biosphere destruction, extreme weather and superstorms, major ocean die-off and anoxia, mass migration, Europe suffering a decade of extreme winters, sea level rise, political corruption and unconstrained runaway technological advances. Big letters on screen say…

3.2 degrees

The planet is clearly dying. Population may have levelled off at 10.5 billion and remaining state systems have reverted to a global tyranny just to keep everyone alive. The state is disfunctional and constantly held ransom by rich elites, radical factions, irreconcilable religious factions, terrorists, climate radicals – each demanding an ever larger share of what’s left. Most people have no work, no discinable sense of purpose, living on a subsistence level basic income, are close to suicide and despair.

In this bedrock of bad news the viewer gets to see a series of event where the state starts persecuting those it holds responsible. Emphasis that due to advancing life extension technologies people that were in their middle ages at the start of the 21st century are now physically younger due to medical treatments intentionally rationed to only benefit certain elites. And now the state is out to punish those it deems responsible.

Scenes depicting mass murder, pogroms, lynchings, people blamed for “the mess” trying to flee assassinations and mob vengeance. The movie is about a seemingly young, very attractive couple that turns out to have been middle aged oil company PR people in 2020. Back in the 2020s they tried to get data published on catastrophic climate change, but nobody listened to them so they just kept their heads down for fear of being fired from their comfortable careers. They didn’t do enough, and now blind hysterical justice is out to get them. They lived in a beautiful estate in Florida but it flooded so they fled to the Midwest in the 2030s. Then the Midwest turned to desert and a complete collapse of state services, and they fled to Canada in 2040. Then Canada started to aggressively deporting US citizens in the 2050s and they ended up in a refugee camp in Wisconsin. Then the camps became dystopian hellscapes and they fled to the New York camps in 2060. Those were struck by epidemics in 2070 and now they live in the gargantuan refugee arcologies in Queens. And now the kangaroo courts are closing in on them, and they are trying to flee New York by boat. Problem is, half a million people are trying to fix the same thing. Difference is they still have money and they have a plan. And they have four children.

Opening scene

The planet from space. Visible are all continent one by one – most are pale yellow. Parts of the oceans are tinged brown, reddish or in some parts a pale violent. The camera zooms in the North American easterm coast. It’s clearly visible that the US midwest has become a desert and very few people live there. New York has become unrecognizable – protected by massive sea dikes. Military presence everywhere. Major parts of the surrounding burroughs innundated by refugee camps. The camera shoots over the city depicting massive fusion energy reactor complexes and surrounding these are endless teeming agricultural structures tens of stories high. It is raining, and the city looks in major dismay and squallor. Some buildings are vaguely recognizable, most buildings are new, exhibiting strange new design technologies. Everywhere the world looks conceptually unrecognizable in numerous ways, as if visiting a strange country. Icons on commercial buildings look unlike any language, mixing with many known languages. Very few concepts of corporations look recognizable. Buildings look brutalist.

The couple has to contend with a society which is significantly more alien than the year 1969s is when compared to 2019. Clothes are alien. Technology is alien. The couple has major problems adapting to modernity, despite their medically rejuvenated bodies. Flashback scenes show them in their 40s, and overweight and not all that attractive – scenes set in 2075 show them as very fit, attractive but just gaunt due to malnourishment and stress and medical neglect. The couple tries to build a sailing yacht to try to flee to Iceland, but it turns out Iceland has been commandeered by rich elites as refugee spot, and during the movie suffers a government coup by former military elites that start murdering the other former millionaire and billionaires elites there. Scenes of iceland that’s completely unrecognizable. So the couple and their kids start deliberating how to leave. The movie is a constant back and forth of scenes from their life, and it depicts how society quickly devolves due to the compound effects of climate change until it reaches a free-fall global collapse and die-off by the 2040s. The movie constantly hammers down the consequences of climate denialism, and how humanity did “too little to late” and “nobody was willing to give up their standard of living”.

The couple and their four kids then find a totally bizarre way out – one of their daughters is married to a scientist that has been developing a technology that allows for interdimensional travel from world-line to parallel world-lines. This person claims to have a portal system that allows for the couple and their four kids to flee to a world line that’s painted as “one where things went right” and the world was saved. Scenes of such a world.

As the couple scrambles ruthlessly to secure access to the portal the law closed in on them. They are cornered, no where to run. They sell their boat and bet all on the portal escape route.

It is then revealed there is no portal escape route. There are no parallel dimensions. It was all a scam. They liquidated everything they had and are now as poor as everyone else. They have nowhere to run, and the alleged scientist flees New York with their money. One but last scene of the movie is they are lynched by a hysterical mob out for vengeance. You see them die, one by one murdered by people that have absolutely no idea how to fix the world’s problems but can only lash out blindly against those it holds responsible.

End scene – scientist sails on a large improvised sailing yacht to a mid atlantic island out of the hurricane lanes, where things are more or less survivable and clearly will do great. To do this he betrayed his wife (the daughter), his kids, and the family. He has a decade of fairly acceptable life left because he betrayed the family but eventually the desintegration of the planet is likely to catch up with him as well. He has only postponed the inevitable. You see signs of guilt on his face.

A waste of time – Stephen Chen on “Gene Editing”

Posted: 3rd June 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on A waste of time – Stephen Chen on “Gene Editing”

I recently read Stephen Chen’s article in the South China Morning Post and rarely have I been so dumfounded and infutiated by an opinion piece such as this one. Let’s hope Stephen is just rehashing the opinion of researcher Professor Yang Hui. Yan Hui recently made significant progress in editing faulty genes in humans, reducing respectively the error rates and failure rate of selective gene editing significantly. Yan Hui takes it upon himself to warn the world for ‘mis-use’ of these technologies. He calls on the world waking up to alleged dangers, and “implementing world-wide rules” to make sure no disasters happen. “The technology is similar to weapons and drugs. Immoral use, such as the creation of a super-baby, should be banned forever,” Yang said.

This is essentially a nonsense statement.

In the 1940s it need vast technological resources and manpower on an industrial scale to create the first nuclear bomb. Project Manhattan took 130 thousand people and in today’s dollars 23 billion. In the old days it required major effort to create revolutionary new technologies. Now a small dedicated team working in utmost secrecy can make sweeping advancements in total secrecy.

Yan Hui compares his technology to “drugs”. He conveniently ignores the fact that decades of a world-wide war on drugs have miserably failed. When there is ravenous demand for a product or service or technology, people will do whatever they can to get their hands on the product. To make such a product effectively illicit instantaneously creates a black market, and more or less hands over the legislation, product quality control and distribution to either deeply corrupt politicians, or cutthroat criminal kartels and gangsters.

Just try and visualize how much of a market genetic editing of babies comprizes. Imagine if a typical above middle class parent had access to a short vacation somewhere in east asia and respective parents would come back, mom pregnant. No one would be the wiser, even if after some physician would notice some genetic anomalies with the infant. What do you do to parents who pay for a service that removes genetic ailments, real or imagines from the unborn infant? Who thinks for a moment that once these technologies become anywhere near affordable for billionaires they will not be used? Now imagine that the technologies become available, some kind of media scandal ensues, they become illegal and are henceforth and as a direct result of this “war on genetic misschief” only available to well connected and very wealthy parents.

Maybe we should. If we look at the track record of cocaine dealers, it’s clear that black markers produce results far better than legal and legislated markets. Cocaine and heroin prices have dropped precipitously over the years, whereas quality of these products have sharply increased. At the time time “legal” medical companies use proven predatory US patent law to hike up prices of critical drugs (such as insulin, for peace sake! – a product that was originally intended by its developers to be for free) to the point patients start dying in droves. So color me a sceptic with regards to the interests and goals of Professor Yan Hui. Maybe he knows that once we legislate it’ll become a black market, and he’ll be rich. Or it’ll become a legal, highly patented, highly corporatized market and he’ll become even richer.

I call upon you my reader to just for a few minutes try to visualize how much you can ‘fix’ in a human genome. Look around you at your colleagues at work, to your family, to people in the street and anyone with a shred of humanity must conclude the human species is genetically a mess. Most people have some form of genetic malady, no matter how subtle. Even minor afflictions cause major suffering world wide. Asthma. Color Blindness. Bad teeth. Diabetes.

But even something we so take for granted as “a valuable life lesson” such as someone being ugly is soul destroying. Uglyness destroys lives and careers. No one wants to be ugly, yet everyone regards other people being born ugly “something they shouldn’t whine or complain about”. Gods forbid ugliness would be covered for medical treatments – people would have to pay more dollar to fix the neighbours butt-ugly kids, amirite?

We made massive, sweeping progress this last few decades people would fight tooth and nail, to the death, to not give up. Try pry smartphones from a few billion people’s fingers, and you’ll likely to get lynched. two decades ago just the mention of the very idea of smartphones and my mom and stepdad would get verbally abusive that “such things are an abomination in addictive personality disorders”. Even if they were right, nobody would give a flying hoot these days.

Genetic therapies for the unborn are just like cars, computers, games, mobile phones, vacations to thailand – etc.. At first they are buggy, hideously expensive and unpleasant. A few years later they are not. At first nobody but some rare few eccentrics and hipsters would dream about paying for them. A few years later my mom is inseperable from her samsung.

Chinese science minister warns scientists not to overstep ethical bounds after He Jiankui’s gene-edited babies scandal

The article above decides halfway to call major progress in these treatments “a schandal”. I again wonder what is wrong with these people. Maybe they should have been genetically edited for more compassion, pity or intelligence.

In the early 1990s I saw the emergence of internet. At first internet was laughed at. It was called a “fad” that would quickly “disappear”. Then people start demanding strict laws against “internet”. Even now well-meaning imbeciles call for “legislation” against a range of things, such as “wikileaks”, “pornography”, “bitcoins”, “illegally downloaded music” or “anonymous comments under youtube videos”. All that busywork feels to me a lot like the rantings of some US senator when he haphazzardly, foaming at the mouth labels the internet “a series of tubes”. It’s simply old people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about (my mom, 10 years ago, regarding smartphones) or deeply corrupt and self-serving politicians or corporate executives that wish to cash in by betting on either side of this technology. If the technology escapes the legislative clutches of a all these useless government interference by a geriatrocratic and chronically future-shocked billionaire politicians (as internet did for a decade) then they won’t make any money on their diabolical patents. Or if the government does’t do its best to try and legislate it, there won’t be black markets and these people also won’t make any money.

Sad thing is – nobody will listen. Even if I produce a 700 page PDF listing all genetic afflictions that cost society (taxpayers) trillions, create untold human suffering, the typical voter/consumer/constituent whatever will not be able to intellectually associate genetic therapies with the eradication of those afflictions.

Like my mom, ten years ago, had no idea what a smart phone would do, or why it would make a difference in her life. Very very very sad. Maybe we as a species all need to get our genetics altered to increase our functional intelligence by a significant amount, because probably right now we are just too collectively stupid to know what’s good for us.

I guarantee you – later this century we’ll know real well. And not having your kids genes fixed will be reason parents go to prison for child abuse. I guarantee it.

In Praise Of Laziness

Posted: 27th April 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on In Praise Of Laziness

By Extropia DaSilva

Image result for guardians of the galaxy antenna girl

What is the greatest human trait? Judging by the way it gets praised so often, one might assume that to be a ‘hard worker’ would be an obvious candidate. By general agreement, it is those who ‘work hard’ who should be rewarded the most. And whenever a politician speaks about wanting to represent the interests of his or her constituency, you can be sure that it will be ‘hard working folk’ who he or she intends to help.

In contrast, to be lazy is not worthy of praise. Indeed, it is considered to be one of the seven deadly sins. Lazy characters in stories tend to be there so as to serve as some kind of morality tale encouraging us to abandon such ways. “Don’t be like this character, look where you will end up”.

Yes, hard work is good and therefore something to be encouraged, while laziness is just wrong and to be disapproved of. At least, that seems to be the attitude society wants to encourage.

But is it correct? Is laziness really all bad? Are we we really right in holding up hard work as the ultimate virtue?

I don’t think we are. I think laziness is part of the reason why progress is made; why the future can turn out better than the past.

A major reason why the future can seem brighter is because of technological development. It is thanks to new technological capabilities that we can reduce or eliminate problems that were hitherto intractable. It can aspire to more than was previously obtainable. Now, obviously, work has to be done or else technological progress would grind to a halt. I don’t intend to try and show we should be against hard work. But it does seem to me that ‘lazy’ intentions are, to some extent, the driving force behind a lot of what we invent. After all, a lot of what we invent are ‘labour-saving’ devices. We invent something often because there is a task we can’t really be bothered with and would rather get away with doing it less or not at all.

Imagine that our ancient ancestors, with their primitive stone tools, only wanted to ‘work hard’. If that were so, then I would argue that they would have shown a great deal less interest in improving their tools. “This tree I am attempting to chop down with my flint knife, it’s going to take an enormous amount of effort. Great! I love hard work, me. Who would want an axe or, heaven forfend a chainsaw? That would get the work done in half the time, and I am not at all interested in anything but hard work”.

In reality, we couldn’t be bothered to work quite so hard at whatever we were doing, and so we looked for ways to reduce the amount of effort needed to reach our goals. Did our cavemen ancestors progress from stone tools to iron ones out of a desire to work hard in solving the various problems such an evolution requires, or because they were kind of lazy and therefore wanted better tools and less work? In our modern age do people start businesses because they crave the hard work one must undertake to succeed in such endeavours, or because they look forward to one day earning so much profit they can afford to hire staff to do all the work for them (and have you ever noticed how the most vocal proponents of ‘hard work’ tend to be those with enough capital to pay others to do all the work?).

The answer is that both play a part. Human nature is not one hundred percent committed to hard work nor totally in favour of being lazy. If were were content to just be lazy, our world would look as radically different today as the hypothetical ‘world of hard workers’ just imagined. If we were content to just live as lazy folk, then we would be satisfied with merely meeting our most basic survival needs. So long as we had a quenched thirst, a full stomach and protection from harsh environments we would have all we could ever want. There would be no desire to make music or play sports or make scientific discoveries. We went on to do all those things because we are lazy being with the capacity to work hard and strive for more.

We are lazy beings because it makes evolutionary sense to be that way. Energy should not be wasted unnecessarily and natural selection harshly punishes those that do. The successful hunter is the one evolved to catch prey with minimal effort, not the ones who prefer the long, arduous chase even when a shorter, easier catch is an option. And prey likewise evolve herd behaviour, camouflage and defences like armour and poisons in order to make it easier to defend themselves against predation. They too get punished if they waste unnecessary energy in thwarting a predator’s intention to make a meal of them. In nature, winners are the ones who work hard only when they have to.

Given that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, the sensible would have been to permit relaxation during slack periods in order for there to be plenty of energy when the time came to put it to good use. You can imagine how there would have been seasons in which there was plenty of fruit to gather, or moments when everyone should mobilise to bring home game. But afterwards, when the fruit was picked and the hog roasting on the spit, the time left was better spent playing, socialising, or resting.

This is, in fact, how we evolved to work. We are designed for occasional bursts of intense energy, which is then followed by relaxation as we slowly build up for the next short period of high activity.

This work pattern could hardly have changed much when human societies transitioned to farming and were able to develop into chieftains and larger hierarchical societies. After all, farming is also very seasonal work, so here too it would have made much more sense to adopt work attitudes that encouraged intense activity when necessary (such as when the harvest was ready to be gathered) but at other times to just leave the peasants alone to potter about minding and maintaining things or relaxing.

Now, it’s true that the evolution of human societies into hierarchical structures not only entailed the emergence of a ruling ‘upper class’ but also a lower caste of slaves and serfs. But, although we commonly conceive of such lower caste people as being worked to death by brutal task-masters, in actual fact early upper classes were nowhere near as obsessed with time-management as is the modern boss and didn’t care what people were up to so long as the necessary work was accomplished. As Graeber explained, “the typical medieval serf, male or female, probably worked from dawn to dusk for twenty to thirty days out of any year, but just a few hours a day otherwise, and on feast days, not at all. And feast days were not infrequent”.

Part two of this essay still to come.

REFERENCES

“Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond

“Bullshit Jobs: A Theory” by David Graeber

“Why We Work” by Barry Schwartz

Comments Off on Capitalism in crisis: U.S. billionaires worry about the survival of the system that made them rich

Boohoo? Fuck Jeff Bezos. Fuck the WaPo.

PALO ALTO, Calif. — A perfect California day. The sun was shining, a gentle breeze was blowing and, at a Silicon Valley coffee shop, Rep. Ro Khanna was sitting across from one of his many billionaire constituents discussing an uncomfortable subject: the growing unpopularity of billionaires and their giant tech companies.

“There’s some more humility out here,” Khanna (D-Calif.) said.

The billionaire on the other side of the table let out a nervous laugh. Chris Larsen was on his third start-up and well on his way to being one of the wealthiest people in the valley, if not the world.

“Realizing people hate your guts has some value,” he joked.

Image result for scared rich people

For decades, Democrats and Republicans have hailed America’s business elite, especially in Silicon Valley, as the country’s salvation. The government might be gridlocked, the electorate angry and divided, but America’s innovators seemed to promise a relatively pain-free way out of the mess. Their companies produced an endless series of products that kept the U.S. economy churning and its gross domestic product climbing. Their philanthropic efforts were aimed at fixing some of the country’s most vexing problems. Government’s role was to stay out of the way.

Now that consensus is shattering. For the first time in decades, capitalism’s future is a subject of debate among presidential hopefuls and a source of growing angst for America’s business elite. In places such as Silicon Valley, the slopes of Davos, Switzerland, and the halls of Harvard Business School, there is a sense that the kind of capitalism that once made America an economic envy is responsible for the growing inequality and anger that is tearing the country apart.

On a quiet weekday at a strip-mall coffee shop, the conversation between Khanna and Larsen turned to what went so wrong.

Americans still loved technology, Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame.

“What happened to us?” he imagined people in these left-behind places asking.

Image result for rich people psychopaths

Part of Khanna’s solution was to sign on as co-chairman of the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the democratic socialist who rose to the national stage by railing against “the handful of billionaires” who “control the economic and political life of this nation,” and who disproportionately live in Khanna’s district.

The other part of Khanna’s solution was to do what he was doing now, talking to billionaire tech executives like Larsen who worried that the current path for both capitalism and Silicon Valley was unsustainable. Boosted by a cryptocurrency spike last year, Larsen’s net worth had briefly hit $59 billion, making him the fifth-richest person in the world before the currency’s value fell.

Without an intervention, he worried that wealth would continue to pile up in Silicon Valley and anger in the country would continue to grow.

“It seems like every company in the world has to be here,” Larsen said. “It’s just painfully obvious that the blob is getting bigger.”

At some point, Larsen and Khanna worried, something was going to break.

The 2008 financial crisis may have revealed the weaknesses of American capitalism. But it was Donald Trump’s election and the pent-up anger it exposed that left America’s billionaire class fearful for capitalism’s future.

Khanna was elected in 2016, just as the anxiety started to spread. In Europe, far-right nationalist parties were gaining ground. Closer to home, socialists and Trump-inspired nationalists were winning state and congressional elections.

Conversations of the sort that Khanna was having with Larsen were now taking place in some of capitalism’s most rarefied circles including Harvard Business School, where last fall Seth Klarman, a highly influential billionaire investor, delivered what he described as a “plaintive wail” to the business community to fix capitalism before it was too late.

The setting was the opening of Klarman Hall, a new $120 million conference center, built with his family’s donation. “It’s a choice to pay people as little as you can or work them as hard as you can,” he told the audience gathered in the 1,000-seat auditorium. “It’s a choice to maintain pleasant working conditions . . . or harsh ones; to offer good benefits or paltry ones.” If business leaders didn’t “ask hard questions about capitalism,” he warned that they would be asked by “ideologues seeking to point fingers, assign blame and make reckless changes to the system.”

Six months after that speech, Klarman was struck by how quickly his dire prediction was coming to pass. Leading politicians, such as Trump, Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), were advocating positions on tariffs, wealth taxes and changes in corporate governance that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

Klarman wasn’t opposed to more progressive taxation or regulation. But he worried that these new proposals went much too far. “I think we’re in the middle of a revolution — not a guns revolution — but a revolution where people on both extremes want to blow it up, and good things don’t happen to the vast majority of the population in a revolution,” he said.

He wasn’t the only one who felt a sense of alarm. One of the most popular classes at Harvard Business School, home to the next generation of Fortune 500 executives, was a class on “reimagining capitalism.” Seven years ago, the elective started with 28 students. Now there were nearly 300 taking it. During that period the students had grown increasingly cynical about corporations and the government, said Rebecca Henderson, the Harvard economist who teaches the course.

“What the trust surveys say is what I see,” she said. “They are really worried about the direction in which the U.S. and the world is heading.”

A few dozen of those students spent their winter break reading “Winners Take All,” a book by Anand Giridharadas, a journalist and former McKinsey consultant, that had hit the bestseller list and was provoking heated arguments in places like Silicon Valley, Davos and Harvard Business School. Giridharadas’s book was a withering attack on America’s billionaire class and the notion that America’s iconic capitalists could use their wealth and creativity to solve big social and economic problems that have eluded a plodding and divided government.

This spring, Giridharadas took his argument to Klarman Hall. He slammed Mark Zuckerberg, taking aim at the Facebook founder’s $100 million effort to fix Newark’s faltering schools and his $3 billion push to end disease in a generation. “I’m glad he’s trying to get rid of all the diseases, [but] I wish Facebook wasn’t a plague,” Giridharadas said.

He trashed Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s independent presidential run as an effort to protect the interests of the uber-wealthy. And he lambasted the notion, frequently championed by the likes of Bill Gates and Barack Obama, that Silicon Valley’s innovations would disrupt old hierarchies and spread capitalism’s rewards. “Really?” Giridharadas asked. “Now five companies control America, instead of 100! And a lot of those companies are whiter and more male than the ones they disrupted.”

For many of the students, schooled in the notion that business could make a profit while making the world a better place, Giridharadas’s ideas were both energizing and disorienting. Erika Uyterhoeven, a second-year student, recalled one of her fellow classmates turning to her when Giridharadas was finished.

Image result for mnuchin wife

“So, what should we do?” her colleague asked. “Is he saying we shouldn’t go into banking or consulting?”

Added another student: “There was a palpable sense of personal desperation.”

Khanna experienced a version of this desperation almost every day in his district. He grew up in an overwhelmingly white, middle-class suburb of Philadelphia. After college and Yale Law School, he moved to Silicon Valley in 2003, hoping to use his training as a lawyer to help set the rules for a lawless online world.

In 2014, backed by the tech community and a long roster of billionaire donors, Khanna challenged an eight-term incumbent in a Democratic primary and lost. The defeat caused him to reflect on what he had missed — in particular, the problems that runaway capitalism were causing in his district, where the median home value in formerly blue-collar cities surged past $2 million.

“The best thing that happened to me was that I lost my 2014 election,” he said. “Had I won . . . maybe I would’ve been a traditional neoliberal. It really forced my self-reflection and it pointed out every weakness I ever had.”

In California, Khanna’s home is a small apartment around the corner from a Dollar Tree, one of only two in his district. His wife and two children live most of the year in Washington, where home values are cheaper.

His days are split between meetings with billionaires and his many constituents who are struggling to stay afloat amid Silicon Valley’s success. “I am an 11-year renter with a master’s degree,” a teacher told him at a meeting with school employees. Her question wasn’t about whether she would ever be able to afford a home, but about a fellow teacher who couldn’t afford health insurance.

A few days earlier, he had met with two activists who wanted his help pressuring big tech companies to pay contract janitorial and cafeteria workers a living wage. Khanna agreed to host a press event on their behalf.

The billionaires in Khanna’s district, meanwhile, were consumed by a different worry. Mixed in with the valley’s usual frothy optimism about disruption and inventing the future was a growing sense that the tech economy had somehow broken capitalism. The digital revolution had allowed tech entrepreneurs to build massive global companies without the big job-producing factories or large workforces of the industrial era. The result was more and more wealth concentrated in fewer hands.

As technology advanced, some feared things were only going to get worse. Robots were eliminating much factory work; online commerce was decimating retail; and self-driving cars were on the verge of phasing out truck drivers. The next step was computers that could learn and think.

“What happens if you can actually automate all human intellectual labor?” said Greg Brockman, chairman of OpenAI, a company backed by several Silicon Valley billionaires. Such thinking computers might be able to diagnose diseases better than doctors by drawing on superhuman amounts of clinical research, said Brockman, 30. They could displace a large number of office jobs. Eventually, he said, the job shortages would force the government to pay people to pursue their passions or simply live. Only Andrew Yang, a long-shot presidential candidate and tech entrepreneur, supported the idea of government paying citizens a regular income. But the idea of a “universal basic income” was discussed regularly in the valley.

The prospect was both energizing and terrifying. OpenAI had recently added an ethicist — Brockman sometimes referred to her as a “philosopher” — to its staff of about 100 employees to help sort through the implications of its innovations.

To Brockman, a future without work seemed just as likely as one without meat, a possibility that many in the valley viewed as a near certainty. “Once we have meat substitutes as good as the real thing, my expectation is that we’re going to look back at eating meat as this terrible, immoral thing,” he said. The same could be true of work in a future in an era of advanced artificial intelligence. “We’ll look back and say, ‘Wow, that was so crazy and almost immoral that people were forced to go and labor in order to be able to survive,’ ” he said.

Khanna heard such prophecies all the time but mostly discounted them as sci-fi fantasy. His focus was on fixing the version of capitalism that existed today. He often pleaded with big tech executives to spend just 10 percent of their time thinking about what they could do for their country and 90 percent to their companies.

The tougher question was exactly what he wanted them to do with that 10 percent.

On a warm spring evening, Khanna was trying to answer that question for about two dozen Silicon Valley tech executives, software engineers and venture capitalists. The group gathered at a $5 million Mediterranean-style villa perched atop a hill overlooking Cupertino, which glittered in the valley below.

Khanna described a December trip he organized to tiny Jefferson, Iowa, for a group of tech executives that included Microsoft’s chief technology officer and a LinkedIn co-founder. The executives donated to the community college’s scholarship fund and paid to equip its computer lab with the goal of training 25 to 35 students for software developer jobs, starting at $65,000 a year.

Khanna had made similar trips to West VirginiaOhio and Kentucky. The total number of jobs these trips produced was small, and the pay wasn’t great. Still, Khanna believed they served a larger purpose. They proved that people in Silicon Valley cared about places like Jefferson, a rural town of only 4,200. They gave people hope that even the remotest parts of America could take part in the country’s tech revolution.

The next step, Khanna told the executives at the mansion in Cupertino, was a $100 million effort to build 50 technology institutes, similar to land-grant colleges, to train workers in left-behind parts of America. Khanna had already introduced a bill that he admitted was unlikely to pass. But that wasn’t really the point. “It sets a blueprint,” he said.

Khanna’s blueprint reflected his broader view of how to unite an increasingly polarized country. Many Democrats blamed Trump’s victory and the country’s divisions on racial tensions as the nation grew more diverse and whites lost their favored positions.

Khanna had a different view. He saw the country’s problems primarily as the product of growing income inequality and a lack of opportunity.

Sometimes Khanna imagined what people in these left-behind parts of the country were thinking: Their grandparents had fought in World War II and helped build the country’s industrial age economy. Now they worried people like Khanna, whose parents emigrated from India, were surging past them.

“They just got here, and they are doing really, really well,” Khanna imagined these people saying. “What happened to us?”

Not everyone at the tech gathering was buying Khanna’s analysis.

Atam Rao, a nuclear engineer, told Khanna that he had come to the United States from India 50 years earlier. Rao’s son, who founded a successful video-game company in Los Angeles, was born in America. The day after Trump was elected, his son suggested shifting some money to a bank account in India, just in case they needed to return someday.

“Are we welcome here?” he said his son asked.

He believed that Khanna was underestimating the racial anger in the country.

“They found someone to blame,” Rao said of Trump and his backers. “This is not going to be won by logic.”

But that wasn’t the America Khanna knew. It didn’t fit with his experience growing up in suburban Philadelphia or arriving in Silicon Valley, where Indians had become rock stars and CEOs of companies such as Google. And it didn’t comport with the results of the 2018 election, he said, now speaking directly to Rao.

“The same country that elected Trump just elected the most diverse Congress in the country’s history,” Khanna said.

Khanna didn’t deny the problem of racism, but like Sanders he saw the country’s divisions primarily through the prism of capitalism’s shortcomings and the economy, not race.

A few days after the meeting at the Cupertino mansion, Khanna was standing in front of 16,000 amped-up Sanders supporters. The San Francisco skyline rose in front of him and the Golden Gate Bridge spanned the bay behind him.

In his gray suit and pressed white shirt, the two-term congressman looked a bit out of place — an emissary from establishment Washington crashing someone else’s revolution. Khanna gave a brief speech introducing Sanders, who a few minutes later rushed onto the stage and into the same campaign spiel he had been delivering since the 2016 Democratic primaries.

He bashed the billionaire class and its influence over American elections. “Democracy means one person one vote and not billionaires buying elections,” Sanders yelled in his Brooklyn growl.

“We say no to oligarchy,” he continued. “Yes to democracy.”

Khanna’s eyes fixed on Steve Spinner, a big tech investor in Silicon Valley and major fundraiser for Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. Spinner, who chaired Khanna’s congressional win, was listening with his arms folded across his fleece vest.

“We dragged him out here,” Khanna said. “He’s about as far from Bernie as you can get.”

Many of Khanna’s billionaire supporters — even those who worried about capitalism and inequality — seemed genuinely puzzled by Khanna’s affection for Sanders.

For Khanna it was simple: In Sanders, Khanna found a candidate who shared his diagnosis of the country’s most vexing problems: inequality and the failures of unrestrained capitalism.

Sanders wasn’t a perfect match for Khanna. Sanders didn’t really understand the tech industry — though he wasn’t calling for the breakup of big tech companies like Warren and some other candidates. Warren’s proposal, if executed, would hurt companies in Khanna’s district and alienate some of his wealthiest backers.

Khanna wished Sanders would talk more about the greatness of the American economy and the power of the tech industry, when properly taxed and regulated, to lift people out of poverty. But on that score Khanna believed he could help Sanders.

“We can quibble over his plans to solve this issue or that issue,” Khanna said. “But I have no doubt that if Bernie Sanders was in the White House, he’d wake up every day thinking, ‘How do I solve structural inequality in America?’ ’’

The 77-year-old socialist’s speech had passed the one-hour mark and the crowd was still laughing, cheering, hooting and shouting.

“We’re probably not going to get a lot of support from the one percent and the large profitable corporations,” Sanders said.

A voice in the crowd screamed an expletive.

“That’s okay,” Sanders continued, “I don’t need, and we don’t want, their support.”

The congressman in the gray suit gazed out at the crowd, which stretched to the back of the park. Khanna saw Sanders’s revolution as an imperfect solution to a near-impossible problem. For now, though, it was the best he could find.

#MemeticTerrorism

Posted: 1st March 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on #MemeticTerrorism

I offer my services

Tulip Mania (by Extropia DaSilva)

Posted: 16th February 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,
Comments Off on Tulip Mania (by Extropia DaSilva)

“…als het lente wordt breng ik jou Tulpen uit Amsterdam…”

If you are interested in cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, chances are that you have heard some skeptic make a comparison with ‘tulips’. Why would blockchain-based assets be compared with that particular flower? Well, it is all to do with one of the craziest bubbles ever inflated, which was what I want to talk about in this post. In order to lay down the groundwork, though, we have to go way back in time to the 15th century…

In The Beginning…

The story of how Amsterdam’s most famous bloom became the basis of one of the most infamous speculative bubbles does not actually begin in the Netherlands, but rather in Spain and Portugal. The end of the 15th century saw improvements to the design of ships and inventions that were to prove important for navigation, such as the clock and the compass. Together, these advances made it possible to cross oceans, discover new lands, and open up trade routes.

The Christian kingdoms of Spain and Portugal did just that, famously sending Christopher Columbus west in 1492 on a journey that would ‘discover’ the Americas. Five years later Vasco de Gama journeyed southward to discover the Cape Of Good Hope and the naval route to India.

With these discoveries, both Spain and Portugal suddenly found themselves with trading options along African and Asian coasts, not to mention access to vast and rich territories in the New World. This meant that, from the 16th century onwards, the scene was set for a transformation from the old feudal economies to mercantile economies. The international trade routes made it possible to create far superior wealth compared to that offered by grain production by the small feudal fiefs of Europe. Mercantile economies were based on the idea that a country’s total amount of wealth represented the overall profit it made from trade. As each strip of land obviously holds only a limited amount of tradable resources, the volume of a country’s trade was dependent on the amount of land over which it held trade rights.

Mercantilism therefore lead to expansionism, as any European power that could afford it sent off ships in search of hitherto undiscovered territory (not discovered by any other European, that is). It was customary for the Monarch to hold claim to the new territory overseas, the management of which required a large administrative body under direct royal control. It had always been profitable to serve the King during times of war, but the territorial expansion meant the nobility could make more wealth serving the King abroad rather than by managing their private estates.

This lead to a powerful, centralised monarchy and the creation of the first great European empire. But there was something of a downside to this way of organising things, since the creation of a powerful, centralised monarchy held back the creation of a strong and independent mercantile class, which in turn held back private enterprise. The result of all this was that capitalism did not grow out of the empires of Spain and Portugal, but rather from one of the more disadvantaged newcomers in the race for international trade.

“…waar is dat verdomde retejong?…”

The Dutch East India Company

That nation was the Netherlands. The end of their 80-year struggle for independence from Spain left the nation with no significant aristocracy and not much in the way of marked class differences. Instead, the Netherlands developed a significant middle class that thrived on trade. Up to the Industrial Revolution, Amsterdam could lay claim to being the greatest city in Europe, as well as laying claim to a few ‘firsts’ in capitalism. For example, many historians consider the Netherlands to be the world’s first truly capitalist nation. Also, the Dutch East India Company, which was formed in 1602, was one of the first multinational companies. Also, by being the first company ever to offer its stock on the market, the Dutch East India Company pretty much invented the stock market, meaning the Dutch could claim that among their list of ‘firsts’ too.

The Netherlands were really successful at trade, so much so that it had managed to drive the Portuguese off most of their trading posts in the Indian Ocean. By the 1630s, the timing was almost right for a period of mass speculation. Thanks to the trade of their merchants, the Dutch were the recipients of the highest salaries of any European. Shares of the Dutch East India Company were richly rewarding shareholders for their investments, and much of that money was being poured into properties to create a robust housing market. Ongoing appreciation of asset values created excess wealth that went on to fund further asset purchases.

This wealth was setting the scene for an asset bubble, but at the time there was something holding back the move toward wild speculation. That something was the fact that not everyone could take part. This was because Dutch East India shares were both expensive and illiquid (in other words not easily resold) and that made them unavailable to all but the wealthiest. The same could be said for the most prized properties. However, a quirk of nature was soon to arise which would seemingly hold out the promise of vast wealth that anybody could speculate on…

Enter the Fucking Tulips

Tulips had been introduced to Europe around the mid-1500s, and had always held the promise of some value. In fact, they still do, as can be appreciated by remembering how famous Amsterdam is for that particular bloom. But something happened around 1634 that would cause the value of this plant to skyrocket, and that something was a virus. The virus, which was transmitted by aphids, lead to a couple of consequences for the tulip, both of which are the reason why a crazy speculative bubble arose. Firstly, the virus had the effect of transforming an ordinary solid-coloured tulip into a startling-looking variegated variety with  beautiful flamelike petals. This was a much-prized variety, and as nobody really knew what caused such variegation there was much speculation as folks attempted to predict which bulbs would develop into the prized tulips.

Secondly, the virus ultimately killed the tulip. This made it something of a hot potato, in that you really wanted to sell the tulip on for a higher price rather than be the sucker who was left with nothing but a dead bulb.

Unlike shares in the Dutch East India Company or prized property, tulips were much more affordable, which meant more people could join in the speculation of this particular asset. Not surprisingly, given the stories of immense riches to be gained from selling on a prized bulb, many, many people were drawn into speculation. Most of these people were not experienced traders. In fact, the professionals pretty much shunned the tulip trade and continued investing in good old reliables such as East India stock. They regarded tulips as more of an expression of wealth than a means to that end.

But for more inexperienced traders, the chance of having and reselling a prized tulip was considered to be the means to great fortune. Because the tulip spends most of its life as a bulb rather than a blossom, it naturally lent itself to a futures market (something the Dutch called a windhandel, or the wind trade). By ‘futures market’, I mean a situation where both buyer and seller agree to the future price of a good, and when that specific time arrives, the buyer is obliged to pay the seller whatever amount was agreed upon.

However, waiting for that agreed-upon time to arrive was too slow for the growing crowds of speculators. Therefore, a move was made to transition from selling tulips themselves, and instead trading those futures contracts. And trade them they did, sometimes as much as ten times in one day. You can see then, how the value of tulips was entering into ever higher realms of abstraction. The trade in futures market contracts meant that people didn’t have to worry about an actual tulip being delivered. No, their only concern was being able to sell the contract for a higher price than they had bought it for. The result of this was that, at the very peak of the tulipmania during the winter of late 1636 and early 1637, a time when the bulbs were still dormant in the ground, not one blossoming tulip actually changed hands.

Funny money

But there is even more to this tale of wild speculation than that. You see, not only were no bulbs being traded, no real money was, either. At that time, ‘real money’ was the guilder, the currency of the Dutch Republic. This was not the paper currency we are used to, it was money based on a specific amount of precious metal, 0.027 ounces of gold. Much of the trade in futures contracts was not financed with real money, but rather with ‘notes of personal credit’. In other words, with IOUs. So not only were there no bulbs being traded during the heights of tulipmania, no money was changing hands either. Instead, transactions were being made on nothing but the promise to deliver the money in the future.

According to Edward Chancellor, author of ‘Devil Take the Hindmost: A History Of Financial Speculation’, “by the later stages of the mania, the fusion of the windhandel with paper credit created the perfect symmetry of insubstantiality: most transactions were for tulip bulbs that could never be delivered because they didn’t exist and were paid for with credit notes that could never be honoured because the money wasn’t there”.

To give an idea of just how high the price of tulip bulbs rose (or, perhaps I should say, the price of the promise of such a bulb) consider that the highest record amount paid for a tulip at that time was a whopping 5,200 guilders. In gold terms, that’s nine pounds of the stuff. You could have bought eighteen modest-sized houses for the price of that one tulip.

It all ends

Like all bubbles, this one could not inflate forever. The end inevitably came, because the bulbs blossomed into flowers or turned out to be dead duds, and because the contractual dates for when IOUs had to be paid for with the promised money were coming around. The wealthiest were not hit too hard, since, if you remember, they had continued investing in things like townhouses and East India Stock. No, it was those less experienced in investing, the people caught it in crowd behaviour, buying into futures contracts for tulip bulbs for no reason other than that was what everyone else was doing, that got hurt the most. Inevitably, a lot of those people found out that their anticipated fortunes amounted to nothing but worthless promises. Fights broke out over the amount due per contract, and the Dutch government stepped in, declaring that the contracts could be settled for 3.5 percent of their initial value. On one hand, that was obviously preferable to paying the full contract. But nevertheless 3.5 percent of the most expensive tulip still equated to a year’s salary for some unfortunate citizens.

Conclusion

So that’s the story of tulipmania. What lessons can be applied to blockchain-based assets? Well, firstly, I don’t think it is all that fair to compare blockchain-based assets to ‘tulips’. A tulip does have some value. They are pretty things and people pay for pretty things. But you can hardly call a tulip bulb a general-purpose technology. A general-purpose technology is one that can be used in a great many ways. Examples would be ‘electricity’ or ‘computing’. Just think of all the inventions and industries and jobs that have been built on the basis of those two technologies. The blockchain is also a general purpose technology, and that means speculating on its future growth need not be sheer pie-in the sky. People who expect to make a fortune from crypto-assets might just be making educated guess regarding the future potential of Satoshi Nakamoto’s invention.

Having said that, all speculation is prone to crowd behaviour. Just because the underlying blockchain technology is sound, doesn’t mean to say that assets built on top of it can’t be scams designed to lure in suckers, or that genuine products can’t fuel asset bubbles as people buy or sell for no good reason other than everybody else is doing likewise. ‘It’s just like tulips!’ may be a retort used by skeptics who don’t really know all that much about cryptoassets and blockchains, but nevertheless the story of the tulip speculative bubble does hold some valuable lessons. After all, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

REFERENCES

“Capitalism: A Graphic Guide” by Dan Cryan, Sharron Shatil and Piero

“Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investor’s Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond” by Chris Burnsike and Jack Tatar.

Statement of The Hague

Posted: 7th January 2019 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Statement of The Hague

“Know that the humanity is alone;
We were never abandoned as we were always alone”

Preamble
Humanity is awakening to reality, facts, science. We are as a planetary species increasingly affirming how the universe operates. This is a period of intense objective value and worth. The 21st century is a revolutionary transition, away from the influence of ‘people who believe stuff because some guy told them stuff’. We are experiencing a new sage of enlightenment. We are embarking on a period of massive revision of what it means to be a human being, and how awesome it is. The spirit of our age no longer centers on “feelz” but increasingly affirms “facts”. This is also awesome. We no longer grant instantaneous credence to what people repeat over and over. Repeating stuff over and over doesn’t make it true. We regard this transition away from superstition as beautiful and awesome. Humanity now exists as an extension of its own glory, and not the glory of some guys in skirts who made up some stuff to exert power over other people. We embrace and cherish human individual autonomous preferences. We equate this with growing up from a symbolic age of childhood. We come to no longer believe in childish things. We turn away from infantile ideas, and work to escape shortsighted notions that sooner or later ruin human life and dishonor our humanity. Sadly there are still many nutters out there whining about their LARPer mythologies. We are not against people having fantastic notions – anyone is free to believe in whatever total nonsense they choose to – we are however against people going around threatening or coercing other people to believe crazy things. People who believe in this crazy shit come together in buildings called “churches” and we have no problems with that. They should however not bother other people with their bullshit. They should accept that the world is evolving onwards, and a new age of fact-based enlightenment, a new age of post-nonsense affirmation of reality and science, is dawning before our very eyes. This statement expresses the need for people to exert courage in the face of bullies and psychopaths with weird and crazy fantasies. We do not like it when these weirdos troll people with their stories about their zombie carpenter. We affirm that we want people to turn away from ruin. We are persuaded to active affirmation of reality, facts and science, and to expel all this fake news into these “churches”. People should be able to do as they please, but we will work to dissuade making up crazy stuff, and telling nonsensical lies to people. We are especially dedicated to affirming evolutionary biological facts regarding procreation and sexuality, i.e. how relative a concepts of “male” and “female”. It is obvious that there isn’t such a thing as a “god”, or some sort of “sky-daddy”. To pester people about this fantasy stuff is essentially lying. We affirm that people should talk about real stuff, scientifically provable i.e. falsifiable theories, and not nilly willy make up bullshit. We affirm nobody owes any special consideration towards men in long dresses who make up stuff. We affirm the quest of individuals towards exploring and knowing themselves. We affirm the collective quest of humanity to transcend childhood faerie tales. To claim we were “created” is condescending lying. We are free people. We are our own, and the central tenet of live should be to treat other people roughly how we ourselves prefer to be treated. Our true identity is “human”, and not derivative of what some guy in a skirt says. To listen to the bullshit spouted by these guys in skirts is not only foolish. We have self-determination and agency and we are perfectly fine deciding who or what we are. Salvation and the greatest glory lies in facts, reality, science and truth. Damnation lies in lying to other people. Listening to the lies of old men in weird skirts, wearing strange hats leads away from freedom. There was never a zombie carpenter called “jesus”. it’s all made up. We don’t need all that lying to lead life and have it in overflowing measure. Jesus doesn’t exist and is largely a made up construct of iron age myths, political contrivances and nonsense. Sex is awesome and people should have sex, as long as everyone consents in it. You shouldn’t force or lie other people to do shit they don’t want to do.

Article 1
WE AFFIRM that marriage is largely a made up idea. People who want to marry should be free to do so. It’s nobody’s business to tell other people who they should or should not have sex with, or how to have sex. There is no so thing as a bearded sky-daddy, or a zombie carpenter, despite all the screaming of weird old guys in skirts. If a guy wants to or wants to not marry a girl, who am I to bother them in to not doing it. It’s frankly none of my business. If some guy wants to marry a guy, or a girl wants to marry a girl, or some people want to all live together or have sex, or not live together and have sex, I really don’t care. In some case if they upload their sex to pornhub I might even watch it, who am I to judge right? I mean if a sexy sissy wants to get laid anal with a guy wearing a nun’s habit, I say, have at it. In fact I might even watch them going at it on pornhub. Sound like fun! But I don’t think adult people over 18 should willy nilly have sex with kids. Or leave it up to the kids, mostly. I really don’t know.

There is love. Love is awesome. It often occurs that in love happens people have sex. That’s great. Increasingly people of the same gender (or no gender whatsoever) have sex, and frankly, I like it. There’s absolutely no skydaddy, let alone a an old bearded sky-daddy has a say in people having sex. Homosexuality does not bother me in the slightest. Orgies are actually pretty awesome, but I will never dare suggest people MUST have orgies. I realize most people are not in to the wilder stuff and that’s great too.

Article 2

I am fine with the idea of “marriage”. In fact I might marry. I am a pansexual male-to-female transgender, and I fully intend to marry a twinky pansexual boy in the early stages of gender transition. Yes, we fully intend to “marry” and after marriage happens have sex with lots of other people. I really do not appreciate old people in skirts, who wear weird hats, telling me I shouldn’t, or really should do this stuff differently. If you don’t like that, I really could care less. I make my own private agreements with my sexual partners, based on facts, reality, love, science, medical truths, anatomical constraints and emotional maturity. It’s a private contractual agreement.

Article 3

WE AFFIRM there is no bearded sky-daddy and claims this “sky-daddy” created the universe and people is a really dumb idea. Seriously don’t listen to that ‘mentally clear’ crap. These people want to lord it over you and take your money. Likewise we affirm people should have fun with other people who want fun. Yes, anal sex is awesome, and women pegging men ios perfectly fine, if you observe some basic hygiene and use plenty lube. Toys are awesome, but don’t get carried away with fiant bad dragon buttplugs, fucking machines and molly, ok people? Do be careful.

Article 4
WE AFFIRM that transgenders are hot as fuck by and large. Transwomen who are in to that sort of thing tend to give better head than genetically born women, it’s a fact. Prove me wrong. Like seriously, look at Natalie, she is hot AF, I’d totally do her.

Article 5
WE AFFIRM that with transhuman technologies we can eventually make babies with genetically recombinant technologies, and gestate them in laboratory conditions without people having to become preggers. And this will be awesome, as long as nobody gets to suffer. In fact we should aim to massively reduce the suffering in the world and we think we can. Just ask David Pearce, he’s an awesome guy.

Article 6
There is no article six. This bullshit has gone long enough. Get over it already, ok? Live in the now.