John McCone : Philosophy For The Future

Philosophy For The Future

Blog

Let’s Stabilize The Business Cycle – Once And For All!

by

Victor Moussa/Shutterstock.com

Any civilization that permits usury must continually create new money to remain stable.   Since the industrial revolution, loans at interest have become an indispensable means of financing important infrastructure to greatly improve living standards. Yet there is a price pay for this practice: the economic busts that have plagued the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are the bitter fruits of usury.

It is not a coincidence that the Bank of England, founded in 1694, arose before the industrial revolution got into full swing. Without it, economic busts would have destroyed finance and torn apart the embryonic industrial economy. Central banks enable our financial system to survive economic busts – devastating though they are. Ever since their founding, central banks have covertly created new money out of thin air and lent it to banks; sometimes a nominal store of gold (of far less value than the money issued) “backs it up”, other times money is simply created by legal fiat.

As time has gone by, central banks have been getting better at using newly printed money to stabilize the finance system. The 2008 recession was pretty bad, but it was nothing like the  1930’s. However, the policies which central banks currently deploy to stabilize finance are causing inequality to skyrocket.

Central banks don’t give out newly printed money. They lend it. All money was originally loaned into existence. If all loans were paid back, all money would disappear. To stop this, central and private banks constantly lend out new money so new loans can be used to repay old loans. Thus, the total amount of money loaned out exponentially increases, yet if this exponential is sufficiently gentle, it can, in principle, sustain a steady, moderate rate of inflation indefinitely.

Since the loaned out money can never be repaid without societal collapse, the exponential increase in loans, that the central bank supports, is really just a money printing operation.

 

Fiscal Policy and Skyrocketing Inequality

 

So who gets all this newly printed money?

The answer: People who can raise credit at low interest rates. The activity of continually printing new money inflates asset prices. If you can raise a loan with newly printed money at an interest rate below inflation and use it to purchase assets, then the value of your asset portfolio, purchased from money loaned to you out of thin air, will almost certainly go up – at least with inflation  – leading to yearly capital gains that exceed the interest originally used to buy that capital.

Such people, using low interest loans to make capital gains, essentially receive newly printed money for free.

This effect is exponential: as the assets purchased with new loans appreciate at the inflation rate, our investor’s net worth will increase yearly roughly by the inflation rate minus any interest owed on his loans. This increase in net worth can serve as leverage for yet more loans which can purchase yet more assets whose value in turn appreciates.

The problem is that not everyone can access credit at interest rates below inflation. People who already have valuable assets can leverage up at very low interest (some brokerages charge less than 1% interest on money loaned out to buy stocks) but people with insecure jobs and no assets, cannot get 1% interest and usually pay over 10% on their loans.

This interest rate apartheid, between people whose net worth is positive and those whose net worth is negative, divides the population into 2 distinct groups: Those in the black who – if they are financially savvy – receive free newly printed money from central and private banks and those in the red (and less savvy ones in the black) who get no newly printed money.

The current policy of the world’s central banks is effectively to continually print new money and hand it out to rich people for free (through facilitating leverage to inflate financial assets). Theoretically this can put off another sudden, disastrous crash for quite some time (which is why, despite many cries of wolf, there has been no “next great recession”) – although a change in fiscal policy (such as Ending The Fed or raising interest rates) could cause a sudden catastrophic collapse. However, this strategy can only stave off collapse by continually increasing the relative share of the world that the wealthy own. So although central banks can stave off the next crash by handing free money out to rich people (assuming no revolution), since the super rich cannot own more than 100% of the world’s total wealth, this policy cannot continue forever.

Yet if we don’t continually release new money into the system – it will collapse!

 

Stabilizing Finance Without Increasing Inequality

 

The question is…if we are going to print money out of thin air, which we have to unless we intend to ban usury (and it’s a little late in the game to ban usury!)…who should we give this new money to?

The answer is simple: since no one has earned the newly printed money, everyone has an equal claim to it. Newly printed money should be divided evenly among the population.

How much money should be printed every year?

If we look at the formula for price:

MV = PT

Where

M = Money supply

V = Money Velocity

P = Price

and

T is the number of goods transacted

Then making P the subject of the formula yields:

P=(M/T)V

If we assume a real economic growth rate of 2%, a constant money velocity and an inflation target of 2%, then that would imply that the money supply should be increased by 4% per year. Taking the UK’s M2 money supply of 2.3 trillion as M would imply that, in order to achieve a target inflation rate of 2%, £92 billion pounds of new money should be distributed evenly throughout the population per year, which would give each U.K. adult  £1,840 of newly printed money per year.

This is only a ballpark figure, and may be an overestimate, since the velocity of money in the hands of poorer people is faster than its velocity in the hands of the super rich, so the payment might be somewhat less. Furthermore, it would oscillate to correct for changes in the money velocity.

But the important point is that such a payment of newly printed money to everyone could simultaneously stabilize our financial system and prevent the super-rich from acquiring an ever larger share of the world’s wealth.

 

Growth and Inflation

 

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com

You may have noticed that the amount of new money required to stabilize the system  roughly equals the inflation target plus real economic growth.

Economists often say we need real economic growth to stop systemic collapse. This is not true. Nominal economic growth plus steady inflation, arising from new money, is adequate to stabilize the system. What is true is that real economic growth allows central banks to pass free money under the table to rich people without anyone else noticing. Our financial system is rigged to ensure the rich get the lion’s share of all newly created wealth but, since everyone ends up with more, no one complains too much.

Distributing an appropriate amount of newly-printed money to everyone would let capitalism exist in steady-state with modest inflation. Don’t believe anyone who says otherwise. It’s just the rich couldn’t get richer without genuine innovation that outperforms the market.

 

National Central Banks Should Hold All Deposits

 

At the moment, private banks create most (97%) new money. This must stop if central banks are to hand everyone new money. Otherwise the fractional reserve system would multiply the new money – perhaps 30 fold – and cause hyperinflation.

Stopping this is relatively straightforward. All that is needed is for central banks to hold all deposits. The national central bank would then manage all ATM machines and give everyone a central bank debit card for cash transactions. In other words, the central bank would provide personal banking services to everyone. Since the central bank can, in principle, print an infinite amount of currency out of thin air, there would be no fear of runs on the bank as it could always print enough cash to pay depositors.

The central bank would then loan money to private banks at low interest who would then loan the money out to people and firms at a higher interest rate – the spread in interest being the private banks’ source of profit.

In our current system, when private banks lend out money, they credit the money to a deposit account held in the same private bank which can then be used as collateral for yet more loans, leading to uncontrolled money creation.

In the system I propose, when private banks lend money out to customers, they credit the customers’ central bank deposits. This enables the central bank to tightly control the amount of new money and credit created. And every personal account held by the central bank would, from time to time, be credited with basic income that roughly annualizes to £1,840 – more if the economy grew faster than 2% per annum.

Financial crises happen when too many borrowers fail to pay back their loans and cause depositors to lose their money. If these depositors either have loans themselves, or pay wages to people with loans, then this loss of deposits causes more debt defaults which wipe out yet more deposits…and on…and on… and on, in a disastrous cascade.

Securely protecting deposits could make financial contagion and crises a thing of the past. And if the central bank held all deposits, they would be fully protected, as any entity that can infinitely print money can pay all depositors in cash – even simultaneously. Thus, if the central bank held all deposits, there would be no more financial crises.

If the central bank held all deposits, no private bank would be too big to fail. There would be no difference between a large bank and large car company going bust.

A central bank holding all deposits is consistent with the libertarian ideal of the nightwatchmen state that solely protects private property. After all, your deposit account is your property, so should the state not protect it from irresponsible lending institutions?

It would be fairly simple to transition to this system without an economic collapse. The central bank could offer depositors convenient personal banking services along with a central bank debit card (an perhaps a sign up bonus). Then, whenever someone transfers a deposit out of a private bank and into the central bank, the central bank would lend the private bank a sum exactly equal to the deposit that was transferred out. This way, the central bank could transition to holding all private deposits without drying up the supply of loans.

Simple!

The recent announcement by the Chinese central bank that they will launch a digital currency may be the first step to a future where individuals and businesses can access the affordability and convenience of a current account without running the risk that the private bank holding the account might go bankrupt. If China can properly implement such a system, it will make its economy completely immune to recession. If the rest of the world’s central banks fail to catch up, digitize their currencies and recession-proof their economies, then, in the wake of the next recession, we may all end up using Chinese digital Yuan.

 

A Land-Backed Currency

 

Without gold, what is the real basis of a currency’s value? A currency backed by genuine value inspires more confidence than one whose value floats on thin air and good will, yet backing up a currency with real value is a straightforward matter and can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen.

A tax on the site rent of all the nation’s land, payable only in national currency would – at the stroke of a pen – create a land-backed currency. Such a land value tax would effectively use the total asset value of the nation’s territory to back its currency.

Since:

  • Total global land value far exceeds total global gold value
  • Land cannot be covertly stolen
  • Land is the natural asset of every nation
  • Land is of far greater use than gold

It is far more sensible back up a currency’s value with land rather than gold.

By adopting all of these measures, we can end the devastation that financial instability causes once and for all and transition to a stable, secure and prosperous future!

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire to Make a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John

Is There An Ultimate Purpose Of Life?

by

Ultimate Purpose to Life
John Christian Fjellestad/Shutterstock.com

For many, the question: “What is the ultimate purpose of life?” may seem futile, even trite, when so many immediate and pressing issues abound, yet we must at least account for why some ponder this great question so intensely. This question is important because, while we devote most of our energy to our immediate daily concerns, many believe that the ultimate reason to put such effort into living is to do or accomplish something. Others make huge daily sacrifices to rear children who can accomplish something important…but what? If there is no ultimate purpose of life, how can any accomplishment have significance?

The question – Is there an ultimate purpose of life? – seems so straightforward. Yet it exposes the very limits of scientific inquiry – our civilization’s crowning achievement. This question is not scientifically tractable. Scientific inquiry can do a lot:  sensibly answer queries about facts (Do antelopes lay eggs? Do crocodiles eat fish?); answer “why” type questions (Why is the sky blue?) in the context of hypothesized models supported by evidence (because air scatters short wavelengths more than long ones) and determine instrumentally effective options for accomplishing a given desired outcome. (How can I make soap? Answer: by mixing sodium hydroxide with animal fat).

But science cannot tell us what we should want, or what we should do. So we set about life with various purposes in mind which we then try to accomplish. But no amount of scientific investigation can tell us whether these purposes are right or wrong. While we may choose to adopt some life purpose, no methods exist to ascertain whether it is a purposeful purposes, or a pointless purpose. Perhaps we can never know whether we are truly doing something meaningful with our lives – or just wasting time.

And yet, despite these difficulties, many strive to answer this question. Why? The main reason is because the brain’s job is to do things. We wouldn’t have evolved a brain, that consumes half our body’s glucose, if it didn’t do anything. Our brain must also work out what not to do – such as actions that might bring death or injury.

So the question: “What is the ultimate purpose of life?” strikes the core of our mind’s primary reason for being. Namely, to continuously answer that deceptively simple-sounding question: “What should I do now?” And to do it.

Abstract questions on the ultimate purpose of life have disturbingly practical implications. Why punish children “for their own good” if there is no absolute good? What purpose, for example, could disciplining children serve if there is no ultimate purpose? Presumably, when we put effort into rearing children, we are trying to get them to turn out one way rather than another. Why put any effort into child-rearing if all maturity outcomes are equivalently pointless?

Many seek the ultimate purpose of life in the hope of gaining meaningful fulfillment. Perhaps if we knew what the point of our life was we would feel whole, could sally forth, fulfill our destiny, and live life with high spirits and high morale. Perhaps that is the purpose of seeking the ultimate purpose.

And yet… if we seek an ultimate purpose of life in order to attain a sense of meaningful fulfillment and completion, then clearly not all purposes are equal. What if we discovered that the ultimate purpose of life was to sit alone in a dank cave fishing worms out of bat excrement while drinking our own urine? Would that bring fulfillment, comfort or joy? Furthermore, if you knew that an honest inquiry into the ultimate purpose of life would lead to this conclusion, would you still inquire, or would you cease your inquiry forthwith …or, perhaps, try to delude yourself into thinking that life’s true purpose was something more enjoyable and comfortable?

This blog article will not reveal the ultimate purpose of life. However, if the reason we seek the ultimate purpose is to find fulfillment, a sense of meaningfulness and contented satisfaction in what we do, then perhaps a more important question is:

“How do we obtain a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from our actions in life?”

And, indeed, perhaps the main point of raising and educating children in a particular way should be to enable them to gain satisfaction and fulfillment from what they do in later life.

So how can we attain a sense of satisfaction from what we do?

Let’s make it simple:

The ultimate purpose of the brain is to generate action.

To act effectively on a system you must know:

  • The initial conditions of the system
  • The relationship of cause to effect that governs the system
  • The final desired state you want the system to adopt

 

Science deals with 1) and 2)

 

But without an answer to 3) people feel lost and incapable of meaningfully applying their knowledge gleaned from studying 1) and 2).

One answer to 3) is: “Whatever floats your boat.”

Unfortunately, the pursuit of our own personal, somewhat arbitrary objectives can interfere with other people’s incompatible objectives and annoy (even enrage) them.

This is our great dilemma: how to meaningfully pursue our own objectives without treading on the toes of others too much and to help them instead?

Humanity is, at its core, a social species. Our minds balance self-interest with concern for others. When we seek meaning through our actions, we seek this balance: to protect our own well-being while helping others. Actions that achieve both – feel meaningful.

Yet this correct balance is the essence of morality. We cannot categorically state that life’s objective purpose is to live successfully and morally, but a successful and moral life does at least feel both meaningful and satisfying to those who live it. And while it may be impossible to objectively determine the ultimate purpose of life, objectively optimal strategies for balancing different people’s wills do exist ( which The Philosophical Method thoroughly derives) and the norms implied by this optimal strategy form the fundamental basis of morality.

I posit that scientific norms imply further norms concerning how we should live our daily lives in accordance with an optimal social contract.

A society which follows the path of objective morality will thrive and meet the needs of its members, keep conflicts at tolerably low levels, and achieve a sufficiently broad consensus over right and wrong, to ensure righteous people get due recognition.

Once we can live successfully and righteously, properly balancing our needs with others, we will satisfy our need for purpose. Indeed, the one of the primary benefits of reading philosophy is the acquisition of working principles to make good decisions in life and establish good relations with others.

Not because our lives will have an objective, ultimate purpose, but rather because we will realise that life never needed an ultimate purpose in the first place, and that our pursuit of “purpose” was simply the pursuit of a mode of living and action that:

  • Gains the goodwill and respect of others
  • Addresses our own needs and desires
  • Will not doom us in the long run

Our “pursuit of purpose” is simply the pursuit of this optimal mode of living.

Rationality is the optimal coupling of action to intention.

Morality is the optimal coupling of collective action to collective intention.

An irrational person is someone whose intentions are not self-consistent. As he pursues one interest, he undermines another. Without carefully thinking about all his different wants and whether they can consistently be accomplished together, he cannot avoid undermining himself at every turn. This leads to a miserable life.

An immoral society is one where the intentions of each member are inconsistent with the others. In such society, people constantly work to undermine each other. No one’s aspirations are safe. What one person builds and values, others will sabotage and destroy. An immoral society is thus a collectively miserable society.

But those who can live a rational and moral life inside a moral society are fortunate indeed and have no need for any objective purpose beyond this.

So perhaps the answer to the question: “Is there an ultimate purpose of life?”

Is: “Strictly speaking, no, but it doesn’t matter as we can gain satisfaction from seeking an optimal and just life – which we can use reason to identify.”

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire To Make a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John

Floating Infrastructure For Stable Governance

by

Political change can end oppression with long overdue emancipatory reforms, but it can also create oppression. The transition of the Weimar Republic to Nazi Germany, the Rise of Mao Zedong following the boxer rebellion and the Chinese civil war, the collapse of Yugoslavia and the genocide that followed, or the American PATRIOT act are all examples of changes for the worse.

Even neutral reforms can be disruptive, and leave many elderly people with a sense that the rug was pulled out from under them, while the cost of regulatory change often exceeds the cost of the regulations themselves. Between a third and a quarter of all financial service firms spend one whole day per week tracking and analysing regulatory change. The best regulatory environments for business are politically stable ones with constant rules that make long term future planning, and investment, possible.

In my book, The Philosophy Method, I suggest that, since immigrating into a country requires positive effort, immigrants effectively consent to a host nation’s law more completely than those who stay for family, friends or career. For this reason, a nation with unchanging laws and an initial population of zero would more closely resemble a perfect social contract – a legal system with the full consent of all inhabitants (until they had children) – than any other real world political arrangement. Voluntary migrants into such a country would accept its law in totality at the time of their arrival. Since the laws don’t change, they remain acceptable to old migrants, while the new migrants will also accept them (or else not move there). So a country with unchanging laws and zero initial population will amass, over time, an entire population who all find the law acceptable, perhaps even optimal (if such a thing is possible in the real world).

I called this form of governance “Constitutional Anarchy.” “Anarchy” merely refers to the fact that no one has the authority to make or change the law. There would still be a legal constitution as well as a judiciary and police force to interpret and enforce it. Human beings must, of course, initially write the law, and they could write and modify the law for the territory until the first inhabitant moved in to be ruled by it. However, once the first person moved in, the law would be frozen for ever after.

A major limitation of constitutional anarchy is that the only response to an objectionable law is to leave the country. You may ask incredulously: “But what if a law was a huge problem for 99% of the population? What if the solution was obvious? Would everyone still really have to up sticks and leave?” While people may initially all agree with the laws, changing technology and criminal tactics could suddenly make a given law very problematic. There is something ridiculous about an entire citizenry abandoning buildings, roads, parks, zoos, etc., etc., just because new technology rendered a few (easily fixable) laws ineffective and no amendment procedure existed. The principal absurdity of moving an entire population just to change a law is the billions of pounds worth of fixed infrastructure that would effectively be wasted.

Unamendable laws foster political stability, which has many advantages. The main disadvantage (of the only recourse to dissatisfaction with the law being relocation) is the cost of abandoning fixed infrastructure.

Floating Infrastructure
A graphic representation of a floating city. Picture provided courtesy of the Seasteading Institute

But what if all the country’s infrastructure floated on water? What if the country was only a few miles across and the nation with identical laws in all other respects (except for the problematic law) was located 5 miles away from the first? Given that container ships the size of skyscrapers routinely travel across whole oceans, does it really seem impractical to move a floating city across 5 miles of water to amend a law? There would be a third option: the Seasteading Institute advocates modular floating cities composed of platforms that can be docked to, and undocked from, each other. So, if only some people wanted to change a given law, they could undock their platforms and move 5 miles over to the new jurisdiction while those who were happy with the status quo could stay. This might happen if the existing regulations inadequately met the needs of some new industry in the floating city but continued to serve other industries.

 

Jurisdiction-Independent Courts

 

Example of how the same aquatory could be recycled for new jurisdictions without ever changing the rules in a single inhabited jurisdiction.

The largest barriers to towing a city made of floating infrastructure into a brand new jurisdiction would be negotiating the territory for the jurisdiction with the UN (current international politics takes decades, if not longer, to create new countries), and starting a new court from scratch (since precedence plays a strong role in judgements and court procedures). The best way to address these challenges would be to establish an umbrella nation on the high seas with a single court. This court could:

  • Rapidly create new jurisdictional territories with new constitutions in regions of water within the aquatory of the umbrella nation with arbitrary laws proposed by jurisdictional entrepreneurs
  • Judge cases for multiple jurisdictions in accordance with whatever local laws govern that jurisdiction

While the umbrella nation’s court could establish new jurisdictions on ungoverned territory, it should not be allowed to “rezone” previously zoned jurisdictions until their last inhabitant moves out. This way political stability can be ensured for those who choose to stay put in their jurisdiction of choice.

All the territory (aquatory) of the umbrella nation that was not specifically allocated as a jurisdiction would be subject, by default, to the law of the sea.

Such an umbrella nation would in all likelihood take decades to establish, but, once established, it could serve as a sand box in which to rapidly test a wide variety of different legal and regulatory systems.

We can thus see that, perhaps ironically, the inherent flexibility of a floating medium could make more rigid and more stable governance systems feasible. However, their compactness and variety would ensure that everyone could find a jurisdiction that was right for them.

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire to Make a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John

World Urban Population Growth Will Reverse by 2050

by

artjazz/Shutterstock.com

Urbanization is the defining trend of the industrial revolution. Economists triumphantly glorify urbanization, globalization and specialization as the three pillars of human progress and the present global trend is yet more urbanization. A United Nations report, predicting continued urbanization, estimates that, by 2050, 68% of the world’s population will live in cities. Most people (especially economists) believe that urbanization can and should continue.

 

Nevertheless, I believe urbanization will reverse before 2050.

 

 

Why do Cities Exist?

 

Cities exist for the same reason as microchips or brains. By bringing processes closer together, interaction times can be reduced. In pre-industrial times, the city had three main roles:

  • A marketplace
  • A theatre
  • A centre of power

 

Production was a cottage industry, but ancient cities still facilitated distribution. Craftsmen that manufactured tools which farmers only occasionally replaced (perhaps a shovel, or a plough) had to set up shop near large crowds so that the small fraction requiring – say – shovels would suffice to earn them a living.

Ancient cities also hosted performances such as theatre and song. Since poets, or actors, can perform as easily to a large audience as a small one, there are economies of scale to be gained from crowds.

Ancient cities were also power centres. Kings of old employed loyal thugs to go around with weapons threatening peasants and seizing a portion of their harvest as tax. At the very least, a king needed royal guards and messenger boys to raise an army on short notice, and stone masons to maintain fortifications. This entourage of specialized professionals who didn’t farm, was most suitably located somewhere that food and other wealth flowed into such as a town where farmers brought their food to buy goods manufactured by craftsmen and artisans. Cathedrals and bishops were also in cities making them centres of religious power as well.

 

The Roman Empire achieved peak urbanization rates of about 25-30% (Counting villages with populations of 10,000 as “urban”). While medieval England achieved peak urbanization rates of 15-20%. However, these large, populous kingdoms were the exception and the global average for urbanization in ancient times was about 2% of the world’s population.

In the 19th century countries surpassed the record urbanization levels set by Rome. This happened for two reasons:

  • Industrialization created the production line, where specialists worked in close proximity to increase productive efficiency.
  • Mechanization reduced the manpower required to grow and transport food, and other resources, to industrial cities.

 

In the ancient world, specialized craftsmen lived in cities with their large markets. Since the industrial revolution, the modern factory gave urban labour an added productivity bonus, while mechanization reduced the labour required in the countryside.

 

Why Urbanization May Reverse After 2050

 

While urbanization is current increasing, after 2050, technological developments undermine much of the rational for having cities.

The underlying rational for factories, production lines and economies of scale is the high cost of knowledge and skill. It takes time to train an excellent clothes maker. But if you divide the process into many less skilled tasks, teach different people to perform each task, hand the unfinished product to the next person and add some labour-saving machines, more units can be manufactured at a much lower per unit cost.

The second reason for economies of scale is that, by building big, you can get more relative precision from a given absolute precision. A large steam piston requires less absolute tolerance in the precision of the piston and tube diameter than a smaller piston. Workers with crude tools could achieve greater relative precision by building large machines.

 

The inexorable trend towards cheaper information and higher precision undermine both cases for economies of scale and may reverse urbanization after 2050. We no longer need a factory of workers to put together massive quantities of just one product – a single 3D printer can make many products. While the instructions on how to build sophisticated products may be complex, information is cheap, so the cost of instructing a 3D printer to build all manner of shapes is negligible. Furthermore, these 3D printers and CNC machines can be small, as absolute precision has vastly increased. Modern manufacturing systems are both small and sophisticated.

If a small box, no larger than a car, can build everything, then every village can have one (after all, most households own cars). And if every village has its own build-everything-machine, then why have large factories or cities to support them?

This abundance of cheap information and high absolute precision undermines the rational for economies of scale and specialization, which was originally why urbanization surpassed roman levels.

 

Cheap information also undermines the rational for ancient cities. Generalized, miniaturized manufacturing eliminates the need for mass markets while distributed cheap communication eliminates the need for large audiences in the same locality. This same communication technology could also enable the distributed coordination of power.

 

So again…what’s the point of cities?

 

A Surgery Room In Every House

 

But what about public services? Hospitals, mental health clinics, schools, universities, utilities such as electricity, internet etc.,

Hospitals are giant illness-treatment factories. Doctors are scarce. Therefore, the best way to deploy them is to cram ill people into the same building to reduce the time doctors spend travelling between patients. Furthermore, complex illnesses often involve multiple specialists and expensive equipment. Hospitals enable you to mix and match specialists by bringing them all under one roof where they can rapidly recombine into teams optimized to address a wide range of diseases. The underlying rational for hospitals is:

  • The expense of skills
  • The expense of specialized precision equipment

 

Ditto with psychiatry. Psychiatric wards are massive sanity production factories. Due to a scarcity of psychiatrists with skills to make crazy people sane (or less crazy), the optimal answer is to cram all the crazy people into a small crowded space, giving psychiatrist access to the maximum density of patients. This minimizes transit times between patients and maximizes the rate that psychiatrists can treat crazy people and make them sane (in theory).

 

Hospitals do three things:

  • Diagnose illnesses
  • Perform surgery
  • Administer complex regimens of drugs

 

The trend towards generalization, miniaturization and cost reduction will impact diagnosis machines (such as X-rays, CAT scans, blood analysis, etc.,) like everything else. It will also apply to the manufacturing of drugs. In the future, generalized drug manufacturing systems, the size of 3D printers, will stores primary organic compounds and be able to synthesize any drug under the sun, while robotic surgery systems have already been developed.

The end point of this trend is that, in the not too distant future (say, 30 years), every house will have a surgery room that can perform every conceivable operation from open heart surgery to cancer removal to hernia treatment as well as administering complex regimens of drugs.

As for mental health, all the skills that psychiatrists or psychiatric nurses possess could be downloaded into mass-produced androids giving everyone their own robot psychologist/psychiatrist that can also fix the plumbing, or teach the children.

Eliminating mass-production in hospitals and asylums has considerable advantages. Mass production is all right for surgery, but concentrating lots infected people in the same space can spread germs, and indeed hospital born infections are a major source of complications and even death. Psychiatric wards may bring lots of crazy people into contact with psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, but while it is sometimes helpful to bring crazy people together in controlled conditions (such as support groups) crazy people can also egg each other on to get crazier and crazier – so for psychiatry as well, home treatment by a fully trained android would be preferable to a lunatic asylum.

 

What about education and access to high quality schools and universities? Amazon and google have all the information you could possibly want and with free Lectures on YouTube – what else is there? While human educators are needed to kickstart the learning process, that human component will get a lot less specialized. Instead of separate teachers for history, geography, physics, biology, French, German, etc., a single human educator will train people to use search engines effectively, think critically and judge the credibility of different sources effectively. In the future, human educators will teach information management skills, but the internet and books downloaded onto Kindles will provide all the specific information.

In the future, a village with 100 people, an internet connection and one info management coach will be able to educate children to be more knowledgeable than today’s Harvard graduates. While 3D printers will produce equipment for laboratory demonstrations.

 

Even policing can be done with drones, but since rural areas, in the U.K. at least, have lower crime rates when compared to urban areas it’s quite likely that not that much policing may be required.

Home entertainment systems with large screen and surround sound will replace theatres.

 

So, if tomorrow’s technology can provide education, health, policing and entertainment, if anything, more efficiently in the countryside…what’s the point of urban living?

 

Should We Reverse Urbanization?

 

But should we reverse urbanization? Some say urbanization will lift billions out of poverty, others argue that cities use energy and resources more efficiently, yet others point to the lower fertility rates in cities compared to the countryside, (a reduction of between 1.5 and 2 children per woman in all countries) as evidence that urbanization will stabilize population size.

 

Lifting billions out of poverty: While cities currently do this, a whole slew of technology will soon greatly raise rural living standards. Solar panels, mobile phones and 4G internet already have this effect.

 

More efficient resource use: Rural inhabitants only consume more than city-dwellers in developed countries where they constantly commute to town for work or shopping. In developing countries, where rural populations live off the land and so travel less and have a smaller environmental footprint, urbanization massively increases consumption, car ownership and commuting.

Market societies, filled with specialists, are inherently energy intensive with buyers constantly buzzing about looking for sellers and vice versa. If we must live in a market society, high population densities increase their efficiency. However, flexible manufacturing, AI and ever cheaper information may render such societies obsolete. To reduce market dependence, our backyards must have enough resources to provide for us. However, this requires a larger backyard. Since rural living facilitates lower market dependence, and since less market dependence (with less goods and service-providers buzzing around) is more energy efficient, rural living (if done right) increases the efficient use of energy and resources.

 

Overpopulation: The narrative we are told is that by giving women the “opportunity” to live in cities they are “liberated” from the need to have children and therefore “choose” to have less. It is true that some traditional societies oppress their women, yet if fewer children are a sign of women’s “liberation”, why do many highly successful, affluent women such as Victoria Beckham, or Demi Moore, or wealthy women in general have more children than average? While women may choose affluence and material comforts over children and abusive relationships, those who can have it all (money, a loving husband and lots of kids) choose large families.

So, does urbanization “allow” women to have small families or does it force them to make a difficult choice between material wealth, no time for childcare and no kids – or a large family in a poor, crime-ridden neighbourhood?

If urbanization reduces the concern of overpopulation, it does so by pressurizing women to remain childless, often against their will. Furthermore, studies robustly show that cities have higher levels of mental illness compared to rural areas and higher crime rates.

If population growth really is a problem, we should simply have a two-child policy (or exchangeable child quotas like carbon quotas) as opposed to manipulatively putting financial pressure on women to live in stressful, crowded urban environments where they have less children because they are generally uncomfortable and then saying: “Look everyone! Women are ‘spontaneously’ deciding to have less children! Isn’t it great! We don’t have to worry about overpopulation anymore!” It’s absurd to say we should not reverse urbanization because high population densities create emotional distress which discourages people from having children.

 

Basic Income Is The Catalyst

 

Cities remain important centres of manufacturing, education and art and culture to this day. But less and less people work in the factories that do the manufacturing. Increasingly city jobs (psychiatrists, social workers, policemen) are produced by city problems – along with hype to sell overpriced merchandise and tickets to overrated events (advertising executives, tabloid journalists, etc.). Additionally, large corporations, headquartered in cities, are buying up the countryside – farmland, forests and mines – and funneling the profits from harvesting (or pillaging) nature into the salaries of executives located in the city.

Furthermore, debt creates money and the dominant form of debt is mortgages to buy town housing. Banks lend money out of thin air to people who buy houses in the city. As this lending continues, the last batch of borrowers find their city house has gone up in value. They celebrate and spend the money in cocktail bars, restaurants, and the local economy. In this way, newly printed money preferentially goes to city dwellers.

There are two ways to make money: work for someone who has money or buy a speculative asset that goes up in value. Since lots of money flows into the city and since town housing is the speculative asset with the highest value, this means that those looking for a decent wage must often move into the city as the countryside is starved of cash.

Basic income could change all that. Capital is always getting cheaper. Items like, toasters, computers, 3D printers, mobile phones, bicycles and many other gizmos are all falling below the £100 mark. If purchased second hand, many can be procured below the £10 mark. In the developed world, people’s main expenses are rent, transport and food (perhaps alcohol and drugs as well).  A small basic income that enables people to procure the capital they need to live and grow food on cheap rural land without travelling to the city could simultaneously reduce the cost of rent, food and transportation. While communication technology, along with flexible manufacturing, will make rural communities increasingly “with it” and raise their quality of life.

An income delivered to everyone, independent of their location, would let people live everywhere. It seems likely many would use this income to move somewhere with more personal space and a lower cost of living. Many pensioners today move out of the city the instant they retire, so there’s every reason to believe that basic income could be the catalyst that enables people to live a better life in the countryside while raising wages and lowering rents in the city.

 

The Countryside Living Allowance provides the details of how a basic income could be introduced to transform the countryside and the city on a realistic budget.

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire to Leave a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John

Basic Income, Self-Provision and Full Employment

by

Basic income is a hot topic these days.

Recognized advantages include: removing the bureaucracy; the forms; the interrogations; the mandatory courses, job applications, job interviews, penalties for non-compliance, and the accompanying fear of getting cut off. A Reliable provision of income to everyone eliminates the decision-making process over who to pay and the accompanying risk, from the point of view of recipients, that the decision-maker will cut them off.

Basic income’s main disadvantage is that it is not targeted at those in need. A given tax revenue paid evenly to everyone will give the needy less than one paid solely to them. The UK’s welfare budget can afford to pay everyone about £4,000 per year without tax hikes. That’s not much.

Here, a case in favour of basic income is built from three points:

  • Basic income has a higher credit value than means-tested benefits
  • Basic Income should not be compared to a living wage. Paid work depletes time. Basic income does not. This leaves recipients time for cash-saving activities.
  • Job-seekers allowance and working tax credits push people into the labour market. Increasing the supply of labour reduces its price (i.e. wages). The provision of basic income does not push people into the labour market, and so supports wage levels.

 

Credit Value of Basic Income

 

When bank managers decide whether to lend someone money, they look at their assets, their income and, finally, the reliability of that income. Applicants with unreliable incomes are either charged more interest or turned down.

Two defining features of our age are record low interest rates, set by central banks, and an increasingly precarious job market. Together, these two factors are driving wealth inequality to levels not seen since World War 2. Record low interest rates enable asset owners to access cheap credit with which to buy yet more assets. Many asset owners all using cheap loans to buy assets inflate asset prices which can then be used as collateral for yet more loans. Meanwhile those with insecure jobs must pay interest rates that are 5 to 10 times higher on any money they borrow. This interest rate apartheid between asset owners and precarious workers is the root driver of inequality today.

The provision of income through means-tested benefits is precarious. It starts and stops, it gets revised up and down based on increased hours, changes in savings, missed appointments, changes in government policy and a myriad of other factors. This means someone on means-tested benefits, applying for a loan, will either be charged very high interest or refused.

Even a relatively small uncertainty in an income source drastically affects the interest rate (especially when central banks set rates low), and correspondingly the principal which that income can service.

For example, if there is a 10% chance per year that a benefit recipient will get cut off, the bank must charge 10% interest to compensate for the default risk. A fiscally responsible person receiving a fully secure basic income, on the other hand, would probably get charged a mortgage-like interest rate of 3%.

Thus, £4,000 of precarious income could at most service a £40,000 loan at 10% interest.

While the fully secure £4,000 basic income could service a £133,000 loan at 3% interest.

Basic income provides far more credit bang per benefit buck than means-tested benefits. Pilot studies in India confirm that even a low basic income significantly helps poor people to access to credit at lower interest rates.

This point is crucial: the cheaper credit, that basic income facilitates, lets people purchase capital today to save expenses tomorrow. The front-ended purchase of cost-saving capital produces a higher quality life from less money. Basic income provides more benefit from less payment. It’s a much more efficient way to pay out benefits.

 

Basic Income and Self-Provision

 

Due to its high credit value, a relatively modest basic income (of perhaps, £4,000 a year) in a low interest rate environment could enable its recipient to raise a significant amount of capital (perhaps £100,000+).

This creates many opportunities for buying capital today to save expenses tomorrow.

A key point to remember, when comparing basic income to a living wage, is those who work 40 hours a week to earn a living wage have depleted their time. Those with an unconditional basic income, however, still have those 40 hours to add value with their labour to any capital they have purchased with their income. This surplus time enables someone on an unconditional basic income to live a far better life than someone who earns a similar wage.

For example, it is much cheaper to buy raw materials to construct a house as opposed to buying the finished house. Indeed Open Source Ecology is working on a turnkey design, combined with instruction videos that will enable anyone to build a house and a hydroponic greenhouse from starting materials costing just £25,000. This way, you can produce the same final house by expending far less money but far more time and effort – yet if you’ve got nothing better to do with your time, applying it to build a house is no loss and a big gain. Consider cooking (or otherwise preparing) a meal verses buying one in a restaurant, consider purchasing fertilizer, gardening tools and a greenhouse as opposed to buying food in a supermarket. Supermarket food may seem cheap, but, remember, land costs less in the countryside than in the city, so growing food in your back garden, not only saves the cost of buying the food, but also the cost of living near, or travelling to, a supermarket. Bicycling as opposed to driving is another example of trading time and effort for money to achieve the same result.

Many means-tested benefits are calculated on the basis of personal expenses, especially rent in the case of housing benefit. This perversely incentivizes benefit recipients to increase their expenses. A fixed income, on the other hand, encourages people to seek creative ways to reduce expenses and cash in the surplus. The most obvious way to save money is to move to a cheap area. This option is unavailable to those who work in an expensive location and indeed, as this graph shows, average after-rent wages are identical up and down the country. This implies that landlords collect most of the surplus produced in wealthy cities. Thus, by freeing people from expensive locations and freeing up time for self-provision (as oppose to filling out endless job applications, as Job Seekers Allowance requires), surprisingly little money could facilitate a decent standard of living.

Uniquely as an economic activity, self-provision doesn’t require anyone’s permission. Those who work for themselves with tools and raw materials purchased with basic income do not need employers to hire them or customers to purchase their goods, they can just get on with it – no permission, or CV, required. This means the economic activity of self-provision on a modest basic income can automatically fully absorb an arbitrarily large unemployed population. Many critics of basic income would prefer to supply everyone with guaranteed work. However, a basic income set at an affordable level is, to all intents and purposes, a guaranteed job. The provision of basic income is an indirect provision of employment. No one on £4,000 a year would sit around doing nothing – they couldn’t afford to, or at least wouldn’t want to – as their quality of life would be very low. Instead, anyone on £4,000 a year would spend their time working industriously to extract the maximum value from every penny they got.

Furthermore, unlike make-work guaranteed job schemes, those employing themselves in the activity of self-provision requires no supervision at all. Since people providing for themselves reap the benefit of their own industry, there is no way to skive off and game the system. This simultaneously raises productivity and eliminates the need for supervisors that peer over the backs of guaranteed workers to make sure they perform their make-work jobs.

 

Higher Wages, Wealth Creation and The Benefits of Full Employment

 

If we quit our jobs, we lose money and gain time. The extra available time can be devoted to working at a job that pays more, and people often quit their jobs when offered a higher paying job elsewhere. One could also use the extra time acquired from quitting a job to run a business. This would make sense if the hourly profit generated by that business exceeds your old salary.

Other than working at your own business, or a higher paying job, you could work to provide value for yourself (such as building a house, growing food, brewing beer, etc.). This is a key point: Unlike other activities, which may not be available, self-provision is always an available option for healthy people. If the benefit from a given amount of time spent providing for your own needs exceeds the benefit of your salary at work, then it makes sense to quit your job and provide for yourself instead. And because self-provision is available to everyone, then if there are enough rational people to set the price of labour…

…the benefit that someone providing for themselves can extract from a given period of time and industry will set the wage floor everywhere.

In 1879, Henry George eloquently expressed this principle in his landmark book Progress and Poverty in the chapter, Wages And The Law of Wages

Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty

“…what, in conditions of freedom, will be the terms at which one man can hire others to work for him? Evidently, they will be fixed by what the men could make if labouring for themselves. The principle which will prevent him from having to give anything above this, except what is necessary to induce the change, will also prevent them from taking anything less. Did they demand more, the competition of others would prevent them from getting employment. Did he offer less, none would accept the terms, as they could obtain greater results by working for themselves.”

 

 

 

 

 

However, the wealth that someone can produce working for themselves depends on available tools and raw materials. Without an initial supply of tools or raw materials, the value of our time is low indeed – and tools and raw materials cost money.

Wealth is created by applying labour to capital. If someone wishes to mow the lawn, they will be far more productive with a lawn mower than a pair of scissors, conversely a regularly used lawn mower will be more productive compared to one left idle in a garden shed. Hence:

Capital amplifies the productivity of each hour of labour, while labour amplifies the productivity of each unit of capital.

This means a basic income that enable recipients to access more capital will raise the value of the time they spend providing for themselves and hence baseline wages across the board. Since labour and capital have a multiplicative effect on each other, basic income will raise wages to many times the value of the income itself. If labour amplifies the value of capital (tools and raw materials) by a factor of 5, then a basic income of just £4,000 a year could raise wages everywhere to £16,000!!!

Henry George’s Law of Wages can also be used to infer that a basic income will create new wealth. According to this law, the aggregate benefit produced by basic income recipients applying their labour to capital exactly equals the salary forgone by not spending that time working for someone else. If a £4,000 basic income raised the wage floor to £16,000 then someone who chose to provide for themselves as opposed to getting a job for £12,000 actually produces an additional £4,000 of wealth compared to a situation without basic income where they were forced to labour for less. By more efficiently capitalizing the poorest members of society, even a modest basic income would increase the productivity of their labour.

And if we agree that labouring industriously to provide for yourself is a productive, wealth-producing use of time, then universal basic income will give rise to full employment along with all its corresponding benefits!

Basic income can buffer a flexible, non-exploitative labour market. Today we shudder at the term “flexible labour market” due to the implication that one moment you have an income, the next moment you’re left high and dry. But once people can use basic income to set up a homestead with the tools they need to provide for themselves, flexible labour markets become less ominous. For those working from a foundation of self-provision, flexible labour markets will merely be a source of pocket money.

 

An Integrated Strategy

 

For universal basic income to truly benefit society, two other things must accompany it:

  • A program to provide cheap credit to poorer people who wish to become self-sufficient
  • A government funded information resource, that informs people how to provide the best possible livelihood with their income. Including the best skills to develop and the best tools to work with.

Bank managers will effectively serve as gatekeepers to prevent wasteful people without a plan from front-loading their income as a capital loan. Conversely, it is also vital that responsible people who are poor can access cheap credit to front-load their income. Means-tested default subsidies are a possible solution. If the government refunded, say, 50% of the money that banks lost as debt defaults from low interest self-sufficiency loans issued to those on low incomes, then banks would not lend out to really dodgy customers, as they would still lose 50% of the defaulted sum, but if only low interest loans to those with low incomes qualified for the subsidy, then interest rates could be held down.

 

Phasing It In

 

In my book, The Countryside Living Allowance, I discuss how to phase in a basic income so as to minimize the costs (along with costing estimates) and maximize the positive impact. Basic income will have the biggest impact where the cost of living is lowest. Therefore, initially limiting basic income to regions with a low cost of living would reduce its budget while still raising wages everywhere, as those on lower incomes would move to where they could collect the allowance. Furthermore, the allowance could be linked to a Land value covenant, so that the government could raise more revenue as more people moved into regions that qualified for the benefit.

If this article is of interest, and you want to learn more, read The Countryside Living Allowance to get the details.

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire to Leave a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John

 

Cryogenic Body Preservation, Benefits Society

by

A human model demonstrating whole body storage (© Cryonics Institute)

Since ancient Egypt and before people tried to protect deceased souls by preserving their bodies. Modern cryogenic body preservation techniques mean a realistic, albeit speculative, possibility exists that a future society, with unimaginably advanced medical technology, might someday revive those who opt for cryogenic body storage today. No human has yet been revived from liquid nitrogen temperatures, but less extreme examples of revival from below normal body temperatures abound. Scientists successfully revived dogs, cooled to 3 degrees Celsius, whose hearts had stopped beating for 3 hours. A 2 year old boy whose heart had stopped beating and body temperature had dropped was also revived. Small extremophiles, were revived after being frozen for 30 years. In 2016, the detailed structure of an entire rabbit’s brain was successfully stored at cryogenic temperatures without synaptic damage.

The Immortality Foundation has a good overview of the state of the art in cryonics technology here.

Cryonics has its detractors. Indeed, the society of cryo-biologists, who oppose cryogenic body preservation with borderline fanaticism, have branded those working in it as frauds and have even banned anyone who has cryogenically preserved deceased individuals from joining their society – forever. Yet although detractors often deploy strongly worded criticisms, their arguments and evidence are often lacking and a fairly comprehensive (albeit non-professional) survey of anti-cryonics literature has come to the following conclusion:

 

“Because as far as I can tell, if you want to write the best anti-cryonics article in the world, you have a very low bar to clear.”

 

Let us begin with the most important question: Are the proponents of cryogenic body preservation con-men?

The process of dying, obviously damages the body a great deal. Cryogenic cooling does further damage, and people engaged in cryogenic body preservation constantly look for new ways to minimize the damage of this cooling process. However, once the body has stabilized at cryogenic temperatures, no further damage will occur – forever. A body cryogenically cooled very low temperatures will be in the same condition a million years in the future as it was a few hours after the cryogenic cooling process is completed.

Of all the different ways we deal with legally dead bodies, cryonics causes the least subsequent long-term damage – by a very large margin.

If we agree that:

The less physical damage a body sustains, the greater its chance of future revival.

…and it’s hard to see how one can deny this. Then we must conclude:

That of all possible treatments for legally dead bodies, cryogenic body preservation is the one with the highest chance of revival – by a very large margin.

There is, of course, no guarantee that cryogenically stored people will ever be revived, but those in cryonics conscientiously try their very best to minimize the physical damage that occurs after legal death. This is an indisputable fact.

 

Cryonics Costs

 

But is it worth the money?

Today, the Cryonics Institute quotes the cost of full body preservation at $28,000 plus a one time membership fee of $1,250. By comparison, those who’d rather an English churchyard to a Californian Refrigerator, could be set back by as much as £8,000 for a plot in the city plus another £2,000 in funeral costs. Thus, preserving your body forever through cryonics costs a little over twice as much as being left to rot in the ground.

 

But wouldn’t the extra $14,000 that cryogenic freezing costs over a fancy funeral be better given to some other good cause?

Cryonics is a good cause. Cryonicists are constantly improving and developing new procedures to cool down patients in ways that do less damage to make revival easier. At some point, future cryonic technology should be able to freeze and reawaken a healthy person. When pressed to estimate when the first living person will survive being frozen and thawed, the president of the Cryonics Institute, Dennis Kowalski, has stated “The true scientific answer is that no one knows for sure because no one knows the future. If I were forced to take a guess I would say no sooner than the next 50 years and probably less than 100 years.”

Reversible, affordable cryogenic body storage could save many lives. For a start, far less people with urgent conditions would die on waitlists for highly specialized treatments, saving many lives. It could also facilitate interstellar travel – a noble cause indeed.

But to advance cryogenic preservation technology, lots of practice, lots of testing and lots of donors are needed. Those who’ve currently paid for the cost of cryonic preservation have effectively bought a ticket in a charity raffle whose proceeds are donated to life-saving research into reversible cryogenic preservation to enable people in the future, with life threatening illnesses, to safely and reversibly freeze themselves. The first prize in this raffle is the off-chance that immense future technological advances will enable them to be reawakened, rejuvenated and live a life of immortal youth.

 

And cryonics is the best technology currently available to preserve our bodies.

 

But what about critics who say that living too long is selfish?

 

Cryonic Storage containers awaiting a better future (© Cryonics Institute)

Perhaps living is selfish, and perhaps that’s a good thing. I’ve heard many elderly people say things like: “The world’s going to the dogs! I’m glad I won’t be alive to see it!” I’ve also heard younger people say things like: “You mean global warming could actually happen in my lifetime? You mean there’s a good chance I’ll actually live to see the effects of massive climate change? For real?” with a sudden look of horror on their face.

Cryogenic body preservation may well reduce the extent we live for the present…while trashing the future. Cryogenic freezing can only secure immortality if tremendous technological progress occurs in the future, society doesn’t collapse, and future generations are benign and kindhearted enough to revive those who opt to freeze themselves. A single bomb landing on a cryo-facility could obliterate all hope of immortality. This may be a tall order. Civilization could very possibly collapse, for one reason or another. Then no one would get revived.

In my opinion, this is the real reason why some people insist that, even with millions of years of exponential technological advancement, it is fundamentally impossible to ever physically, or even digitally, revive those who are cryogenically frozen today.

We can’t stand the idea we have a real chance of immortality…but will probably screw up and destroy civilization. Or perhaps we sense that our culture is becoming so selfish and egotistical, that future generations won’t bother to resurrect  cryogenically preserved individuals. At the back of our minds we know that exponential economic growth can’t continue, that AI poses a serious threat, that, given enough time, a future major war seems inevitable and we are not doing enough in global politics today to tackle this threat, that manufacturing and agriculture needs to be completely overhauled to stop producing toxins that damage our ecosystem… and that securing civilization’s long term future will take A LOT of hard work.

It’s so much easier to ignore these really difficult problems, make a bit of money, buy a new car, hang out in the pub, head out to the disco, and ignore the fate of future generations. The possibility, but improbability, of immortality due to the likely collapse of our civilization, the immense problems we must surmount to avoid it, and the hard work this requires is a burden too heavy for most to shoulder. Most people cannot bear to contemplate the vast potential value they are throwing away tomorrow by acting irresponsibly today.

If most people truly believed they could personally live in a bright, technologically advanced future by working to secure it, we would take long-term problems a lot more seriously. We would also encourage people to care for others and value human life – to dispose future generations to revive those in cryogenic body storage.

Most importantly, cryonics helps curb elderly AI researchers (who desire immortality) from rushing to develop whole brain emulations without adequate safety precautions. Humans are not universally nice. Jesus was a person. Mahatma Gandhi was a person. But so was, Hitler, Ted Bundy, Genghis Khan and Charles Manson. Whole brain emulation will make an operating system, that produced Genghis Khan, a billion times faster and gives it perfect memory. This has obvious potential dangers. We should undertake whole brain emulation with great caution. Yet caution will slow down the development timescale. Those who would die from the delay need a safer technology to secure their survival. That safer technology is cryonics.

 

So cryonic storage has many benefits.

 

John

 

Do You Have a Burning Desire to Leave a Comment?

 

Have you found this article thought provoking? Is there some message you desperately want to communicate to future readers but can’t because my comment section automatically closes 28 days after my posts go live?

If so, you might be interested to know that I reopen any comments section to members of my mailing on request as one of the perks of joining.

If you’d like to leave a comment, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, sign on to my mailing list and them email me with a request to reopen the comments section for this post.

Happy Commenting!

John