John McCone : Philosophy For The Future

Philosophy For The Future

Blog

The Problem With Prohibition

by

How Protests Against Mining Operations Can Subsidize Oppression

 

Are attempts by some deep ecologists to prohibit mineral extraction as misguided as the temperance movement’s alcohol ban in the 1920s?                                                                       (Everett Historical/Shutterstock.com)

Violence is dangerous and risky. While some self-destructive individuals commit violence for no gain, sophisticated organized violence needs profit to compensate members of gangs and other organizations for the risk of the violent acts they commit.

So where does the money to pay gang members to intimidate, attack and kill those who interfere with an organization come from?

Sometimes, it’s plain theft – burglary or intimidating businesses for “protection money”.

The more interesting case, which I’ll focus on here, is where criminal gangs run a profitable business (other than outright thievery), whose profits they can use to pay off heavies and hit men to commit violent acts on behalf of the gang.

But what about business competition? If violence is costly, then surely a peaceful business that can produce the same goods with less overheads for violence will be able to undercut violent competitors on price and drive them out of business.

 

 

Thus:

Provided law enforcement effectively prevents robbery (including shoplifting), ransoming and racketeering, businesses will adopt models that fund ever less violence.

 

So, what allows violent gangs that profit from businesses other than outright theivery to exist?

 

The answer: they can only exist if no nonviolent business model is available. This will be the case if the activity they profit from is illegal and customers are willing to pay a price that exceeds the cost of non-compliance. Every business needs to enforce contracts, whether with customers, employees or suppliers. Legal businesses can sue transgressors in court, but illegal businesses must use thugs and hit-men to punish those who break their word. Furthermore, much of a gang’s valuable “property” (such as drugs, arms, smuggled goods, etc.) is illegal contraband, so gangs cannot report the theft of their valuables to the police. Thus, an initial opportunity to profit from illegal activities creates a situation where rival gangs can steal each other’s contraband without police intervention leading to increased violence and gang war.

 

For this cycle of violence to initiate, there first must be:

  • A profitable business model requiring violence (i.e. no viable non-violent version)
  • Sufficient market demand to raise prices high enough to cover the overhead of non-compliance and violence
  • No available legal substitute at a price lower than the production price (including all overheads) of the illegal good or service

 

Using legal violence to suppress a good’s supply will thus raise prices and give rise to illegal violence to supply that good – regardless of the law.

Prohibitions enforced by violence will often give rise to violent reactions.

A ban on regulated brothels funds street-hookers and sex slavery; a ban on drugs funds drug gangs; a ban on weapons funds gun runners; tariffs of all kinds fund smuggling rings; migration restrictions fund people-trafficking and on…and on… and on…

 

Hardcore libertarians conclude from this: “don’t prohibit anything.” One may adopt this position, but even if one doesn’t, goods or services should probably not be prohibited without at least estimating the consumer response. Will consumers pay a higher price to purchase the prohibited service illegally, or will they substitute it with a legal good or service instead? Without estimating the consumer response, a prohibition may have disastrous consequences – in extreme instances, the proliferation of crime may resemble a low-key insurrection.

Another problem with shadow industries is the lack of reporting. If someone gets their house burgled, their child kidnapped or their business held to ransom, they will likely report it. However, shadow industries can turn a healthy profit while satisfying the interests of most participants. A shadow industry can exist without creating wronged, indignant individuals who report misdeeds to police. And those who are wronged (e.g. beaten up over drug debts), usually participate in the industry, can be blackmailed and are reluctant to report, even serious wrongs, to the police (seen as the “enemy”).

Some things like child prostitution should be prohibited. But governments must choose their battles wisely and prepare legal, socially accepted avenues for demand substitution – or design campaigns to reduce demand. Prohibiting supply without also drastically reducing demand is a recipe for organized crime.

 

Mining and The “Resource Curse”

 

So, what does this all have to do with mining?

 

Environmentalists campaign against mining companies the whole world over. Their strategies typically involve mobilising grassroots mass-opposition against mining projects and supporting infrastructure (such as Canada’s keystone pipeline), lobbying for laws that raise the cost of mining and filing court case after court case against mining projects.

However, all these strategies rely heavily on a democratically enfranchised population and the rule of law. In countries with a centralized elite, a disenfranchised population, high levels of corruption, and a de facto absence of law, campaigns against mining companies often end with key environmental campaigners sadly being assassinated.

So our understanding of “the resource curse”, the theory that mineral resources produce corruption, may need revision. Resources are everywhere, but NIMBYs in well-governed democratic countries with a strong judiciary, block access to local resources and challenge new mining projects in municipal government and in court. The net result of this comprehensive campaigning against all mining projects in the developed world is:

  • A reduction in the supply of minerals
  • That raises the price
  • With windfall profits for governments that crush grass roots opposition against local mining projects.

 

Thus, just as prohibition funds violent crime, grassroots democratic and legal opposition to mining projects funds despotism, opacity and corruption.

 

Violent actions give rise to violent reactions.

Violent grassroots opposition gives rise to the violent suppression of that opposition – if not in the same country, then in a different one.

 

Environmentalists don’t just resist mining projects everywhere. They also support expanding resource intensive industries like renewable energy and lithium ion batteries. Where will the minerals for the batteries and wind turbines come from? The magic metal tree?

A contradiction lies at the heart of environmentalism. Its campaigns increase global demand for mined goods, by advocating rapidly rolling out renewables, battery-powered cars and a HVDC super grid, yet at every opportunity it fights to reduce supply. Something has to give – and that something is democracy. The two-pronged effort to increase global demand for commodities and reduce their supply will produce massive cash transfers to dictators that crush locals who oppose mining projects.

The blanket, global, grassroots opposition that mining companies face against new projects everywhere has a similar effect to alcohol prohibition – times 100. We’ve waged a futile war against the supply of minerals while ignoring the demand, with disastrous humanitarian costs. If we want to stop funding dictatorships with blood diamonds and oil money, then environmental groups need to establish a league table of mining companies and projects all over the world and work with companies to promote projects with a comparatively low environmental impact and campaign in support of them to help assuage local opposition.

 

Only then can the resource curse be lifted.

 

A Peaceful Place to Mine

 

Underwater mining could supply the global demand for commodities without destroying indigenous people’s livelihood. So why do many environmental groups oppose it? (Photograph provided courtesy of Nautilus Minerals)

The rapid maturation of underwater mining technology and the exploration of underwater mineral resources could greatly curb the violations of indigenous land rights. Mining the oceans could end the battle between mining companies and locals with the accompanying corruption, bribery and militant suppression. Finally, minerals could be extracted from a region in no one’s back yard. Yet, despite the potential of underwater mining to reduce global corruption, promote democracy and protect human rights, environmentalists oppose it in a vague knee-jerk fashion to “save the tube worms.”

It’s time to grow up. If we truly support renewable energy, it’s time to decide where to mine the minerals we need to build that infrastructure.

 

John

 

Disclosure: I own a few shares in the underwater mining company, Nautilus Minerals.

 

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

Arms Races At The Speed Of Light

by

Flexible Manufacturing and Weapons Technology in The Information Age

 

Arms Races article written by John McCone
leolintang/Shutterstock.com

Dual-use weapons are as old as mankind, you can bale hay with a pitchfork or plunge it into someone’s chest, a base-ball bat can hit a home run or smash open a skull; everything from bicycle chains to chainsaws and, most recently, cars can be used to injure – and even kill – other human beings. People will always have access to the tools of death. Freedom to use a wide range of tools in a variety of activities necessarily enables individuals, with sinister inclinations, to abuse that freedom and kill others. We can only punish them after the fact.

But what if a dual-use tool could enable an average person to kill thousands, perhaps millions, of people in a short space of time? What if the benefits of this technology were so great that countries which banned it would plunge into recession?

 

Does such a technology exist?

 

Yes. It’s called flexible manufacturing and its future implications are as terrifying as they are unavoidable, with clear solutions all but non-existent.

3-D printing – the general term for manufacturing processes that can convert a digital file into any arbitrary 3 dimensional shape – is the poster child for flexible manufacturing. A rudimentary 3D printer costs a few hundred pounds while big brands, like Makerbot, might cost a few thousand. Although off-the-self 3D printers can make arbitrary shapes, the variety of materials they can use is limited. However, commercial 3D printers work with many more materials and can print aircraft and even spacecraft components! Some 3D printers can even build most of the components that are required to replicate and even upgrade themselves.

Skeptics of 3D printing technology point out that it is still often more expensive than other manufacturing techniques and that 3D printed parts are often lower quality compared to other methods…

…but 3D printing is only the most dramatic example of a general, inexorable trend for all types of manufacturing systems to become cheaper, smaller and more flexible. CNC machines can also manufacture a vast array of components of all shapes and sizes through simply downloading a file with the right information in the right format. And the cost of a rudimentary CNC machine is also £200 or so – about the same as a 3D printer.

On a factory level, 3D printers, CNC machines and other automated processes can be integrated into flexible manufacturing systems  that can rapidly switch between producing completely different products simply by inputting new instructions.

The economic case for flexible manufacturing systems, that can rapidly respond to changes in consumer demand without expensive retooling, is compelling, and, as time goes by, these systems will inevitably become ever cheaper, ever smaller, and ever more flexible.

A universal manufacturing system is the logical conclusion of this trend. A set of automated tools and robots in a small space that could manufacture anything – surgical instruments, lawn mowers, aircrafts, guns, cars, robots, computers, mobile phones, bio-weapon laboratories, tables, chairs, cosmetics, androids, cutlery – and arbitrarily switch from making one product to making another in less than a minute.

Once this technology matures, and becomes affordable to everyone, then everyone will have the capability to manufacture sophisticated, lethal military-grade weapons platforms from the comfort of their own homes.

 

Flexible Manufacturing and The International Balance of Power

 

Automation is not just about job loss. It is also enables extremely rapid shifts in the coordinated behaviour of artificial actors and manufactured goods.

 

A side effect being the distinction between the ability to produce weapons and the ability to produce economic goods of all kinds – will disappear.

In general, it takes a year or two to fully mobilize a military for large scale war. Conscripted civilians must be trained as soldiers, factories must reorganize their workforce to build armaments, dedicated armament factories must be built. And only after manufacturing state of the art weaponry, can you properly train soldiers how to use it.

Once every country on Earth has universal (or highly flexible) manufacturing systems, the switch to a war footing will take minutes. Automated weapons platforms will emerge from factories with optimized battle-software that can overcome and destroy an enemy with maximum efficiency – no training, or generals, required. Any country with universal manufacturing capability and up to date design and battle software – even ones without any military at all – will rapidly be able to create the most formidable military on Earth.

Diplomatic relations between countries depend, among other things, on the implicit knowledge of how total war would pan out – especially for the loser. A nation that anticipates defeat will likely back down as disputes with stronger nations escalate. However, if both nations mistakenly believe they could easily defeat the other, the escalation towards total war is far more likely. World War 1 is what happens when combatants grossly underestimated the cost and duration of conflict and, consequently, make little diplomatic effort to avoid it.

 

Furthermore:

Increasingly flexible manufacturing systems, and automated military units, will eliminate the barrier, and lag time, from the acquisition of a blueprint to deploying the actual weapon in battle.

 

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that in the 19th century Brazil acquires the plans for a state-of-the-art British warship. Without the U.K.’s shipyards, a knowledge of how to build them or skilled workers to man them, merely possessing a warship’s blueprint is a far cry from building it. The Brazilian state would have to invest huge amounts of money and resources to attract people from England with the right skills and know-how, train its native population to build and work in the shipyard, acquire the right grade of steal etc., etc.,. This would take decades of concerted effort. Even once Brazilian shipyards were producing British warships, a crew would still have to be trained, British naval tactics studied, etc., etc., before the military capability of a Brazilian navy even approached that of the British. And by the time Brazil got its warships in the water, British warships would be even more advanced.

 

Imitation has always been cheaper than innovation. But, in the past, successful imitation still required a lot of effort. As the pace of globalization has increased, the speed of imitation has also increased – as the meteoric rise of China demonstrates. But in the future, the time required to acquire all the technological advantages (including military technology) possessed by a competitor will approach zero.

 

Technology is information. The time it takes to copy information varies with format:

  • Digital information – Instantaneous
  • Technical information (skills, knowledge) – several years
  • Organizational information (interaction between workers in an organization) – years.

 

Skills must be learnt by human beings over several years. Skills have two components: reading and experience. Stealing books and reports from a competitor can certainly accelerate the training of one’s workforce, but the workforce of the imitator must still learn through trial and error. The same applies to organizational information, a company may have reports that define corporate policy and protocol, but there will always be an unspoken, implicit corporate culture overlaid on top which a competing rival can only develop through trial and error.

 

Automated systems store everything in a digital, instantly transferable format. When the designs of weapons (in the form of software instructions to a universal manufacturing system), the behaviour of weapon’s systems, and the protocols coordinating how different weapons platforms interact with each other as part of a coherent battle strategy, are all stored in digital format, then a single hack by an opponent could neutralize a technological military advantage that cost trillions to develop within hours.

 

For example, if, in a future where universal manufacturing systems are everywhere, the Syrian government hacked all the information possessed by the U.S. military and U.S. weapons companies. Then, within hours, Syria could put their universal manufacturing systems to work making fully-automated U.S. weapons platforms and become the military equal of America in less than a day! A technological military edge that cost trillions to develop could be lost to a team of hackers working for a small government on a budget of less than ten million pounds.

 

Arguably, high-level encryption could be deployed that may cost 100s of billions for a competitor to break through…

 

The problem is that if country A is a large superpower who has invested trillions into developing state-of-the-art automated military software and has heavily encrypted it to make it very hard to hack, country B is a rival superpower who has invested trillions into decrypting and hacking into country A’s military secrets, then if little nations C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K can get a copy of country B’s decryption software, they could potentially access all of country A’s military secrets for a fraction of the price that superpower B spent to initially develop the decryption software.

 

So military technology will become very leaky in the coming information age.

 

In this sense, Vladimir Putin’s comment that “the nation that leads in AI will be the ruler of the world”, is not accurate as that leader will likely get hacked, and lose all its hard won advantage to competitors in an instant.

Instead of one “AI superpower”, hundreds of independent sovereign nations, many ruled by shady dictators locked in regional power struggles with their neighbours, will all rapidly gain access to state-of-the-art technologically advanced, fully automated battle systems.

 

This is a recipe for global chaos.

 

The Criteria for Victory

 

The desirable design features of an automated weapons system fall into four categories:

  • Victory
  • Security
  • Safety
  • Cost

 

All categories involve trade-offs. A human in the loop may increase safety, but may also increase system response time and get defeated by a rival system. Robot swarms communicating with heavily encrypted messages, that can’t be intercepted, might exchange information at a slower rate than swarms with lighter encryption, enabling the lightly encrypted swarm to outmanoeuvre the heavily encrypted swarm. Similarly, a weapons platform that can only be built by a military-grade manufacturing system will churn out less units than one that can be mass-produced by generic civilian manufacturing systems. A weapons system that never attacks friendly units, or never launches an unprovoked strike against a neighbouring country might also be slow to fire at an attacker and get destroyed by it… and so on and so forth.

So designing a fully automated weapons system that achieves victory against all opponents while simultaneously being safe, secure and cost effective is anything but straightforward.

Nations can subjectively decide to focus on designing a safe AI weapon’s system but cannot ensure it achieves victory in battle.

 

On the whole, I think it’s likely that…

 

…the most dangerous developments in military AI will come from the weakest actors…

 

A powerful nation, confident of victory, will likely invest a lot of money into safe and secure AI weapons systems. A poorer country, on the verge of being invaded by a far more powerful foe, will throw everything into designing AI systems with maximum destructive capability, irrespective of safety and security, in order to prevail in a battle.

The U.S. deputy defence secretary, Robert O. Work tells us “there will always be a man in the loop”, but what if the U.S. decided to invade Iran with drone armies and the Iranians found they could achieve victory over America by taking the man out of the loop? Clearly such desperate, rushed measures taken by the losing side of a war could progressively increase the danger of AI military technology.

For example, what if an opponent hacks, reverse engineers and decrypts a rival nation’s battle software and swarming strategies in a degraded and incomplete form? What if their software designers do a rushed job to fill in the gap? Such imperfect, rushed attempts to replicate rival battle systems could produce weapons systems that are simultaneously highly lethal, highly uncontrollable and highly unsafe. Such rushed cyber-espionage jobs might even produce lethal weapons systems that spontaneously attack peaceful neighbouring countries by accident!

 

Weapons Proliferation to Non-State Actors

 

Imagine a simple battery-powered drone quadcopter, no larger than a dinner plate, with a dagger attached. Imagine this system is equipped with machine vision and manoeuvring software and is programmed to seek out human jugular veins, ram into them and then back out. Imagine it can achieve a kill rate, under favourably crowded conditions, of one person every 40 seconds. Imagine a swarm of 10,000 of these drones, can operate in a coherent manner like sheepdogs and corral and surround masses of terrified people before going in for the kill. Imagine these “flying daggers” massacring the residents of one city after another.

This would be an example of how sophisticated and lethal software could transform basic hardware into weapons of mass destruction. If we assume that a futuristic 3D printer which cost £500 could produce these drones a £3 a pop, then ten people chipping in £3,000 each could manufacture a swarm of 10,000 drones, download appropriate battle-ware into the drone swarm from the dark web, and kill whole cities filled with millions of people.

 

But surely states will keep their battle-ware safely encrypted?

While state battle-ware encryption may be too secure for non-state actor to design codes to penetrate, rival states will hire large teams of hackers to decrypt this battle-ware. These sophisticated decryption software packages will likely leak into the wider web. At this point, cults, companies, terrorists, mercenaries, drug gangs and small time hackers will all be able to access powerful decryption tools and obtain the designs of sophisticated weapons platforms as well as the software to control them.

At this point, everyone will have free-access to some of the most sophisticated weapons systems out there. How will the police cope?

 

Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions.

 

For example, a blanket international ban on flexible manufacturing for personal use, would be impossible to implement. How do you distinguish “personal use” from use by a small business? Any group of terrorists dedicated enough to want to destroy whole cities would also be willing to set up a small business. Or perhaps you could force all manufacturers to apply for a government-issued permit for every file they download onto a 3D printer, or manufacturing system, but what about people who design their own CAD files? Would they need to apply for a permit every time they manufactured something from a CAD file that they designed? If so rapid-prototyping would become a lot less rapid – and if not, then what’s to stop someone downloading something off the internet while claiming that they designed it themselves? The other issue is that flexible manufacturing is a sliding scale with no clear boundary. So all manufacturing would need to be heavily regulated with a hellish degree of red-tape. But this would make countries that don’t regulate flexible manufacturing vastly more wealthy, while the economy and quality of life in countries that did would diminish.

Cody Wilson’s 3D printed gun is the very small tip of a very large iceberg. If anything, he has done humanity a service by raising awareness of this critical issue early on before the shit REALLY hits the fan.

 

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

Why Bother Reading Philosophy?

by

What Is The Ultimate Benefit of Reading Philosophy?

We all want to feel proud of ourselves. To gain a sense of ultimate purpose. To feel we are living a good life the right way and, perhaps, through living well, find some way to answer that niggling question: “Why Bother?” To act morally, and with conviction, is to gain a sense of purpose, self-respect and fulfillment.

Many people just chug along in life. They make ends meet, but often don’t know why they should even bother doing what are doing. They exist but are unengaged. A lack of engagement, or sense of purpose, can have knock-on effects that damage us in very practical ways. When we don’t engage with life ourselves, we fail to engage others; we become uninteresting and people start to drift away. To compensate, we try to acquire expensive, interesting things and experiences, desperately hoping to draw people to our possessions in place of our character. The result is over-spending, debt, excess work and stress. This juggling of debt, lack of direction and precarious, eroding relationships leads to stress, demoralization, absentmindedness and tunnel vision which all press in on us and drain our will. We resort to comfort foods, drugs and alcohol with less time for exercise and sleep. A combination of poor physical health along with mental and financial stress can devastate our mental well-being.

While immediate practical problems usually have immediate practical causes (e.g. he had a breakdown due to financial stress, drug abuse and marital troubles) when we dig a little deeper down to the roots of these causes, (Why was he taking drugs in the first place? Why didn’t he manage his money better? – he was paid enough, why didn’t he spend less? Why was he having marital problems? etc.,) we find the origins of many a downward spiral start somewhere far less tangible: an inexplicable inner sense of purposelessness, a lack of value, a sense, which is hard to articulate, that there is no ultimate purpose, that things aren’t adding up… aren’t coming together.

At the core of this feeling is a constant, nagging doubt over the quality of our actions and decisions. At the heart of decisions are rules of thumb, maxims and habits. Many are unconscious, but together they form a kind of “life philosophy” that defines our actions and character. Quite often these implicit underlying assumptions, that give rise to our decisions and actions, are in conflict with one another; acting in accordance with one conviction thwarts another. When our various unarticulated drives, values and motivations become sufficiently tangled up and contradictory, confusion and self-doubt and lack of purpose inevitably arise.

We want to believe that our actions are right; that what we do has value. Yet how can we do what is right, how can our actions bring value, unless we know what “right” or “value” means? Or why we bother doing anything? Without this knowledge, an inner sense of pointlessness is unavoidable.

Hopefully it is now clear that understanding the nature of right and wrong, and acting with conviction in accordance with right principles, is central to a sense of well-being, ultimate purpose and to a life well lived. On gaining that spark of purpose and fulfillment, an inner light ignites, we know why to bother about things and it becomes much easier to reign in spending, take control of our finances, connect with others, and improve how we relate to people, our health and our lives at every level.

So how can we gain that sense of inner purpose?

How can we gain that inner conviction that helps make sense of our lives?

Some people pursue religion. Arguably just believing that something is purposeful raises our morale, even if it’s actually pointless, and, for some people, participating in organized religion can improve their sense of well-being, physical health and social life…

…but if you find religion and spirituality a bit waffly, but still seek to understand what is truly right and gain a sense of purpose…

…then you need to start reading Philosophy!

Philosophy, at its core, is the examination and improvement of the set of principles we use to make decisions. One of the benefits of reading philosophy is that it leads to better decisions, and better decisions lead to better outcomes – across the board!

But know that the path to enlightenment can be difficult and arduous.

Religion supplies answers to all of life’s important questions.

Philosophy supplies the right answers to all of life’s important questions.

Philosophy is harder than religion because it is harder to obtain the right answer to an important question as opposed to any old answer (right or wrong). But the ultimate rewards for those who possess an active, questioning and rational mind are greater.

A major limitation with academic enquiry in the sciences, the humanities, and even in philosophy itself is specialization: the slicing and dicing of reality into ever narrower fields and sub-fields, disciplines and sub-disciplines. When we study the sub-discipline of a sub-discipline, it’s easy to lose sight of the wider scheme.

True Philosophy seeks to understand and piece together the totality of existence. It is only by engaging with reality at the broadest level that a path towards meaningful, fulfilling action and a sense of ultimate purpose can truly be obtained.

Another benefit of reading philosophy is to facilitate meaningful discussions. By discussing issues at the broadest level, a broader understanding of – and deeper connection with – those who join us in philosophical discourse can be developed.

Throughout my life, I’ve striven to devote my intellectual energies to the great problems that humanity faces. I’ve researched magnetically confined fusion plasmas for the first 10 years of my career, to bring plentiful energy to everyone without burning fossil fuels. However, as time progressed, I increasingly perceived the lack of coherence between the different academic disciplines – especially between ethical theories, fundamental truth, and political and economic systems – as the gravest problem that was not being satisfactorily addressed. Eventually I turned my attention to the mammoth task of synthesizing science, ethics, economics and politics – in other words, every important aspect of human thought – into a grand coherent narrative, a logical framework that would help orient and inspire readers, but, most importantly, provide a clear path of action into the future to solve pressing problems such as poverty, war, rights and freedom. This project was the driving force behind what ultimately became The Philosophical Method.

Self-help starts with helping others. Many financial problems arise simply because a costly activity has become someone’s driving motivation. The adoption of less costly habits and hobbies can dramatically improve your financial security. The trick here is to redirect your passions. Social disconnection can often be solved through finding a source of inner motivation, pursuing it with fervour, and connecting with like-minded groups and communities. Participation in these communities can also help you develop a professional network or even find the right romantic partner. Reading philosophy can help you to initial orient yourself. This enables you to take the first step towards pursuing a healthy passion that will allow you to grow as a human being.

But it all starts with finding your inner spark, a driving force that tells you why to bother and motivates you to push forward and take on the world, enabling you to act with a confidence and conviction that inspires others to join your quest.

I hope that by reading philosophy books like The Philosophical Method some people, especially rational analytical types, will find a way to ignite that inner spark and become a powerful force for good in this world. I believe my experience working in research institutions and engineering companies, my discussions with top plasma physicists, engineers, economists and philosophers and my wide-ranging interests in philosophy, biology, physics, technology, economics, history and politics have enabled me to produce a uniquely pragmatic work of philosophy that “plugs in” to the rest of human thought and into the real world.

So why bother reading philosophy?

Because bothering is the first step you need to take to gain that inner sense of direction and motivation.

Because bothering, and caring about the truth, could be your first step towards a better life.

 

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