Modern Polymathism

America to Congress: Lay off our Liberties!

Finally, an articulate guy (non-nut job) from the militia movement talks to Congress.

He's completely right in saying that all this government intrusion will cause an uprising once public sentiment reaches a fever pitch.

You thought iRobot was just a movie - didn't you?

This is a really scary article about walking robots that will pursue "uncooperative" people during wartime. They actually have just made a deal with Taser International. The logical result is that within about 5 years or maybe less we'll see these things in warzones & maybe even riots. Then, they'll no doubt be armed with at least non-lethal weapon, but it's only logical that they'd fit then with serious hardware later.

They'll be remote controlled at first. Later they're have some autonomous features, and perhaps much later they'll be sentient - really scary. I hope the first rule is "first, do no harm". Since that won't work, we'll have to develop civilian counter measures. I'm not going to share any of my ideas, but I'm sure they'd be defeated pretty easily by some great minds. We may need to crowdsource this project. Can robots best fight robots? Could you capture them & figure it out? I don't know, but it's a little disconcerting.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/packs-of-robots-will-hunt-down.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt10_head_Pack%20hunting%20robots

Patent Perils

It shouldn't come as a shock to any reader of this blog that I prefer few restrictions on rights and less intervention into markets. I've been quite interested lately in the failure of the patent system. By this, I'm not just talking about how the USPTO is too small, too lenient, etc. I'm talking about the concept of issuing patents themselves. First, lets examine what a patent actually is.

Most people will say that patents are a form of property. While this is technically true, since they are freely tradable assets, this definition conceals the big picture of what they are really: government regulated monopolies. The government wants your innovations to benefit society, however they know that you must justify your investment. Their solution is to protect you for a few years so you could recoup costs and turn a profit. The period of enforcement started off at 3 years but has grown to 20+ today. It has basically become a way to legally to print money.

The fact is that patents allow a large amount of money to be sucked out of the economy for no promise of future innovations. Aside from this though, patents also favor large established companies where innovation returns (whether in dollars or other metrics) per investment dollar are far lower than startup companies. All things equal, this means innovations from small companies cost less and do more on the average than large companies. Not to say that a group of 3 people could cure to proverbial cancer better than a BigPharma, but on the aggregate they perform better and bring game-changing innovation to the table more often. This is the whole aim of the patent system.

There are a few ways that big companies have the upper hand in the patent playground, so let's delve deeper. Firstly, is the ability of enforcement. We all know that a small company doesn't have the resources to defend themselves against large companies even if they do have a patent. Let's look at software. If XYZ Software has valuable patented software that takes on the Big Blue, we know that IBM can come to them and say “you're infringing on these 100 patents - please settle or prepare for war”. XYZ is as helpless as a victim of an IRS audit. Patents aren't just one idea. They're a package of “claim” that number in the double and even triple digits. Try to get a quote to investigate infringement of one claim in 100 patents, and you'll find you'd go bankrupt before winning. Big Blue 1 – XYZ 0.

Also, problems can occur between two big guys. Often BigPharma get entangled in “patent tickets” which are areas of research that have been so patented that no one can legally pursue product development or even research in these areas because of the amount of IP and owners. Yes, you read that right – even university researchers can't conduct experiments without paying up. It's a gray area, but it stifles innovation.

Both of these problems, and others, have lead to the development of “patent trolls” - holding companies who hold IP just to reap profits parasitically from other companies. The most famous of these is former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures which holds over 20,000 patents. They claim to be an insurance company for those small firms who can't take on Big Blue. Their way is to fight fire with fire so that if HP says, “Look at our 1000's of patents!” you can say, “Look at our 1000's of patents. What of it?”. I believe IV provides the legal services as well. However, the net effect of this is an IP stalemate and thus a loss of applied innovation.

Patents are supposed to raise the amount of innovation, and in some industries like pharmaceuticals they are absolutely required. The response to us anti-patent-people is usually from this industry because they need patents to secure profit from the hundreds of millions of research dollars the companies spend on development. This is a tough issue. Would you keep patents if in ten years most forms of cancer were cured? It's an ethical dilemma, but I'd like to look at what would happen if it were done a different way.

A patent rewards technology for its own sake. A quick look through patents will show you thinks like a blanket with sleeves that will never be commercialized. What if, instead of the dichotomy we put forth of patents versus no patents, we had a middle ground: let's reward solutions. Technology for market's sake will always beat tech for tech's sake. At a basic level you could look toward a prize system like the X Prize Foundation. The Ansari X Prize caused an investment of over $100M from 26 teams – all for a $10M purse – still better, one team actually accomplished the mission. Companies could still justify their expenditures in the model, but instead of restricting the sale of the technology for profit, they just gave them the money.

This is a better, but still problematic system. The pharmaceuticals industry may be able to function if prizes were in the $500 million range, but I'm not sure they'd take the risks an all or nothing system. I hope I'm wrong, and that they would, it would make the solution a lot easier. Realistically though, I don't think they'd be as incentivized. A slight improvement might be a metric based payment system so perhaps more than one firm could get funds based on results. For instance, we'll pay $5,000 for every AIDS patient cured (the definition of which would admittedly require some thought). Any company to complete the result would get their payment. If you wanted to get really utilitarian, you could find those who incur the costs of an AIDS patient (like health care systems, the economy in general, etc.) to contribute that amount or less to the cause. That would really put economics to good use.

However, all these things need not be done by the government. X Prize exists already, and so do a lot of others with similar goals. Let's look at what could happen to the pharmaceutical companies if the patent system was just done away over a few years – perhaps with old patents being grandfathered for five years.

First, their stock would go down a lot in the beginning as future earnings per product were updated and priced by the market. Research would be cut and outsourced, and many facilities would be sold or subletted. An influx of scientists, facilities, equipment and intellectual property would pour into the market. Out of that, the price of all those things would go down. Also, some of these guys start development of their own ideas. Many would also end up at universities and other research institutes.

These new companies and surplus of researchers would allow many new innovations to crop up, and many would thrive in this environment. Research that was done for profit incentive would go to these new organizations. The public, vis-a-vie charities, would pile on the dough as they realize we all must come together to solve these problems. Many prize foundations would emerge, and many more university centers would also pop up due to increased funding and decreased short term costs.

All this together would turn some pharma companies into nothing more than pill makers with very low profit margins due to perfect competition. Some would succeed within the new structure and pursue the prize route. Others would probably operate in groups with trade secret protection to take on problems that no one was giving a prize for or research money. However, I would think this latter market would be slim pickings because all the trendy diseases would get prizes and institutes. Perhaps a charity would arise where donation money was divided amongst many prizes to add democracy into the function of disease prevention and cures.

The net result in this thought experiment would be the reduction of oligopoly in pharmaceuticals. This leading to a huge decrease in the price of health care (especially when combined with medical accreditation reform, but that's for another day) and a temporary reduction in research. This temporary decrease in profits would lead to a sell off of assets, personnel, etc. This would lead to lower research costs and combined with renewed public interest would bring forth new institutes, prizes and start ups. Innovation then will, if all goes as thought, reach higher levels in the long term than before. Also, it would lead to the better allocation of money to the diseases that really affect us – instead of the ones that are merely profitable.

I'm sure I've missed a lot with this. I'd really appreciate a lot of feedback & discussion. 

Awesome John Stossel Special on the Crisis & Economy

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Say G'day to Big Brother

There's an Ars Technica article that shows what may be the future of the internet in the United States. Basically, the Australian government has put filters for all "illegal" sites and content on the entire internet throughout the country. Completely ridiculous! It's amazing that this is happening. It's a huge step toward complete web censorship. I hope the Republicans don't try to pull this here, but they will (and probably are). Just wait for the next online terrorist attack to signal the DHS, NSA, FBI, CIA, et al to try to pass the Patriot Act II for the internet. Any bill sold in a red, white and blue wrapper will be bought by Republicans at least half of the nation.

Most people don't know that the Patriot Act was put through Congress before, and it was voted down. The act was actually made from a wish list that law enforcement and intelligence agencies had wanted for years, and they pounced when the time was right. This video shows open internet proponent Larry Lessig's insight on this matter.

Just thought you'd like to know for – you know – your freedom.

Nationalism and Thought

The more I find myself becoming objective, the more I find myself disliking nationalism and patriotism. It seems like everyone loves their country - but for what? In the United States we talk about how powerful and rich our country is like the Romans talked of the “glory of Rome”. This causes blind thinking whether you're the USA or some country no one's heard of. This leads to ethnocentrism which, if you have the power we do, leads to an aggressive foreign policy with preemptive war , nation-building, peacekeeping, etc. - all things many people would be appalled at.

I was listening to a blood-boiling program on the radio as I drove to work one morning: Quinn and Rose. Both extreme nationalists, or as they say patriots, who believe America can do no wrong. If you believe America was, is or could be in error, you are part of the “blame-America-first-crowd” and are by their definition a nut job. Such an open mind they possess. I heard them say the other day something like, “Do you want American power to wane so that we can't enforce democracy?” and “If [America] doesn't promote democracy, who will? If we don't, the world will fall into socialism”. This view is amazing in both its arrogance in assuming America-knows-best, and also that we have some kind of right or mandate worldwide to perform such actions. What happened to the days of the “shining city on the hilltop”? We need to set an example of good practices, not impose them.

Nationalism gets in the way at home too. In our campaigns, it's like a contest to see who can sport the most flags, eagles, etc. - usually the Republicans win. The problem is we always say: “Americans are the best at [insert anything here] in the world!” or “We have the best [everything] in this country”. It's a problem because, by assuming we do it the best of anyone, we become blind to things we need to improve. Many people are surprised to hear that South Korea has a wireless infrastructure far better than our in the States.

Nationalism is only one concept in a long list of isms such as racism, sexism, elitism, etc. that take a group like the nation, race, gender, or class and try to turn that into a wedge to divide groups of people. Every politician says they're a uniter not a divider, and they're all liars. Republicans commit this a lot with nationalism, religion and culture (which all heavily overlap), but as I try to think of more, I keep coming to groups the Democrats use for this purpose such as: race, gender, class, income, diet, consumption habits, etc. It makes sense because they ascribe to social conflict theory that portrays humanity as a struggle between groups. Therefore, every issue is framed this way. The polar opposite of the leftists are the libertarians who believe every one from the bus driver to the CEO of the bus company deserve equal rights and treatment under the law.

In the end, we need to stop defining ourselves by all these crowd pleasing reference groups, and instead we should do something novel in politics: THINK!

The Taming of Humanity

I've often wondered why so many societies have evolved into accepting a reduction of freedom for an increase in safely. I know my friend from France would always challenge my views on what a society should look like; she saying that the poor must be helped and that health care was a human right. Obviously, I completely disagree with her, but I'm intrigued as to why people often tend to want a hand out as apposed to actually doing it themselves. Risk aversion, it seems, has been hardwired into us to a higher degree than ambition. This makes a lot of sense because a dead person doesn't reproduce, but a safe half-wit probably still will. In nature, you never really see ambitions beyond being leader of the pack. Their societies really don't get as large or complex as ours so ambition really never appears.

The problem goes further than this though. In a society, most people will lead average lives never knowing much more than the geography, people and ideas of the surrounding areas. They also will never take a risk of starting a business – or even just breaking a taboo now and then. It's funny how much conformity has taken over our lives.

I think the reason for this might have something to do with the process of taming. In the animal world, everything (including ourselves) started out as a wild beast. Over the years, we've domesticated some by breading and others through force. I always think of how they break a horse. In the end the horse becomes a slave to its master. Human, I believe, have tamed each other. Some are more shepherd than sheep, but all play both roles to a certain degree.

I don't think people look at domestic animals in this way because of our affection for them, but if your dog was a wolf he'd probably look at you more as food than friend. A pet or farm animal is basically in a symbiotic relationship with humans. We give them food, drink, water, shelter, and in return they show us affection and companionship. It's a good deal for both of us, but they loose their freedom. We loose nothing but some food we'd never eat. The wild horse is enslaved through the breaking process. I bet both biological breading and behavioral shaping can take place in the human population as well.

It seems this is becoming more and more widespread as people throughout the world first gain freedom from their masters in emerging countries (anywhere from the early US to modern India) and then begin to request more and more state services. In affect, these people are pets of the state. No, they don't have to worry about food, shelter, etc., but they've lost their freedom. The state on the other hand looses nothing but some money that they took from the people anyway.

The question that comes to my mind is: can we de-tame the populous? Can we instill the human spirit back into them? Perhaps humans can become feral again and gain our love of independence that seems to exist so naturally. I'm not sure though. In cats, they say they can become wild fairly quickly if they aren't raised from the time they're a kitten. The problem is that all of us were raised in a society with these handouts from the start. We haven't known another other way. Sometimes I wonder if a massive crisis is needed to show us that in fact these systems aren't sustainable in the long term. We're seeing many European countries opening their markets and deregulating – at least until recently. The US has been moving to the European model for decades. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1912, the government has been heavily manipulating the marketplace. Today, we have so many systems governing the marketplace that the Democrats can honestly think that we were “deregulated” when in fact there many government organizations such as the Fed, Treasury Department, SEC, etc. who have been working to “smooth” the market. Some job they've done to – remember that this recession and the Great Depression were both under the Fed.

A Coming Solution?

This brings me to my last point. If our state of nature is to be free, perhaps its possible to train the populous that openness is a good thing. Look at the internet. Research shows that people who use the internet a lot tend to be libertarian. Does this mean the internet attracts libertarians or does it make libertarians? I have no data to suggest either way, but I think the potential is there to show that the internet (and technology in general) can help us open our minds. Internet taxes are opposed by everyone but some special interest groups. In real life, everyone seems cool with some degree of taxation. On the net, you can tell if the market is being manipulated by looking at gray and black market products from jeans to music that are overcoming copyright regulations.

This is not to say the internet is beyond the reach of reckless power. As Larry Lessig has proffered, we are at turning point in the road on the internet. One path takes us to an open web that allow amazing possibilities in light and because of a high degree of openness. The other path turns the internet into a closed system where packet filtering controls which types of content the Man approves of. Want mp3s? You'll need heavy DRM. Have a penchant for eBooks? Pay up. This restriction in information is what caused the Dark Ages. I'm optimistic however. I believe that openness is coming back in style. Politics, as always, is behind the curve. I always think of this quote:

“No army is so powerful as an idea whose time has come” -Victor Hugo

The Beauty of Markets

I'm always amazed by the efficiency of markets. Within the past year, I've searched for both houses and cars quite rigorously, and I have yet to see the price system produce a number that wasn't in line with reality. Yea, maybe you got a car for $1k less than market value, but was it during bad economic times? Was the buyer in a hurry? All these things must be accounted for. It all happens so fast and efficiently because each agent is so interested in extracting as much economic value out of their side of the transaction that a combination of apparent information & gut feeling (your subconscience's opinion) lead a system of give and take all the way to the proper price. Negotiation is really just trying to consciously change the other's subconscience opinion to give you a better deal.

Economics is the answer to the question of scarcity. Pure capitalism uses the market pricing system to signal the true value of an object (its scarcity) and to direct the economic agents to act accordingly. This is why carbon taxes actually make a lot of sense to deter climate change (however it's currently defined) because they price environmental scarcity (you know, like, the one habitable planet) into the economy.

I think that capitalism transcends humans though; it's throughout all of nature. Think of a scenario with clover, rabbits and foxes. The clover grows a lot and rabbits multiply. Foxes start to multiply because of the increase in rabbits, but by this time the clover is getting low. Rabbits start to die off – causing the foxes to die off. The clover then regrows and the cycle starts again. This is capitalism - resource scarcity goes up and down, and the market adjusts wonderfully. You could easily replace those three items with any natural or human system of the type, and you'd get the same result.

It goes beyond supply and demand though. Let's look at the lion. The lion's occupation is a hunter – a self made entrepreneur. Its target market: gazelle, zebras, etc. Competitive boundaries are defended by force – just like a company. In fact, its area of operation is home and therefore is its de facto property. If the lion kills a gazelle, it keeps its kill in a tree to keep it away from the competition – just like savings. It's capitalism!

Look at spontaneous human interaction. In Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, there were thousands of illegal kiosks that sold everything the government used to. In sub-Saharan Africa there are traders and merchants without any real government oversight. This is capitalism. You will never hear of a government falling, and its citizen turning spontaneously to communism. It's not in our blood. Actually, there is an interesting exception. There was a very large group of people who lived in communes with shared property - they were the American Indians. Their society didn't survive its encounter with the west. Look today, now they all have casinos. Capitalism sure is a catchy meme.

For these reasons, we can't separate ourselves from our nature. We must instead embrace it and find ways to better exploit it. Instead of asking for more regulation – we need more transparency. Instead of government controlled banking – we need competition in currency. Will there be recessions? Of course. This is the way of things. Just as the rabbits die when there's no clover or many foxes – so does the economy when there is no credit or much inflation.

My Journey Continues

Metamorphosis

After a long hiatus, I'm back on the horse with much inspiration from Brian Lash's blog as well as having too many thoughts to keep to myself. As I start this again, I look back to what the blog was supposed to be, what it was, and what it will be. The purpose still is to cover my life journey as I strive to become a modern polymath (hence the title). A major part of this struggle is that of yearning for the truth – whatever that is. You cannot be bias & be open by definition, and human nature tells us that our concept of self & of the world is flawed. With this said, there is only one inevitability for the beliefs of an aspiring polymath: change.

An certain inevitability has been bearing down on me for years. Finally, my thoughts & these concepts have finally collided and the result? Change. Change and also the truth have both won the day. This is both good and bad, but before I go on to describe this change I must reveal what I've come to believe: there is no God. It's very hard for me to even write this, but I very much believe it to be true. Now, I will go about telling you the story of my deconversion. Learn what you will & please feel free to challenge me on any of the point I've made.

As someone who puts the search for truth at the top of the list of things to do, I have gone about quite methodically. Perhaps, this is why any change in my life takes its time in happening. This one was no different. As time went on many layers of my beliefs have gone to naught, and this room is still becoming filled by others.

Peeling the Onion

The roots of my deconversion can be traced to first coming in contact with atheists & agnostics – something quite uncommon from where I come. As I met them, and still a Christian, I began to believe it was my duty to God to convert them. If my beliefs are, I thought, I could only gain their salvation or strengthen my beliefs. There was a lot of literature both ways. Being open I read the atheist points with interest as well as the Christian defenses. There is such a depth of literature on both sides but when you remove your bias (as I was thankfully able to do) you see the disillusionments of both sides. On the Christian side, they often scorned science and discouraged challenges. On the atheist side, they were very much uninformed about Christian or any other theology. Sure, they would look through the Bible, but they'd just cherry-pick verses out of context.

The first challenge to my faith was that of merging science with religion – something very popular these days to do. There are layers of literature arguing for such concepts like “intelligent design” or “biologos”. The intelligent design side even has its ranks of scientists that have some evidence that evolution is impossible or that carbon dating is flawed. The problem for the curious reader is when you look into their bibliography to find the actual science.

Take evolution, eventually the argument comes to the Stanley Miller-type experiments that show that amino acids can be made spontaneously from simpler molecules at early Earth conditions. The Christian scientists say that, since his work rests on the condition of a low oxygen atmosphere, that it is incorrect. Interestingly, I find it strange a real scientist would just reject such claims even though only one condition (which can still exist on earth, think: botulism) remains false. These types of claims are easy to debase as are similar ones - such as rapid coal formation based on the case that a metal pot was found in a large lump of coal which was later proven to be coagulated coal dust and tar.

More convincing Christian scientists such as Francis Collins (of human genome fame) have come forward with books that say Christians must accept evolution, but that still doesn't disprove God. I accepted this for a while - that the writings in Christianity were more metaphorical when it came to the science, but in all other matters it was still the word of God. Basically, his thesis (and mine at the time) was that God can't be proven because that would alter free will. For example, if God was in the sky so that anyone could see him, we'd have no choice but to believe in God. This is an interesting argument in that it's relatively rigorous in its explanation. If God was all-powerful he could choose to engineer a universe that was unable to prove his existence. There reason for this would be to allow faith in him so that people willfully picked him – instead of being forced to. I thought of it being similar to the feeling of attracting a girl because she was into you – not because you used a knife to coerce her to go on dates.

This seemed like a good argument. It held up pretty well, and no one could really disprove it - I thought. However, we could explore further if we approach the problem from the opposite side. Instead of looking at creation problems, we should look at the roots of faith itself. It's been with mankind before recorded history. The various fertility relics found in cultures of early man showed that the same people who painted caves also believed in God. Christian apologists, such as C. S. Lewis, will tell you that God was always evident to people, but that the Hebrew faith and its further evolved son Christianity were the most pure and true versions of God and worship. This, they explain, is the reason why there are so many common themes throughout most major world religions.

This argument further erodes what faith is, but it still doesn't explain away everything that would keep me from accepting atheism (or at least agnosticism). For this we must see if human faith could be found to be scientifically explainable or is it truly supernatural. To this, I referred to the concept of memes – ideas that evolve, mutate and spread like a virus, with varying degrees of success. Religion, as some approached it, was a very contagious meme (think: viral marketing – not bird flu). As this meme evolved through human time it encountered problems and defenses were made. This shows why it is so resistant to change. Christianity, and the major world religions, are very good responses to the human condition. They explain away death, hardship, etc. This doesn't mean, however, that they're true. When I looked at Christianity, stripped bare of all its layers of defense, I saw what I now believe to be the truth: Christianity is a great meme, but it not the truth.

Now, post religion, there are still questions and issues. Believing the world is governed by pure chance and various nature systems in homeostasis leaves something to be desired. What of morals - are they relative or perhaps nonexistent? What of love - could it be just a chemical response to induce mating? What of humanity - will we survive? Do we have no rights? Unlimited rights? I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone can. I will, however, continue my search for this knowledge, or at least a good sense of humor, to progress through this: my human condition.