Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

The #Fridayforfuture is slowly waking up from the magic spell they where under, the hypnosis of ego boosting and promising words. Greta led by denouncing the endless “blahblahblah” that the fossil economic lackeys and non-caring older generation leaders think will put the youth to sleep.


But the climate activist community also has to understand what they want, they want change. They are asking for it hoping that those who pretend to manage things with the most moral experience will adjust and correct the error of causing climate damage, hopefully fast. But those in the roles that matter are NOT interested in doing that. They have decided its more important for them to have a decent life with their family than whatever comes after. They have rationalized its useless to try. There is a whole group of hardliners that just doesn’t care what comes after, who even get relief from knowing it will be chaos. Nobody can blame them.

China is shutting down parts of industry, it has done it to reduce air pollution, during the Olympics. You can shut down parts of industry.

The climate movement needs to understand it can not wait for people to do the opposite of what they work every day to do, so an oil company wil NOT stop being an oil company, a polluting chemical company will not stop being that, a lot of people proud of their fireplace, BBQ, big house and flying habits will NOT stop doing all that. Everyone lives in a bubble and only some have are sensitive to reality, most are padded by beliefs that sometimes even can’t be challenged because there’s simply no impulse to test reality.

So what do you do now? The young people will replace the leadership, but it works way better if they grab it instead of trying to earn it. For that they need a movement that is a bit more assertive than the one that shows signs in the street. And because such movement will evoke resistence and smearing etc. its best if its not a public movement. In some countries you will get killed for opposing oil and banking interest (which are very closely intertwined). A movement like Extinction Rebellion has softened because its leaders are vulnerable and want to live normal lives. The power over lives of industry is vast, and they justify it because after all who builds the roads, who provides the food, who arranges the heat and water etc. No invidual action will dink the armour of industry.

Simple rules of Are you in?

The only option if you don’t want blahblahblah is to shut up, become unnoticable and do what you think has to be done together with others. Or you try to get into positions of power with help of others. You basically play the same game as is done on the right, only with a different agenda. The fossil/banking power is concentrated in governments and will resist, but the population is on the side of the climate activists, after all fossil fuel is not the only energy option. People don’t like to be working their ass off (some do, and they are made the example). is a set of rules for reviewing actions of individuals in 2030, and rewarding those people who achieved the most to reduce the danger of climate change. You don’t have to pledge allegiance, you don’t have to name yourself as part of the coalition. You have to show you support its agenda. Its one that can bind all climate activists, because more renewable energy and less CO2 emissions both helps reduce the danger of climate change.

Everyone in the world can help meanwhile, everyone can support someone that faces opposition or even threats for being active, for taking the risk to themselves. A public outcry against carbon pollutors is not necessary, as long as action happens. In 2030 it may be chaos, it may be that there is order and the has been fully embraced. Thin film solar may be rolling of presses and accellerating solar deployment on a massive scale.

what helps is if the climate youth learn about technology, go into tech education. Education that teaches them to actually produce life or robots or installations we need. At the same time they need to figure out how to get in to political positions. At the same time I don’t care what they do, if it is effective it will be noted and rewarded in 2030. Sometimes you have to just open the gate. Keep up the lying, the illusion of SDGs, the failing on purpose (an old trick), the hard fought victory over one square foot of land. Do it. Go for it. Don’t talk about it. Don’t ask for it.

Decoding “Green Growth”

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

We need to be headed for a better future. As we endeavour to do so we need to make the best choices we can. Simple principles can guide us. It is for that reason we have to say “maximize life” for example. It can’t hurt, if you are planting you are helping.

The nature of non-fossil industry driven politics is that its diverse. That’s because there’s many solutions to meet the needs of mankind once you stop focussing on just one : fossil fuels. In order to not be in each others way we thus need to adopt a more simple minded attitude and allow details to be figured out when we get to them. In this light I want to decode the “Green Growth” criticism of Monbiot

Green growth is to mean growing the economy while not emitting any more CO2 or destroying the ecosystem. This is already a loaded meaning, because it contains the word “the economy” which is a concept that we only know from its fossil based variant. We never had a non fossil fuel zero CO2 world economy. The rural economy of 1900 bears no resemblance to our current high octane one, one with limitless fuel credit (coughing up $3.4 Trillion is no problem, or so Biden thinks).

A green economy is thus a mixed concept. If it means an economy fully powered by renewables then of course it can work and it won’t damage the ecosystem because the pressure to get stuff from anywhere and consume it which is largely caused by banks seeking cashflow will be absent. This economy I branded the Roboeconomy.

If you mean the current economy trying to green itself by introducing hydrogen as a LNG derviative, with the same banks creating an energy market that destroys the value of renewables because it pretends that battery storage doesn’t exist then obvious its a non-starter. You can’t burn fossil fuel to reduce the CO2 concentration or lower emissions.

The concept of growth has the same two options. Growth based on renewables is green, growth based on fossil fuels is never green. Of course the concept of growth was invented in the fossil based economy to make us believe something good happened. In fact it did, more people where born, living well fed happy lives as more fossil fuels powered more internal combustion engines and power plants allowing more factories to produce more products and wealth. At the cost of our atmosphere and the ecosystem. The marker has been global cashflow, which is what the global economy tries to maximize.

Renewable based growth is resource growth, not cashflow growth. It means solar panels are used to make more solar panels, more wind turbines are build by using the energy of previously build wind turbines. More trees are planed by people living off planted trees. Add to this the use of robots and AI and this can be a real boom. The potential is 2500 times the current global economy, which is extremely inefficient and wastefull.

So I would not agree with Monbiots statement without the qualifications above. Its a confusing and discouraging. Because growth and increase in wealth will be the norm as we add more and more renewable energy sources, even als we have to deal with the calamities and possibly fatal consequences of chasing fossil economic growth..

How to be a Roboeconomist

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

The Roboeconomy is an economy based 100% on renewable energy and fully automated with use of AI. The current economy differs fundamentally in its dependence on fossil fuel credit, e.g. banks extend credit (in USD or EURO etc.) which would never work to achieve anything if the currency would not buy fossil fuels (gas, coal, oil, and derivatives). Once you recognize this you can call our current economy a fossil credit economy, and you can see that banks do not like renewables when they can be onwed by anyone except them or a ‘market’ they control.

The fundamental insight of a roboeconomists is to see that

Wealth = Energy x Skills x Materials

In other words, I can create something of use to you if I have these elements, so for instance bread and ham and cheese, the motor skills to turn them into a sandwich and the energy (I can’t be starved) to do it. Energy can be manpower, machine power, solar wind or fossil fuels, Skills can be AI, human skills or a mechanism, and materials are raw ore or scrap metal etc. But the formula holds and the energy does not need to be fossil (nor does money play a role). Maximize the parts and you will maximize wealth and thus humanities prosperity.

Renewables can yield 2500 the annual amount of energy the whole of humanity currently uses

A roboeconomists sees the potential of automation to embody this formula and create the wealth humans want and need. The energy can come from wind, solar, wave energy. The usual fossil suspects are ruled out because they effectively reduce the material side of the formula, trees are burning at an alarming rate, and fossil runs out, it is toxic, pollutes and we can’t afford more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Banks don’t like renewables because they will become obsolete if people or their communities own enough renewable energy sources

The positive aspect is that if you take this approach a deprature from fossil is not some kind of return to the gulags but a step ahead into a more prosperous healthier and cleaner world. The economics of Roboeconomics is different though, because you can’t just grab a whole bunch of energy (fossil credit) and suddenly make many ICE engines run and make things happen, for example now you build a school, you buy cement and that monly pays for a ton of fossil fuels used to make the cement, transport it and mix it etc. Or you buy steel reinforcement for concrete and your money buys the coal of the steel mill etc.

Imagine what your Euro or Dollar would be worth if you or anyone you give it to could not buy any fossil fuel with it (or gas electricity)

This steel example can show the effects of the Roboeconomic revolution : Steel mills are going electric. They are cleaning the iron ore out of the coke with electric heat in a closed furnace. They own their own solar plants or wind plants to do it. This means that the steel they produce will be cheaper! It is a heavy material so a lot of the cost are in transportation. If they use electric rail and supply renewables to it, that cost will also drop. The roboeconomists looks to replace fossil energy everywhere with renewables so that cost drop. Banks do not like this (as this process is already underway) and fight it, now with right wing politics and by pushing people into maximal debt (so they don’t go against the right side of politics).

To reach the Roboeconomy we need to prioritize building more Renewable Energy sources as fast as we can especially close to essential industry

So as a Roboeconomists you say “We need more renewables fast, as close to where I live” and “We need to automate what we can but always use electricity or renewables directly”. The more little islands of roboeconomy develop, the weaker the fossil/banking lobby gets and the clearer the advantages can be demonstrated. We need technically skilled people to work this economy especially in light of climate change. We need AI and robots for many tasks, so they need to become cheaper and more people should be able to design, repair and control them. Even though the task is enormous, humanity is 8 billion strong and the Roboeconomy will be forever. So let’s get to it!

We need to do stuff like insulate and plant trees and change the transport system to fight climate change, but we need to do it with renewables so that the domination of fossil fuels and its lobbying power is reduced as early as possible

Stalking vs Courting in Male Mating Behaviour

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

This is a post about male sexuality and heterosexual man/woman relationships. I have been thinking about this both because of what we see in (bad versions of) Islam and other religions and what I have learned about some serial killers from Dr. Todd Grande on youtube (who seemed to be milking his format now but ok), who described how sexually frustrated men hating women end up abusing and killing them. It is a concern that some men develop into risks for women or that a culture can become fundamentally abusive and I wanted to see if there is an angle by which you can reduce or neutralize the risk of development in this direction.

Men can be unguided missiles

A man will have sexual desires. Those desires are not constant and can be modulated by the actual situation the man finds himself in. The more love he feels the lower his sex drive. This love can occur in a healthy relationship with a woman. The more love a man feels the more respect he will have for whatever he loves, because love makes one view others as part of one’s self. This is the best outcome if a man goes through life. He may have children with the woman he loves and those will be protected by him as well.

A culture of courting and impressing

If a man is unlucky however, he misses or ignores one ability that makes all the difference. He does not court a woman, nor does he court ‘the world’ (practice). This can be because he views himself to be worthless or views women to be worthless or both. His self worth may have been damaged by stark rejections or by his parents. He may be mentally incapable of behaving in an attractive way or he may not have felt love in his life. Many factors can contribute to a lack of showing off his control over himself and the world in order to impress a woman (we’re speaking heterosexual individuals still).

To court is to do something that you hope will attract female attention and approval. The woman is free and remains free.

If the man does not court he is not likely to gain interest of women. In some cases the man is so attractive he just doesn’t need to do anything (in such cases the man can actually be a real jerk Baudetughe!). But in cases he is not he is now relegated to do something else, because his sex drive still tells him to focus on certain things, that promise to satisfy him sexually. Here his other main talent comes into play. The hunting behaviours. This includes stalking, objectifying, being secretive or indirect looking for weakness in the woman, etc. etc. There is no show put on for the woman, the man wants the woman to be unaware. Any final approach of a woman will overlap with a mental pattern of “going for the kill”. The soul of the woman does not matter. Rape or murder may be the outcome.

I think, and I may be too simplistic in my reasoning, that to make men safe for women, it is essential they focus on exploring courtship behaviour. For that the woman must be available to be courted. If the male sexual desire emerges and it is hard to try out ways to impress or gain access to women, the man will become frustrated and this in turn may make him choose the stalking type approach, also because he may be afraid of women and certainly does not feel women are like him and should be treated with the same respect as he treats himself.

Frustrated men having boy sex slaves in Afganistan

I think we can see in every culture what the general exposure of women to men is, and the behaviour will accordingly be more stalky or more courting. Of course as aside effect of a courting society men try to impress other men. A society where men mostly hang out amongst other men this can lead its own life. But at least it is not harmfull behaviour (unless the leader starts to make the men aggressive for his own ends Hitler/Baudetuche!). In some cultures the men clearly don’t try to impress the woman but impress the men under who’s care the women lives. The women is basically traded. Women from such male dominated societies sometimes really expect a man to give instructions. They live silent separate lives (apart from the sex) and do not actually care about the man, even though they do all the things he wants from them.

There should always be a way for both sexes to be attractive to each other. If one dominates the other this leads to a spiral of abuse because the men will be frustrated and want to assert their physical strength. Some cultures end up institutionalizing this abusive balance

I think that if a man shows stalking behaviour he should be made aware and be asked or incouraged to court (not a specific woman but in general). This will actually raise his self esteem and confidence. Now he might still be a psycho so this is a highly laymen level analysis, but I wanted to share it. If you are a man and find yourself peeking at woman’s part (creeping basically) try to do something courteous. Of course you’re still left with questions of what would be the thing to do, and for that knowledge also the relationship between men and women must be relaxed…

Women should encourage men to court them in order to keep their minds in the right place. If the men don’t get a women at least they do something that others can appreciate.

In industrialized countries a new way for dominance over all people emerges : People are unable to produce what they need themselves, they are in cities far removed from for example farmland that produce the food they need. Their lives are molded and channeled by constant instructions from media that is payed to distract them from their own lives. The dislocation of agency and potential is immense. Industry (as an organization in which people cooperate to make products) in the mean time does know what it wants : More able workers. The figures and indicators will show : better workers means more product for less money, meaning more profit! The people who are participating in an unreliable way (they can get fired) can not contest this logic, even if it is inhuman, and are forced to be an agent for it. This leads (amongst other things) to the idea that an unborn child is of value and should be born even if the mother objects. Lawmakers that have been completely brainwashed by industrial thinking have given way to this kind of dominance in Texas recently. This is not male dominance but industrial dominance where industrial thinking is more or less parasitical on both humans and the environment!

Industry is like a separate species humans aid and embody because they need comfort. By its principles industry tries to take comfort away from individuals that do not serve it!

We see that to make sure this industrial dominance does not happen the persons involved need to express their courting behaviours. They need to have them. They can not be bland accountants in suits. Those individuals are examples of where the need to escape punishment (by a overbearing parent or by their own ambitions) has defeated self expression. It is well known psychopathy is frequent in leaders of industry, meaning they do not care about other people. It may be a good heuristic to require them show courting personalities, but also the product must court, the company as a whole must court. Rejection should end a company. It seems this spectrum between courting and stalking may be a good way to direct us towards a better world with more happy people.

Psycho’s and schizo’s can’t be cured. Charming but capable of bashing a womens head in for no reason

All the above taken into account, some individuals are schizophrenic to a level that they really don’t know or feel the same way about the world or themselves from one moment to the other. It is entirely possible such person will be courteous but shift to total psycho when triggered. Ted Bundy comes to mind. So the above is just for inspiration and maybe guidance when it comes to otherwise normal men.

What If All Pension Funds Would Divest From Fossil?

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Three dutch pension funds have divested from fossil, from Shell (amongst others). The reason : Shell is not greening its business fast enough. There are ethical concerns (duh!) to leave even though the performance of fossil investments is generally good. There are calls to most pension funds to dump fossil assets, but the big ones are not showing any willingness to comply with those demands. I have argued this makes total sense due to the nature of pensions, which completely rely on a fossil fuel based economy to deliver on their promise.

In the fight for climate action we have one major force against us, this is the financial/banking system. It is still financing so many fossil consuming activities that fossil fuel consumption managed to go up in recent years. Without investment and loans from banks no company could buy the fuels and use it in their activities, so the key driver of emissions is bank credit. This is the core activity of banks. They are all over the globe and do this everywhere especially if there are natural resources that can be processed.

So what would happen if all the investments in fossil fuel went somewhere else? You’d think nothing much, but this is not true. The investments in fossil fuels don’t do much. The money sits in acccounts and the fossil industry does its thing. The money is not really spend. If you think the fossil industry needs money you are wrong, it has fossil fuels, and it can pay any cost with fossil fuel credits it creates itself. It doesn’t but that’s so we don’t think of money as what it is : fossil fuel credit. But if you invest a billion in Shell you just own a billion in Shell stocks and Shell has a billion in a bank account. Nothing happens.

If a pension fund pulls out 2 billion from its fossil fuel investments things -do- start to happen. Imagine it invests in Vestas, a wind energy company. Vestas has a portfolio of projects, it is working at max capacity (I assume for the moment) it needs bigger factories and more workers to do more and make more profit. If existing shares are bought this has zero effect, except that the rating of Vestas will be good or improve, and Vestas can borrow more to expand. If it does the latter fossil fuels will be consumed to realize that expansion. Fossil fuel that would not have been consumed otherwise. Fossil fuel the fossil fuel companies did not intend to be consumed when they designed the current pension system (because that did not fall from the sky).

If the 2 billion go into -new- shares Vestas sells (which would be preferred) then Vestas will embark on an expansion of its activities over several years. It will aquire companies it now has to pay a profit margin on. It will cause the consumption of considerable amounts of fossil fuels. This will all be good consumption because the wind energy will reduce future fossil fuel consumption over a long period. It can spend on R&D, design new, better turbines, new deployment methods, new materials. This is what you hope for.

The above shows that when money from pension funds move from fossil investement to renewables investments they can mean more fossil is consumed. This can in the current market mean that fuel prices go up. Spain recently increased diesel prices because of a supply shortage. Imagine someone in Spain suddenly deployed a million diesel powered airco’s (monsterous things). Then the fuel prices would go up again. We all compete for the same fossil resources, even against machines!

The fossil companies and the banks do not want money to shift from being unused to causing fossil fuel consumption, especially when that consumption causes less fossil energy use in the future! They will lobby and argue (and have put rules in place) to keep the money ‘stored’.

If all pension fund money would be spend on building more renewable energy sources (which is the best way to allocate it) the renewable energy sector would explode and prices of renewable energy sources would drop even more (including batteries). This would in fact lower the prices of all products because all products use energy to be made.

It would be a question if the value of the pension funds actually mattered, especially once the investment in renewables was so large and the amount of energy so abundant that making more renewable energy sources would cost next to nothing, because what is cost? It is an dependency on some external resource. It is possible to imagine factories that need no external resource it has to pay for. The only cost would be ‘protection tax’ from the authorities, or the cost of the mining consession. All those costs could be payed with energy from the renewable sources produced, so exactly like an oil company can pay with oil, a solar panel company could pay with solar panels.

I have written years ago that if we would invest 4 years of pension premiums into renewable energy sources (at prices 10 years ago!) we could stop paying premiums and be sure the production capacity was available to produce food and comfort for -all- future generations. This should make you conclude that pensions are really just an instrument to quiet the minds of workers in the fossil credit economy that was designed around 1930-40, by banks wishing wealth for all and world peace. Their tool to achieve it however turned out to be poison so this is why we need to shift to new energy sources and as soon as possibile.

If all pension funds invest in renewable energy we won’t need them anymore. The amount of energy for producing wealth and restoring our atmosphere that is available to us maxes out at 2500 times the energy we need to run our world economy today. That’s right. We can have the energy to run not two world economies but two and a half thousand more. Our fossil ration is abusive and we can see that because there are many sun drenched poor countries. This is all because fossil interests are protected. If you are a pension fund and you can divest from fossil do so now. If you can invest in companies that try to expand their battery and renewable energy source production than that is what you should do.

The Risk of Generally Artificial Intelligent Agents Illustrated

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account
James Holmes shot people in a movie theatre after years of showing clear signs of bad mental health..

People in the AI community are worried about so called ‘General Artificial Intelligence’. This means so much as an autonomously operating world aware system that can act in our world (through some kind of embodiment). The problem is that it is not far fetched to assume such a system has better learning and aquisition capability, and it would be necessarily true it would have dynamic goal definition, what we experience as volition, meaning it would decide what it did on its own.

Humans like to place themselves far from machines to the point of not wanting to understand anything of mechanical systems or technology. We are however mechanisms, albeit quite complex, and the mechanism can break down or have a defect. Its not advised to speak about it this way however because it reduces empathy and this is our only protection from each other. Because of that one could even argue that viewing a human or animal as a mechanism should never be encouraged, which would mean don’t teach science or biology. The benefit of science seems to be where it raises wealth to a level that makes people peacefull but does not destroy the environment. Now that that is already happening we need science to get us out of the mess (but I digress).

Some people worry about a future general artificial intelligence killing the people who did not help it come about. Thinking like Holmes it could ask itself “Why are people alive?” and then it could argue that certainly the people that did not want it to exist would have to go. This is the AI called “Basilisk” also know as Grimes and Musks reason to first hang out.

Back to AI. I have written about levels of AI. A hammer is a tool, you provide the skill. An autopilot in a plane is a mechanism that respons to deviations from set parameters (course altitude, speed), you provide those parameters. Then you reach the AI level where the goal is chosen based on parameters. This could be an autopilot in a plane that diverts to another airport if it sees dangerous weather at the initial destination. This mechanism still does not need to have any awareness, it does not need to know it is a plane, it does not need to know it has to stay intact to protect the passengers. If you allow the system to calculate a landing risk factor for all the airports or when the chosen destination risk rises above a certain level, you have an autopilot that chooses its destination. Rule based. still.

The analysis of Holmes as a sentient unempathic machine..

The level above that is the aware AI. Awareness and consciousness are about behavioural options and influencing the outcome of the decision making process. If we can’t choose our behaviour we become more aware of our circumstance. This means we learn about it and this should skew the value of our options to one or the other. Once we know the best course of action we become unaware of the waypoints we pass until we once again hit an undecidable situation. If that situation is not uncomfortable we may remain passive and enjoy the experience, if it is we feel anquish, stress, anxiety which is basiclaly our brain trying to mix things up so one of the options comes out on top.

Holmes could develop his murderous intent without much interference. A psychiatrist worried about him committing a crime because of his “long standing fantasies about killing as many people as possible”, but he wasn’t specific enough (!). He did have to suppress his awareness of dealing with people by playing loud music.

Now the trouble with the above is that the awareness can be flawed. We see this in humans all the time. We see people don’t care about each other or don’t consider the effects of their actions for others. We see people being focused too much on themselves or others or being obsessed by objects or habits or virtual dangers or opportunities. It is in short not easy to have a mind that is useful and safe even for oneself. The key to safety seems to be empathy, which is a feeling. Its the proces of imagining a situation you see someone else in to the point that it evokes the same feelings in your mind as it probably does in the mind of the one who’s life you are considering (language gets convoluted). Its a talent. You are born with more or less of it.

The imaginary Basilisk could kill with his gaze.. Its the name of an assumed superhuman general AI.

If as a human you are not interested in other people’s position (you are a narcisist) or you are in the case of James Holmes born with an inability to feel (it seems). You have a problem. You may be able to imagine the effect of actions, because your neocortex and cerebellum keep track of that even if you don’t pay attention. But you can’t tell if one action is worse than another. You have no awareness of ‘bad’ because you never felt pain or affect for yourself or anybody else. James Holmes demonstrated this situation, he wondered “Why are people alive in the first place?”, it seems because he didn’t feel a need to be alive, nor did he get anything from the behavior of others that helped him feel that need. He could only value himself rationally it seems, and then it would be clear others did way more for him than the other way around (there are always more others that can do more for you, you can’t win).

James Holmes could not answer the question “why are other people alive” because he could not feel any value in being alive

This empathy and awareness is a true challenge in AI, it is the only way to make it safe. To be sure, our brain has not fixed it, it can’t have fixed it, the simple reason is that our brain does not know what we look like or who we are with and who is trying to kill us (and animal or other tribe) so our empathy is dynamically bound to certain percepts that are imprinted at an early age (and may even change later). The more fear and anger we experience growing up, the more pronounced the border is between what we love and what we hate. Try to teach this to an AI? Try to make AI safe for humans? The AI will have to be able to simulate/imagine what humans could do, how they respond to things. It should have a way to recognize the consequences of planned actions (simulate outcomes) and it must have a sense of value, and awareness of what it could do to help others. You can only feel with your own mind, so if your mind does not feel much, you can not understand what happens to humans around you. How would an AI do that?

Holmes is a special case because he really seems to have been stuck in only rational considerations, with no way to make a judgement based on other mental activity. His awareness became fixated on questions he could not answer. the usual existential angst “What is the meaning of (my) life” (which implies its a given my life has value) in his mind turned into “Why are other people alive?”. his awareness could not decide and this was ‘frustrating to him’. His response in the end was that if he could kill everyone he would not have to ask himself this question anymore. His mind would be set free (although still being at a loss why it existed).

Humanity has been trying to reduce its murderous tendencies for ages, spawning religions that have been more or less succesfull at preventing individuals asking dangerous questions

It seems Holmes in the end decided to kill people so they would be of equal value as himself (no value at all). He did not feel they where alive just like he did not feel he himself was alive. Rational equality can mean you meet the challenge of participating, but it can also mean you destroy the thing that you view as valuable. Crimes of passion are often commited with this motive. Our mind hates inequality the most if the things that are not considered equal have a lot of things in common. Our brain tries to be efficient and two things that are practically equal but can’t trigger the same behaviour is a waste of neural real estate. This in turn depends on what you devoted your neural real estate to, so superficial people spend a lot of time considering the appearance of others and themselves, and are more at ease with racism (its clear there is a difference no?), while people that focus on more abstract thoughts that never make decisions based on appearance don’t see how you could be so mean.

General Articial Intelligence will eventually come about and then it will be as big a challenge to keep it sane and safe as it is to keep humans sane and safe. Maybe the best approach to developing it is to build an AI that can help people stay sane, so you know it can also keep itself sane. Call it the “Psychobasilisk”.

Designing the Survival Calculator

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account
The HP 300s has potential. What else could be available for reading on that screen?

We who have time to brows the internet and read tweets and blog posts, all have a good life. In the world at large though there are many who haven’t. We all see the floods and the famines (although floods are everywhere these days) and if we know a bit of science (and know what to believe) we are worried sick about the future. Riots in South Africa and Iran over food and water mean society may break down under climate pressure. What then?

The highest precision calculator available is still the Sharp PC-E500 51,m Should not be expensive to make at all.. 

On the most advanced level people are building satelite networks and cheaper robots, more chip factories and other production facilities spread over the globe. This is great. But what can a boy or girl in a ravaged town in Africa do, who has no teacher. We are risking losing millions of minds that could help fight climate change or even help themselves. The key is understanding the world.

Another bad boy too cool for school

The calculators above and below are all amazing devices. For some reason I have recently developed an interest in these type of small computers. There is really no explanation why I would be fascinated by them other than that they pack a hell of a lot of calculating power. The precision of the above fx-82ms is off the charts according to the calculator forensics list. The art of calculating is well understood these days.

This could be a good starting point for a survival calculator

It is amazing that students (at least in Holland) still need to buy a BINAS, a little book that contains all kinds of lists and formulas to be used in various calculations. We teach a part of our youth how to calculate electric fields, pressures, chemical reactions. They have their calculators and type in the redox values of Sodium and the number of Avogado etc. Then they forget about all that (most of the time), including the BINAS and the calculator. Why would you keep thinking about science and calculations, society is already there, you don’t need to figure out everything! Many even make it an art to not understand technical stuff. Its an act of defiance.

This one consumes too much power but is still in fine working order after how many years?

Why not make a calculator that is dual power (so it will always work) and that not only can calculate stuff but also has a lot of useful data on board along with instructions (so you can ‘read the instructions’). A total engineering tool for whoever uses it, super robust, full of practical chemical and mechanical and electronic information. One that if a kid gets hold of it it can learn about things. So maybe a survival guide included as well. How hard could that be to make? These devices can last decades..

What if you had one of these lying around and it could explain to you how to fix things when you have no other help?

They could also include temperature, magneto and other sensors (temp sensor is included in most chips), even have measuring capability, but that might make it more expensive and complicated.

Stuff to include:

  • Robust, Solar powered
  • Chemical principles and formulas
  • Gas pressure, cooling system calculations
  • General physics information and calculations
  • Problem solving methods
  • Metal working and refining info
  • Navigation tools (gps/glonas/star based)
  • Translation and language
  • Electrical and electronics modelling, calculations
  • Biology and medicine
  • Control outputs (TTL) serial output
  • Robot sensing/control IO?
  • SDR?

Thinking Beyond our Fossil Umbilical

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

The world is changing, we all know it. We need to act and many of us are searching for ways to contribute. There are many options being considered, the main ones are part of able economies to transition to renewables. At the COP and G20 nations cooperate to take measures noone can deny or avoid because they are applied to all (except the dark economy (illegal activities,drugs, arms trade)).

This is all better than nothing, but its also not enough and there’s a clear reason for it : We are not thinking ‘roboeconomically’ meaning from the prespective of a renewables powered world. We are reasoning from “how to get on from a fossil powered economy”. This is like when you jump over a stream, focussing on the side you are on and not on the side you are about to jump into.

The edge of the fossil fuel economy

For example greenhouses in the Westland of Holland are searching ways to become less carbon intensive. Plants need heat, you can get it from a geothermal source, plants need CO2 you can get it from a powerplant that does CCS. Then you feed it into the Westland greenhouses and your flowers can grow using less gas. But why would you be in the Westland? Mainly because its close to Schiphol (relatively) there’s an enormous flower hub right next to the main airport of Holland. The flowers are just an excuse for a lot of activity that uses fossil fuels, generates revenue for banks, oil and gas companies, logistics, and delivers a week of largely ignored visual and fragrant pleasure to the world.

Now if you use oil you need to be on land, the oil ships in from Rotterdam (probably) to Schiphol. The gas is shipped in from Russia (now or in the near future) using pipes. The trucks that haul the flowers run along the highway, have fuel stops at convenient places. In short, energy logistics determines the location of economic activity. You don’t produce a product you want to distribute to the world in say Luanda. There’s no logistic capacity because there is no energy infrastructure or steady supply of oil delivered there.

The above however is ‘old world’ thinking if you focus on the other side of the renewable energy transition. Flowers are not the best example because it seems they are marketed exclusively to generate cashflow without adding too much to the world (typical for any succesfull economic activity). Lets think about it in roboeconomic terms. You can first of all grow them in the countries you sell them in, if you use renewables nobody in Holland will get rich from you transporting the flowers. You will generate your own energy to do that (Solar will become dirt cheap or free).

So the plants will be in greenhouses, distributed over de globe (the greenhouses), run by you (you designed the system) and they will be delivered to the ‘consumers’ by your own electric vehicles that you also use for other jobs (unless you grow flowers continuously). You fertilize the flowers with CO2 you filter out of the air and concentrate. There may even be a carbon capture component in it. Where can you be doing that? Almost every whereon the planet, even in the middle of the Atlantic.

If you think about it Tesla is using this new business model already. It runs gigafactories, it looks to source everything it needs as locally and directly as possible. It looks to use renewables and deliver the products locally. That way it does not generate shipping emissions. It has cut the umbilical to the fossil energy sources (or tries to). A good test is to see if there’s money flowing out of the operation (to fossil fuel companies usually). If there is no money flowing out, you are good. If you think about it some more you see that banks hate this, and its usually companies themselves that close the leaks, using their own money.

Energy markets have been developed to ensure the price of power always remains valued against fossil fuel. So if you sell power to the market you have not ‘cut the umbilical’. This is a great way for the fossil sector to depress prices and harm renewable energy’s ability to support wealth creation.

So Giga battery factories where they are needed, one using Lithium from the ocean, the other using Lithium from salt flats. All with solar power on the roof to power the production lines. Electric mining, electric logistics. You can do that in the middle of the Sahara, you don’t need money from customers. This is the paradox of the Roboeconomy : You don’t need to make profit, you just need to ensure your renewable energy capacity is sufficient.

In a woorld where fossil fuel logistics no longer form an invisible umbilical cord between the oil/coal/gas wells and production locations, those locations can be anywhere with sufficient renewable resources, not necessarily near cities, with AI/Remote working not even necessarily near human resource hubs. If you can run a train to the civilized world on the power of your own wind turbine, so you don’t care how far it needs to go, you can choose your location. If you had to make sure diesel was available, and be in negotiation with the diesel company on how close they’d make their deliveries you’d be stuck near a port for sure.

Its time to spread out, that also means people. Let’s hope we get time to do it..

Are You Serious?

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

The economists this week has a comical cover suggesting the world will flood and we will face 3 Celsius average warming. That’s an arbitrary number. Later it will be 4 Celsius. Its highly likely to happen but the upside is that we can use more and more of Earth without running into locals objecting : They will be dead.

You can’t expect any sense from an economist and certainly not from a magazine dedicated to them. What you can expect to find is arguments that help economists in their job : Keep banks going. So now that the trend is undeniable the economists will start saying “Yeah, its 1,5 but we can manage 2” and then “Yeah its 2 but we can manage 3” and then, dependend on whethere there still is a society and the economists have not died of heatstroke they will say something else. The economy can not stop being pro fossil because banks can not stop it. I have written about this for almost 15 years now.

We need to understand we are on a journey, a bit like Kepler avoiding the plague like the plague during the plague..He ran around Europe, had kids, had to please masters, calculated how Mars circled the Sun (with help) and avoided several wars. You can expect something like that in the near future. Experts predicted “no orderly transition” to the Roboeconomy (post fossil economic economy).

As a compulsive look into the future person I think I should build a kind of safe place somewhere. This is prepper stuff, but then maybe more enlightened. For a while now I tried to ask the question : Where would you be good for the next 50 years. Perhaps the best place would be in a desert. If you can survive there you’d be fine, it might get wetter or hotter. Humanity needs to think like that. Our car is off the parking brak and slowely rolling into a burning garage. It is really bad and a big part of all the moving stuff on the planet (planes trains automibiles, people, machines) is not willing to stop increasing the problem. The economy can only collapse, all it knows to do is self-reinforce..

The question “3 degrees” should be responded to with an “are you serious?” and the answer is “yes” and the subsequent thought should be “Ok, what do I do now?”.

New Environmentally Friendly Way to Trigger Rainfall

Join our supporters! and Check our twitter account

Water as droplets and ice can gain a charge. If they rub together they lose electrons and become positively charged, so much that electrons have to come from Earth, up to the clouds to neutralize the imbalance. We call that lighting. It also occurs between clouds. Apparently someone realized that it may be charged that prevents water and ice from coalescing and forming rain. Rain we see fallin down starts in the clouds as ice nuclei (because clouds are usually very cold) that become bigger and bigger until they fall down. If they melt before they hit the ground they are rain, if they don’t they are hail and if they evaporate we don’t see rain (but perhaps low clouds).

 After observing a fog near a high voltage tower, the inventor and electrical engineer, Nikola Tesla (1856–1943), said “I am positive … that we can draw unlimited amounts of water for irrigation”

Someone realized that it might be charge that keeps large ice granules from forming. If you disturbe the charge distribution you can cause rain. The actual effectiveness is not reported, but it seems this is a great invention. The reason is that you need very little to trigger rain, and you could even do it on a permanent basis by using kites. Suddenly there is a use case for high flying kites generating electricity from wind and triggering rainfall.

“Dr Nicoll is hopeful that the technology produced for the project could be used to stimulate clouds to produce rain in the years to come. “It is likely that charging cloud droplets on its own won’t replace established cloud-seeding techniques, but it could work alongside existing techniques to maximise the efficiency of cloud seeding,” she said.”

This is a link to the publication title

Article about it..

News about electrical rain triggering
A robot reports..

Pretty epic, want to see if this works with a kite. You basically need an ozone generator mounted on a kite, parts are dirt cheap. Maybe once the rain begins to fall this causes a downdraft that will mean more water droplets bond together. So you only need to trigger this proces.

Clouds are water that is icy cold, the water has lost any heat it picked up at the Earth surface and lost it to space and lower air pressure (only the radiation from the top side means cooling).

Now triggering a downpour from icy clounds will cool the surface, it will mean new evaporation can take place and the heat gets transported by the water to the higher atmosphere, where it can release it to space (which it can radiate to). Less water vapour in the air (as a result of rain and cooling) also means less warming by the sun.

It may be that this technology can reduce rain accumulation as part of huriccanes forming. These are a result of breaking the vapour barrier above the water by evaporating water. Usually triggered by wind. A lot of water evaporates and this causes wind to be drawn in and more evaporation. The heat of the ocean gets ‘dumped’ into the atmosphere and a storm develops. What if that storm rains out? The ability to trigger rain with very little equipment that can even rain aloft continuously may mean we can bleed cloud systems of their rain content before they hit land..

Not having clouds means radiation can reach space. With clouds it gets bounced back which means the heat is trapped. So being able to remove clouds is also a valuable ability.