Monthly Archives: September 2021

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.