Monogamy

 Monogamy is not a description of a relationship. It is a description of a reproductive strategy.

 Polyamory is default for prepubescent children and non-adults and should be encouraged with the usual precautions for STDs.  Encouraging monoamory among non-breeders or deferred breeders is generally toxic. In societies where women breed shortly after puberty other standards apply but given modern contraception strategies for men and women polyamory should be the rule until parenting is contemplated.  I am not talking hetero only here especially prepubescent and early teen sexuality.  Sow your wild oats to your hearts content on any infertile ground of either gender to determine what kind of sexuality makes sense for ones settled years. 

 Most couples contemplating children hetero or homo are monogamous as a tried and proven stable environment for raising children. It is not the only way but polygamy as usually practiced one male several females is usually abusive and single parenting is outrageously difficult, but possible.

 If no children are planned monoamory may well be toxic. My generation gave the world the conceopt of going steady as early as high school, that is, dating only a single partner as long as the relationship lasts. The strain this puts on relationship building is overwhelming as sexuality, having fun on a date, and commitment to a single other who initially you may not know well does not work well.  Even more pressure is on the relationship if pregnancy before marriage is a violation of the norm as it was when contraception was limited to condoms.  Even with reliable contraception for women trying to combine sexuality, companionship, fun, and mental stimulation into a single relationship seems to put too much strain on both partners. 
 
 Sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partners. That means no sex until all partners think it is a good idea.  Recreational sex is no exception to this general moral precept and is complicated by the evolutionary and socially reinforced expectation by women especially to associate sex with a commitment to relationship building.  Relationship building is less important to men generally and women who plan to defer childbearing or eschew it altogether.  Nonetheless it should be considered by both partners in any sexual relationship. 

 Taking the next step to parenting means preventing pregnancy until again all partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting.u

I have recently been informed that a "Core tri" polyamorous is becoming a reasonable child raising alternative.  Since I am only perpherially in the polyamory world I can only make note of the comment.  







I don't see monogamy as genetic. I see it as a strongly reinforced social value. In other words nurture rather than nature. The fact that historically and prehistorically a two parent family seemed to be the only way most of the people could succeed in producing a replacement quota of adults strongly insured that the leaders who could afford to play around would preach monogamy, and believers would buy it, but as soon as the man can afford it he will play around in one way or another. They don't call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Or if you are rich enough you can hire massage therapists of one sex or another to accomplish the same purpose.

I am one of those preaching and practicing monogamy as long as dependent children are involved as I think that is still produces the best results as measured by high functioning adults. There are exceptions, but for every bootstrap street kid that makes it there are hundreds and maybe thousands that don't. If I were writing the laws marriage would be a commitment to any resulting children, natural or adopted, and in a divorce the only lawyer allowed would be an advocate for the children. Unfortunately the churches write the laws for both and the current disaster is the result.

However, for those who chose to accept responsibility for children whether in the usual way or by adoption, a stable family commonly reinforced by sexual bonding is an important value for society to reinforce.  Unfortunately both civil and religious mores are far behind the curve on this critical issue. 

I would like to see "marriage" as permission for sex completely thrown out of both civil and religious laws.  The state would create family unions to protect those who choose to form families for the purpose of raising children.  Religions might want to restrict "marriage" to those couples with a family union license from the state.  These unions would be structured to protect the family unity with a bias toward protecting the children in the event of a separation of the adults in the union. 

Social units not involving children can be handled better via contractual arrangements, pre-nups, visitation rights, wills, etc.  I doubt that religions would want to be involved in blessing such arrangements.  

I have no interest in solving the problem of irresponsible sexual behavior. All I am interested in solving is the problem of unplanned pregnancies and other STDs. It is quite clear that proper education in the advantages of contraception, monogamy or at least limited promiscuity, respect for ones sexual partner, and the importance of both partners being ready financially, emotionally, and socially for parenting, is effective in producing stable families, usually later in life. Teens will have sex. This is normal mammalian behavior. Giving them the information they need to have responsible sex is extremely effective in producing responsible sexual behavior.

This is why I mentioned the UU OWL curriculum. Our Whole Lives which has been around in earlier forms for over 30 years has been extremely effective in producing stable and loving families which produce planned children usually at an appropriate time in their lives. The pair bond is formed early, built on and stabilized with responsible sexuality. When the pair is ready for children they simply delete the chosen contraceptive. The stability of the pair bond is not an issue. It formed naturally at an appropriate age, survived the temptations of promiscuity, probably some tough times in the late stages of education when values and mores are tested, and survived. I can think of no stronger base for a family.

Teens and pre-teens who have used the curriculum have been followed and the results are noted above. It works. Abstinence is not part of the program but radical respect for sexual partners is. The result is monogamy and an incredibly stable pair bond. I know of a few families from the program or its equivalent who now have teenagers that they are encouraging to follow the same program. When it gets noisy in the bedroom, the parents get that "I remember that" look of great pleasure, and later there is frequently another noisy bedroom in the house. The teens are already discussing when the best time for children will be and planning their lives around that time. It is a given for them that the pair bond will last until then. It probably will.

  Abstinence absent masturbation is a joke. Abstinence with masturbation is unusual. Monogamy, while certainly a worthy ideal, is an unnatural aberration for males of most species, particularly the human species. Whores, rent-a-boys, and the new wife are so common as to be considered to be the norm. Throw porn into the mix and even regulators do it.

  It is called religious wishful thinking. There may be a few around who keep their penises dry, but even those who claim to do so seem to find ways of succumbing to their natural instincts.

  "Substantive lying to anybody is wrong. It injures the other and is a disaster for self image. One can't hurt self or society much more grievously."

Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.

Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."

Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.

Sexual Morality
 "Every atheist I know has extremely well developed and usually fairly strict moral standards with regard to sex. Without trying to speak for all atheists, I only know a few well enough to discuss sexual morality, the common thread seems to be radical respect for the feelings and integrity of the partner, and an absolute prohibition of non-consensual sex. Most heterosexual atheists consider sex with the intent to create children to be a commitment to the family to remain together at least until the children are old enough to understand any separation.

Sorry, the problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.

For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until again both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.

This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.

Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than denying the pair bonding efficacy of long term sexuality. And it works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.

On Bigotry and Hate.

I saw South Pacific when I was in my early teens taken by my father who was carefully taught in Alton IL in 1907-9 when he was 6 or 7 or 8. He learned to control his unconscious and I never learned when I was young to "Hate all the people your relatives hate." It was mostly my mother's gift to our family. Thanks to Dorothy S Black for this invaluable lesson not to hate. Nonetheless it was my father who made me discuss the song and its context of Emile losing his love due to the shape of the eyes of his children which his lover had learned to hate.

Since Hate is a highly marketable product these days I think it is important to understand that it is a product which political marketing has taught us to need. Possibly not only at 6 or 7 or 8, but even at 60 or 70 or 80. Considering hate unconscious or even innate, is an extremely dangerous belief. Anything taught can be untaught: That is, proven to be incorrect, whether it is religion, politics, or hate. With great difficulty in the former two but quite possible with the latter. Assuming otherwise is to admit failure.

In South Pacific Emile hired his estranged lover as a governess while he was on a dangreous mission with Lt. Cable, the venue for the song, and the children taught the governess that her hate was irrational and wrong.

From a different thread heavily redacted https://www.facebook.com/minivercheevy/posts/10155598219608966?comment_id=10155598737668966&reply_comment_id=10155599808633966&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1500416279133357
I would argue that bigotry and hate are beliefs rather than unconscious. In practice there is not much difference but we do have some control over our beliefs and very little control over our subconscious. 

The evidence is very clear that bigotry operates both consciously and unconsciously.

 I doubt it. Bigotry operates at the conscious belief level, see Shermer, it is very hard to get past the (conscious) conceptual blocks, but contrary data remains at the subconscious level, you cannot unhear or unsee anything. The Amiglyda can and does filter such data from the conscious belief system but overwhelming contrary data in the subconscious can overwhelm any belief. See Stockholm Syndrome et. al.
 I am being a prick about this because admitting unconscious bigotry, hate, and prejudice is abject surrender. I refuse to do so.

 Surrender to what?

 Surrender to intrinsic bigotry, hate, and prejudice.

 The fact that unconscious bias is a thing. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-racism-not-always-racists

 I have fought Religious bigotry all my life, and while progress is extremely slow it is being made. The Patriarchy, while certainly not dead yet is noticeably weakened in the Western world. The "Lord Thy God" isn't dead either by a long shot. But the long shots are taking their toll.

 It is natural to feel hopeless in the face of societal forces that take hundreds of years to shift, but we can't just handwave at that.

The answer, Williams argued, is unconscious discrimination. According to Williams, the research shows that when people hold a negative stereotype about a group and meet someone from that group, they often treat that person differently and honestly don't even realize it

But they learned it consciously somewhere and have learned that is a politically incorrect belief and try to deny it. They may not realize they are an anti-Semite either, but anti-Semitism is not an unconscious concept or Jews would never have made into Zion.
 
 How does the subconscious acquire hate? We know how it acquires reflexes: You learn them or you die. Hate is a social trait, Social traits are conscious, how do they get into the unconscious and how do you get them out?

Michael Shirmer, The Believing Brain (video)

I have studied the whole book over and over again due to a lifelong interest in Religious Belief Systems.
"We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional., and psychological in the context of environments created by family....Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow. I call this process belief dependent realism." The Believing Brain. Michael Shirmer. 2011. p 5. Nowhere does he suggest that this is anything but a cognitive (conscious) process.

 The lips acquire stains...

  If not from Sapho whence the stains.
...with subconscious underpinings.

To wit: http://www.cbsnews.com/.../deconstructing-americas.../

This is not, strictly speaking, hate. It goes beneath something that, ahem, conscious.

Deconstructing America's unconscious racial bias

CBSNEWS.COM

Fox Circe Just because CBS snooze calls it unconscious does not make it so. America's Racial bias has incredibly deep roots, but I have never seen any analysis that shows that any of them are anything subconscious, from the dehumanization of slaves, to redlining, they are all conscious rationalizations to shut down the subconscious moral imperative that humans are us and that killing them is specicide.

 

Act Now to Convert all National Parks and Monuments to State Parks

Greetings State Representative:

 As the Department of the Inferior is determined to defund and destroy all National Parks and Monuments it is imperative that California designate all National Parks and Monuments in California as State Parks as well. 

 Just the lost Tourism income to the state would pay for the costs of maintaining the parks for residents as well as US and Foreign Tourists.

 These facilities could be a huge source of revenue for the state by putting a stiff Tourism Hotel and campground tax on overnight facilities that are regional to the Parks and Monuments. 

 Entrance fees should be raised to cover the cost of maintaining the facilities with a discounted entrance fees for state residents, like 10% of the Tourist tariff.

Yours Respectfully, 

Registered Voter Name:
Address:
ZIP:
email:
Cell/text:

Hyperloops and the future of suburbs.

 Suburbs will always be suburbs.  Maybe not a bad thing.  With Hyperloops and 150 mph autonomous cars running in pelotons on dedicated freeway lanes one can live in the burbs and work in cities.  The Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago Hyperloop demonstration proposal provides a 40 minute commute from Columbus to either Chicago or Pittsburgh.  At 150 MPH Grass Valley-Nevada City is less than an hour from SF.



 Those few that like urban living will have plenty of it at reasonable prices once any burb is less than an hour away from city jobs by hyperloop or 150-200 mph freeway lanes. Ford, General Motors, and their foreign competitors will insure that the US will -always glorify suburban living with the car and the mortgaged house as the primary status symbols. Huge high-rise garages for autonomous cars will grow like weeds at transit centers.  Get out of your car at the transit interface nearest your job, tell the car when you will be back and tell it to go park itself.


 In the burbs the autonomous car will drop you at the garage over the freeway at the regional urban center, probably still low rise and driverless taxis will shuttle you to your entertainment center and community place.

Autonomous Cars and the Future of Cities

 With autonomous or even semi autonomous cars in 120mph+ pelotons on existing freeways and Musk 120mph skates in tunnels in LA, whole metro areas are sprawlsville.  The American life style will not be changed to urban living.  Ford, General Motors, and all the rest will still be around in 2100 promoting sprawl. 

 The car is the most important surviving public status symbol, and Americans at least are not going to give that up.  They will drive less especially locally but providing rides between urban nodes will still be an important status indicator.  Cities, especially new cities, will evolve out of the suburbs with high density urban nodes around regional amenities with complete urban services, restaurants, service establishments and high density housing at all price points for those who choose to live and possibly work in an urban node.   But the majority of the population will still be economically and ethnically segregated in single family homes and low density apartments in the suburbs. The current pattern for office commercial segregated in suburban campuses will continue for the forseeable future. Even working class cars will be high speed semi-autonomous and urban nodes will still require high density autonomous parking for residents and visitors.     


 Freeways will evolve to narrower lanes restricted to autonomous vehicles, with high speed lanes running in pelotons for efficiency and throughput.  Current freeways of three lanes or more with a breakdown lane in the center can in the near future convert to two or more high speed lanes, one transition lane and leave one wide lane with a breakdown lane for non- autonomous cars at existing speed limits and entrance and exit. Transition lanes would have restricted access and egress and would be separated from the conventional lane by a Jersey Barrier those shaped concrete vehicle diverters used in construction zones.  All that would be required to facilitate this transition would be to improve the roadbed in the high speed and transition lanes.  Autonomous cars exist today capable of 120-150 mph and transit vehicles soon will be once the need for them exists.    

 Autonomous cars can park in high density parking lots on floors limited to small SUVs by floor spacing, served by elevators.  Garages for autonomous vehicles only may be constructed over a major intersection with an existing freeway which is already served by transit and close to developed commercial centers.  The garage may be built over the freeway.  The passenger access floor will have bus clearance for larger vehicles also at high density enabled by autonomous control.  Pedestrian and bicycle access is over the existing sidewalk space on the cross street and transit access over a lane of the cross street.  Cars will enter from freeway access ramps to car lanes inside the garage next to the pedestrian/bikeway. Once passengers exit the car for local transportation and tell the car computer their expected departure time the car will join a cue to an elevator, tandem or more, at the far end of the garage to access parking floors. Exiting cars would use the same elevator with circulation on all floors in the same direction.  Driverless autonomous cabs would be available at the freeway nodes for those needing them. 

Infrequent transit nodes using grade separated bike, pedestrian, local transit and transit access car traffic as entry to the transit garage. This would create a local traffic and transit interface with high speed autonomous transit which would use existing on ramps to access the high speed lanes.  These transit nodes would evolve rapidly to high density urban centers.  Cities and suburbs should plan for and encourage these high density urban transit villages. 


 The Upper middle class will commute from their tract mansions to suburban commercial campuses, or to the city for work on the high speed freeways, using the existing freeway access and local streets for last few mile access as necessary.  

  Service workers and others with minimum wage employment will commute from now remote suburbs, car or vanpooling as needed where high speed transit is unavailable.  

  Depending on what happens with UBI and "Medicare for All" the workers displaced by robotics and the existing poor will die or move to now dead rural communities.  Assuming UBI and Medicare, the revived rural communities will become vibrant villages of local commerce and art most of which will generate excess funds for local amenities.  

SCAG Traffic Issues

 Many of the traffic issues in the SCAG area are caused by our suburban neighbors driving to Urban Amenities like Santana Row, Valley Fair, Westfield, the Safeway Shopping Center and the Lyon center. SCAG occupants would walk or cycle if the proposed Urban Corridor on Albany and Kiely is implemented. 
  
 Another issue is suburban neighbors using the Saratoga I-280 ramps to avoid the problems at Lawrence and Winchester.  Some use basically residential streets like Kiely, Moorpark and Albany as short cuts to the Saratoga ramps causing much of the congestion on Kiely and on the very short merge from Kiely to 280S. Another problem is car dealer test drives by mechanics and sales people on these residential streets.
 
 Work commuting from the suburbs is also a major problem  for the whole area.

 Restricting SCAG streets except Saratoga and Stevens Creek Boulevard to local traffic, would encourage cycling and walking, for the SCAG population, local residents, the local workers on Stevens Creek, and nearby businesses.  

School Enrolment

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/24/cupertino-local-school-districts-tackling-declining-enrollment/

“We are looking at a decline in enrollment,” said Wendy Gudalewicz, Cupertino Union superintendent. “What’s happening in this district is we have very large classes; sixth, seventh and eighth [grade] are much larger than kinder [classes] now and future kinder. We’re looking at a bubble of students going out.”

Caused by....rising housing costs that are pricing young couples out of the area.

 It is rising housing costs that are pricing young couples out of the area that is driving "Save our Schools" the 10K+ activist group under many names in Cupertino, West San Jose, and some in Santa Clara whose email list I have been banned from, but I get them anyway by from www dot 'latest SJW meet-up' on lawn signs in my WSJ/Cupertino/Santa Clara stomping grounds. They always start with PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY VALUES.  Whether it is SCAG, Valco, redistricting, MacDonalds at Orchard Farms or even Cell towers on schools.

 We know that even market rate rentals in the CUSD will affect property values since those values are driven by "School Moms" from China and India paying cash for CUSD homes.  School dads providing the cash don't lose, the appreciation for the few years the kids are in school has been about 10% per year since I moved into District 1 in 2001. BMR housing would be even worse which is why they try to use on site BMR housing requirements to kill development. 


http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/08/cupertino-schools-district-to-tackle-declining-enrollment-with-communitys-help/

 This is a serious issue for High Schools as well Lynbrook, the premier school in District 1, is scrambling for students to maintain their excellent acadamic programs.  Some AP classes were cancelled last year due to declining enrollment.  

Merc. 2017/08/06/ Opinion San Jose NeedsTransit on the Creek

The city of San Jose is planning major new development along Stevens Creek Boulevard as part of its Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan, which will come before the City Council on Aug. 8. As elected leaders of the other two cities along the boulevard, we believe the corridor needs significant transit improvements that are lacking in San Jose’s current plan.

Transit follows residential density.  Always has and always will.  Cupertino and Santa Clara have no residential density on Stevens Creek Blvd and have no plans to build any and are blocking the Urban Villages in San Jose.  This call for transit is hollow at best.

We respect San Jose’s interest in economic development and welcome projects that bring new vitality to Stevens Creek. However, we think it would be irresponsible to approve the Stevens Creek Urban Village project without an effective traffic mitigation plan along the Stevens Creek/280 corridor.

 A viable traffic mitigation plan is included in a supplement to the Implementation Section of the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan which involves signal timing on Stevens Creek to provide a smooth dense traffic flow Eastbound on Stevens Creek from Stern to Saratoga and beyond to I-880.  

 Without the disruption of through right turn traffic from Kiely and Albany trying to get into the left South I-280 turn lanes in less than a quarter mile Saratoga Ave has ample capacity to handle through southbound traffic from Stevens Creek and San Thomas Expressway.  

 Traffic mitigation for the Urban Village will close Urban Village streets including Kiely and Albany to through traffic freeing up the local streets for local vehicles and bikes in shared lanes and pedestrians on improved sidewalks.  Current through traffic from Cupertino on Albany would be handled by the improved signals on Stevens Creek to Saratoga. Current through traffic from Santa Clara now using Kiely will be redirected to Saratoga via Stevens Creek and San Thomas all of which have ample capacity to handle the redirected traffic.   

SCAG Suburban Neighborhood Issues

 The SCAG facade guidelines insure that even the maximum height commercial buildings along Stevens Creek and Saratoga present a varied and architecturally interesting face to the adjacent neighborhoods.  While different from the suburban tract homes the designs are to be attractive to traffic and passersby on the streets as well as providing visual contrast to the low rise look-alike homes and apartment complexes surrounding them.  

 Many suburbanites who are flocking to urban amenities like Santana Row seem to admire the varied urban well designed architecture.  For others who may prefer their familiar suburban context in large part that will be preserved in the surrounding suburbs that are committed to remaining low rise suburbs. They have many square miles of suburbs to frequent if they object to urban amenities. It is important that parochial neighborhood suburban preferences not be given a veto over intelligent urban design. 

A City in the Suburbs?

 

  As suburbs evolve eventually one becomes a city built around a government center, an airport, or other regional amenity. The surrounding suburbs while enjoying the suburban life style use the city amenities intensively creating the bulk of the traffic near the city amenities. Valley Fair/Santana Row is fed by the whole suburban south bay.

Suburbanites will always have a personal vehicle and will drive it from home to somewhere.  Good urban planning means that the somewhere is sufficient to meet the needs of the suburbanite for the day however long the day is.  If it is a workday, lunch, coffee breaks, a stroll in the park, and dinner and entertainment if that is part of the day should be in walking distance from the parking.  If it is a weekend day the destination should have the main event for the day, a park, a gathering place (see placemaking) and again dinner and evening entertainment if desired.  In both cases the parking should be remote with a variety of last mile options to the urban center.

  Nevertheless suburbanites resist the city's efforts to deal with traffic and other city issues with the greater density.  The urban spaces must be carefully planned and essentially forced into the suburban spaces.  It is never easy, and "community involvement" is usually dysfunctional as the only community that will bother to go to the meetings will be those with an agenda to put the city somewhere else.   

 With regard to the developments on Stevens Creek one vocal opponent cites traffic on Stevens Creek that prevents her from getting to her city amenity of a Safeway and other stores in the once suburban shopping center that San Jose wants to turn into an urban village.

  Santa Clara objects to our listing a bike route on Pruneridge that they created by modifying traffic lanes on that once important East West thoroughfare further contributing to congestion on Stevens Creek. But no way, no how can we build the density to pay for our own urban bike corridor.    

 Cupertino wants a hotel to support their suburban businesses as long as it won't cast a shadow in someone's back yard.    They like their city amenities and use them intensively, but don't want to give up even a daylight plane to get them.

A vocal group rants about school impact of development but Lynbrook, Miller, and Dilworth in District 1 are considering redistricting due to declining enrollments.  Lynbrook canceled AP Music Theory this year, a critical pre-requisite for top colleges.

  This suburban thinking is the very antithesis of regional planning. We would be happy to add our neighbors to our planning groups and did so.  Their NO WAY, NO HOW interminable rants disrupted our planning meetings and made reasonable planning impossible.

 The solution is unfortunately to ignore the community input, or rather use the community input to cover substantive conversations on the periphery between city officials and developers pursuant to building the necessary density for the project to work.   

A Self-aware Internet of Things.

A self-aware internet of things. Read all about it at The The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A. Heinlein

Call the internet Mike.

Am not going to argue whether a machine can "really be self-aware....A cat? Almost certainly. A human? I don't know about you, tovarisheh, but I am. Somewhere along evolutionary chain from macromolecule to human brain self-awareness crept in. Psychologists assert it happens automatically whenever a brain acquires certain very high number of associational paths. Can't see it matters whether paths are protein or Platinum.

So didn't hesitate to tell him to get "ill."  Mike had thought up a dandy; his 'illness" was wild oscillations in conditioning Warden's residence.

Conditioning a single residence should not go through a master computer!

Be afraid.

Tribes, Monkeyspheres, Governments and Cults

 Tribes are the normal social systems for humans. Once tribes get beyond the Monkeysphere* which describes most modern tribes the possibility of becoming cults is an ever present danger. 

  Seeing through the crap is the first step in apostasy. Being identified as a radical is the first step in excommunication. You can't change them. Save them the trouble. Find a support group elsewhere and Fuck 'em.
 
 Where large organizations break down into Monkeysphere tribes, cults are usually avoided. Most companies, even large companies until the '60s were generally collections of tribes. So were most churches. 

 One of the advantages of small senior communities and Gated Communities and city villages is they preserve the tribal community for better or worse. Tribes tend to be homogeneous in culture and ethnicity. When they get too big for the Monkeysphere the homogeneity can become the basis for a cult.

 I think it is no accident that the village or parish is the basic unit of human society. Our monkeysphere is about 150-200 people whose behavior we can affect with the subtle social cues (the raised eyebrow, frown, or quick smile ) to say that behavior is or is not in accordance with the morals of the society. That is, what our common moral tendencies tell us is right. The morality of the village is pretty well solidified by Fulghum's Kindergarten.
   
 Where these groups are local, isolated and stable almost anything can be moral, witch burning, infanticide, child sacrifice, killing everybody in the next village. Whoops, almost forgot, except the virgins.  Blue Roads 4/26/08

 I suspect that as the twitterspheres and facebookspheres sort themselves out they will become either tribes or cults.  I have some friends on Facebook that I have to block their cult posts.  Not really an issue if they have other redeeming values they can still be in my facebook tribe which is well below my monkeysphere in size.


 There are very few of us who can find what we need for personal fulfillment if we become "Stickers" for the sake of sticking and building and maintaining a community. The school to meet our aspirations may be across the country or around the world. The job we have prepared for may not be in the same community as the school where we learned our trade. Then we grow in our trade and outgrow the job that started our career, or our significant other may have outgrown the community we live in and another community change is in order.

  Friends and associates in our monkeysphere also scatter so even if we would like to be stickers, the rest of the community isn't and we are stuck with a bunch of new neighbors, new industries, and even a bunch of new people in our church. that may change it beyond our comfort level.

  There may still be a few communities where sticking is a possibility, but they are rare and the vibrant cutting edge industry that is a necessity for such a community, works against the stickers maintaining a stable community.

  Where are we to find our roots? Is it possible that soil and bricks are no longer necessary for rootedness, but that the nascent communities on the internet will become the new roots for the boomers (old definition)? Is facebook our new village green or post office where we get our daily social strokes? Are blogs the coffee houses where we share our profound ideas with like minded profound thinkers? Is our little piece of the net the new community where the boomers are rooted? I think so. There will still be meet ups and face time but they will be increasingly mediated on the net, and with few exceptions community roots in jobs, churches, and neighborhoods will be non-existent.  Blue Roads, 7/7/09

 I have been thinking a lot recently about that responsibility for the other "We's." I know where it begins. It begins with those closest to me, and extends at least to the monkeysphere. Probably also to those anonymous readers of this blog and the letters I write to newspapers etc, It certainly extends to the audiences I perform for. But does it extend to the bigots who are trying to change my laws, or only those who will be affected by those laws. Am I responsible for the Shiites and the Sunnis, or should I be content to let them bomb themselves out of existence with perhaps a little help from the Israelis and Wahabis.

 Or Haiti? Or New Orleans. If they do not have the resources through their own mismanagement/misgovernment to rebuild or even succor the injured do I have any responsibility to help? I'm thinking the answer is no. Humans are evolving, and in evolution the winners don't help the losers. They are too busy helping themselves. I have limited resources, and even if I didn't, the buck at Radio Shack for Haiti will be used for much more worthwhile causes. Blue Roads 2/12/10


 *There is a much more scholarly version of the Monkeysphere out there but as usual Cracked explains more. http://www.cracked.c om/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

Morality as Facegroups

Humans, as highly intelligent and extremely social animals are genetically programmed to learn all they can about the customs and mores of their tribe or social group as defined prehistorically by those whose faces they encountered on a daily basis. There could be no thought of violating these customs and mores, as doing so would cause banishment and a solo human was a dead human. This is the basis of conscience, not some big daddy in the sky.  

 As social groups grow beyond the tribal or village size like minded social groups will congregate geographically or in religious groups.  The religious groups may be dispersed far beyond a geographical area but at least in theory the groups maintain a consistent set of customs and mores that serve to control and unify the the local face groups. 

 A child brought up by members or a member of an identifiable social group will associate behavior that promotes the welfare of the group with "good" and that which is contrary to the welfare of the group as "bad." No matter how large the identifiable social group became the local community hall was the transmitter of the group's values.  Typically these community halls are small enough that all are at least nominally acquainted.   Ultimately it seems that compliance with face-group standards is the natural morality of humans. 

 As larger societies moved up the chain to associations of face groups, either religious or secular, commandments, laws and rules of behavior are established to define minimum standards of behavior that promote the welfare of the larger group.  These commandments, laws and rules are not to be confused with morality, as frequently these commandments, laws and rules will conflict with the imprinted sense of what is good and what is bad as it relates to the childhood face group.    

 A face group at that point may withdraw to the extent possible from the larger group.  See the Amish and other Anabaptist groups who live by their own moral standards ignoring the laws of the larger society except where there is unavoidable conflict. Or they may be forced to withdraw from the larger group as the Native Americans were.  Ostracising these groups has nothing to do with the morality of the larger society, it simply allows the larger society to work. One could make a strong case that the laws of society are by definition immoral as they force compliance with activities that may be against the face group morals of individuals within the larger society.

 The world is too big to be a face group these days but if we choose carefully there is a group of people whose customs and mores we can and do internalize. That group will look a lot like our family and close friends even when extended to people we probably will never meet.  The mores so developed may or may not be judged moral by the larger society. 

 Religious and secular associations are the traditional facilitators of face groups and define the approved social standards and mores for the group. 

 Social media is emerging as a powerful force for expanding and defining these extended face groups. In some cases a small group of people or bots may be instrumental in defining the customs and mores for the group. Rallies and marches seem to be their churches and meeting halls.  Most groups are frequently in political conflict with many if not most of the other groups.

 Indeed politics seems to be the art of putting together a platform of mores that reflects a large segment of the society or pretends to in order to attract a plurality of the voting population.