That Fool Dave Saves the Green Economy… Then, Likely Destroys it.

So I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of the economy, at first, the American one, but also, in general, the world… The same problem comes up over and over… It’s just too easy. Concentrated Solar Power. We have the desert land, it’s made of plentiful materials… satisfies a majority of industrial applications… What’s stopping us?

This fantastic presentation, explains in depth how powerful the technology is, and also reminds us of the 1878 Worlds Fair which debuted a solar steam printing press… If only we had paid the extra part of a penny to use it, rather than coal to print in bulk.

If you have the time, it’s worth all 45 minutes

”The human race must finally utilize direct sun power or revert to barbarism,” Frank Shuman Scientific American 1913… Shortly before… well… an eruption of barbarism.

If you have less time check out Bang Goes the Theory.

What’s the big problem with employing a large scale concentration project? Well… Oil companies want to destroy green energy and a cabal of bankers… blah blah blah… no thanks… I think it’s much simpler. This is not just a big engineering problem… this is an entire world wide multi million human being shift in the way human beings have to live, problem. Aside from barely being able to pass oil prices assuming small advances in technology, and economies of scale… Millions of engineers need to move into the desert or at least go work there regularly to create this new power grid, and it’s going to be expensive to convince Americans to do this. This is the one thing this video ignores, the concept that normal people might want to do this in their backyard.

I think there is lack of interest and work ethic mostly on behalf of Americans. A lack of blue collar laborers interested in moving to the desert to make renewable energy a reality, and more importantly a lack of well paid engineers interested in leading them. Also a lack of blue collar, or white collar high school grads, who have confidence in their ability to do things like this, without an engineering degree. Playing with sunlight can be very dangerous… but, if you make a decent living, or have a nice savings account, you’re allowed to experiment with these things, and they will cut your energy bills quite a bit if you do it yourself. Check out simple designs at

So… Why do I say “Then, Likely Destroys It”… well… It’s just too cheap. If people move to the desert and buy cheap land, concentrate the sun, and then, just to be a plug whore, buy themselves something from or … What else do you need? 50k houses slowly sprout up an acre a pop in the desert and form communities… Sounds nice to me, too cheap for who?

Banks, and government. I don’t mean that it’s a conspiracy… but the two biggest financers of projects like this, have put us way too far into debt, for us to pay it back by living nice lives in small communities. This is the only reason I can think of for liberals not trying to support concentrated solar power… They’re supposed to be for green energy… but this is just too cheap, so there is no incentive. I think it’s willful ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

As people choose to utilize this technology despite lack of government or banking incentives, we’ll have to take a serious look at our debt burden. Why Saves the Green Economy… Here, I unveil in crude paint designs, how I think we need to save the world, with portable, large scale green energy. Instead of a molten salt, my theory, is that we should simply focus the energy of the sun on a cement block, or clay block. Substances with a high specific heat, that won’t melt at 1000 degrees. In this insanely simple paint diagram, the only thing that needs explaining is the “trap door”, which is basically a heat shield which deploys at sunset and theoretically blocks heat loss on 5 sides of the cement cube. Thus, the heat energy is lost only to the side with the boiler.

I need to test how long this will continue to boil water… and just in case there isn’t a good boiler on the market… I have another crude paint drawing for what one might look like in your back yard. I’ll post that as well. Though it’s even more embarrassing as far as artistic ability.

I use artistic tools like a 5 year old. That said, the basic principles are sound, I believe… so I’m going to run some tests slowly and carefully over time. Starting likely with the entry level open source design from hopefully it’s a sound theory, and the Cement doesn’t just lose all the heat 30 min after sunset, making my extra addition useless… If it does though… I’ll still just buy a system for boiling water and doing it the normal way. Feel free to laugh at my artwork or my flawed concepts. I am a fool after all, peace and love friends.

solar oven

Edit… Less physically impossible, quite possibly feasible.

water boiling turbine


That Fool Dave Explores the Concept of Racism, in Geologic Time

To preface, racism exists, it is horrible, and it is ruining lives worldwide, with particularly harsh effects in the United States. There is no defense for racism, and if I suggest anything in this, which may sound racist, or encouraging of it… Please, correct, refute, or yell at me on Twitter, I will try to edit the piece as well as explore my own shortcomings if this is the case.

In this piece I would like to look at racism from a perspective of geological time, and explore ways we may view it in the future. Christopher Hitchens once said of monotheism, that from his atheist perspective, in comparison to polytheism which suggested many gods, at least Monotheists were getting closer to the truth. This is what I would like to discuss in regards to American racism… Before America began immigrating people like crazy, the concept of racism, didn’t really make any sense. It existed, slavery is a perfect example, but vicious nationalism pitted virtually every nation against all of its neighbors. So in that sense, in geologic time, I would like to suggest that what can now almost be described as 3 or 4 races of people with great tension, and mild violence, is actually a huge upgrade, from the 100’s of tribes who used to hate one another… because the goal, is of course to get down to 1 tribe with individual liberties.

Why is this important?… Well one reason is… White people. One of the problems with looking at white people as an oppressive majority in America… is that more than half of us came through Ellis Island, fleeing crazy European wars, against other Europeans. Until about 1930 ish, if you were to suggest that white people were an oppressive majority in America, they would have looked at you like you were crazy “We still hate each other, the Irish are shiftless, the Italians are criminals, the British and French are poofs”… there is no unified group “white people” in America at that time, despite harsh racism.

In the rest of the world of course, the concept of white people makes perfect sense. As they say in Catch 22 “Whoever wants to get you killed is the enemy, no matter which side they’re on”. As white people invaded and took over, of course the native Americans, didn’t really care about our cultural differences amongst one another, we were stealing their land. Every European nation was a colonizer, occupier, or a trader taking advantage of wage imbalances… From the perspective of a “white person” now though, seeing pre 1900 Europe as “white people” still doesn’t make much sense. Every tribe of white people, was constantly at war with every other tribe of white people, at the same time they fought other races. The same was true of African or Latin people… There is no universal sense of community at this time in world history, or to this day.

I alternate between atheist, antitheist, and agnostic, but what has never changed since my birth in 1982, is that I think most major religions are inherently sexist, encourage unsustainable behavior, and make people obedient, something I’m not a fan of. I’m second generation American, a white mutt, and come from a family of laborers, who never retired with money. I don’t have much connection to my Scottish, German, or Polish roots… In fact, Barcelona, Spain, and Everywhere Italy, resonated with me far more on my trip through Europe. So, while I am obviously a white male, I don’t’ feel much of a sense of privilege or entitlement. In fact, as an out atheist, according to most studies, I am still far more distrusted, and assumed to be engaged in evil behavior, than any other minority in America. I’m sure Jewish Americans feel the same way “Entitled, half the country still hates me too you know”.

It’s a very odd sentiment… but it’s also one that’s cross racial. If you live in China or Japan… the concept of Asian people is a bit crazy . If you live in Rwanda, black people, or African people, is still a very questionable ephemeral theory. There are legitimate parties throughout Europe right now, running on a platform of ending legal immigration, from anywhere. There are legitimate nationalist movements holding noticeable percentages of the vote in Europe in 2013. In the Islamic world a recent study suggest that more than 50% of the population of Egypt believes that people who ridicule god should be stoned, and people who leave the faith should die. Maybe America isn‘t very racist, maybe we‘ve made enormous progress.

Most of the world is still going through the intense violent nationalism and racism, that America has long risen past. This doesn’t make us the best nation in the world. Canada, and Australia have similar racial tension, but peace. China and India make up incredibly diverse populations of different cultures which have, for the most part avoided direct violence. As we move towards a future in which there is no more direct violence over state and religious tensions however, I think it’s important to realize the progress we’ve made, or risk throwing it away. I think it’s important for the nations which are tolerant, multicultural, and open to immigration, to remember that this is an objective thing about our way of life, which is good, and an enormous improvement over other barbaric one dimensional states which humanity must work to evolve. Instead I see many, including Americans reverting back to nationalist tendencies and turning this into a war between cultures. The only advantage we have over theocracy and dictatorship, is that it is a discussion amongst cultures, not a war between.

White people learning not to hate one another in America, was a huge step forward. Black people learning to love one another in America is a huge step forward… This is only one step, it’s nowhere near good enough, but it’s moving us towards beige and secular harmony. This constant talk however, on both sides of the discussion of race, is not helping. White men, are not any more uniform a block than black men, and the fact that both sides of the discussion tend to want to discount our diverse and often conflicting make up, doesn’t do either of us justice. I think we will one day view our current racial struggles as a huge step forward in the path from tribalism, to community, and space colonization. If we don’t, I worry it will be because we let nationalism, and moral relativism (well if it works for Greece, it works for Greece, who are we to say?), tear apart the small amount of progress we have made.

This is not a call to take over, or fix Greece by the way. Or to impose multiculturalism by force, anywhere. It is simply a suggestion that the countries which actually embrace multiculturalism own it, and allow themselves to present it as an objectively advantageous way of living. Shame the growing nationalist movements for the childish nonsense they represent (this includes several in America). Lead by example, not force. Peace and love friends.

“Go Forth and Multiply”, the Declaration of War on Reason

This is going to be a long ride… but I hope anyone who chooses to read it, will find it worth the trip… “The night is dark, and full of terrors”, as they oft say in Game of Thrones. Tonight, I would like to argue, that the violent conflicts surrounding religious fundamentalism world wide, are not the result of economic, political, or military conflict, but actually result from the sexual behavior, of members of all of the worlds major religions. “If god wills it”, and “Go forth and multiply” are outright declarations of war against reasonable, honest, hard working people.

If you don’t use condoms, and are still a human being with only limited control of their sexual impulses… A very convenient phenomenon will emerge, god will “will” you, to have many children. If, on the other hand, you are a reasonable person, who considers the consequences of your actions… You will choose to have very few children, only ones you can support and feed.

Why is this a war? The worlds major religious philosophies are literally designed to starve out decent, kind hearted, reasonable people. If people of faith keep having children they can’t feed, who do they rely on? Charity, State, or Church. Thus, all the people immediately surrounding communities of faith are forced, through empathy, violence, or social structure to feed their children. Rational people previously considering one child, now can’t afford any, because they have to pay for the five “god willed”.

Through the force of their lack of sexual self control, the major religions of the world, will bleed the earth dry. “We have dominion over all the beasts… god said so”… Really? Well, science doesn’t support his claim. Science would suggest that we are one of the beasts, and if we don’t maintain our habitat, it will eventually cease to sustain our existence. Pretty big difference there. One with violent consequences that will involve millions of people starving or declaring war.

If there was a sense of community in the world… Would people who take the word of god so literally, that they produce children they can’t feed, based only in faith… be the ones this community was hoping would have 5 children? I would like to assert… Of course not.

This is why atheists have so often tried to extinguish religion… but I would argue in doing so, they made evil entity number 2, the state, their new gods. You can’t stop someone from believing in nonsense, you can only make it illegal to believe nonsense. So, when atheists chose socialism as the answer to the tyranny of religion, they made their greatest mistake in recent memory. Two fundamental flaws exist in the concept that state force, should inspire our sense of community.

One, is that as the philosophy of socialism was founded, the most sympathetic, and often poor people, were elderly. In setting up the “safety net” with primary concern for the elderly, rather than the young, however, an interesting problem emerges… Elderly people, are likely to be poor… but the people who live the longest, and thus gain the most from retirement and health care programs, are wealthy majorities. If you were poor or middle class, at a young age, you will be poor when you are elderly… but you’re also, far more likely to be dead. Thus, the “safety net” pumps money from poor to rich, and blue collar to white, not the other way around.

The second… Hiding religious philosophy doesn’t change birth rates. In forcing the state to unify, to take care of everyone… socialism literally lashes the reasonable people, to the literalists, forcing them into a life of servitude to believers in god, as they inevitably become a smaller and more dislike minority worldwide. The State, and the Church, have declared war on reason. They have declared war, on being a decent human being, who lives within their means… and it must stop.

How? What tool remains to save us? Secular Charity. In forcing the various literalists of the world to ask for charity, because of their mistaken life choices, we show the way for their children to rise above dogma, and be someone with the capacity to give, and contribute, rather than someone constantly at the mercy of the compassion of others.
Many people forget what the root of the theory of capitalism is… “Most of us are smart, and kind… We’ll figure it out, without a central authority”. This is why I am often disheartened to see fellow atheists look to the state to solve problems. It is not the answer, it will only re enforce the emerging pattern; literalists, of all faiths, are out reproducing, everyone else. In desert regions, with virtually no food, the warfare aspect of this becomes all too evident. If the various religions weren’t so good at killing one another, they’d be starving to death, because they have completely unsustainable population growth.

I am not talking about “capitalism” as currently practiced by western governments, with central banks giving 0% interest loans to whoever the government feels like sponsoring next. I’m talking about the theoretical framework capitalism provided for looking at the world. Neither the state, nor the church can force me to raise the child, you chose to have. If I do so, it should be out of my own good nature, and free choice. Capitalism insists, that people are basically good, and without a church, state, or any central authority, they will help one another, and the best among them will naturally find status, and resources.

In a polite reasonable society, if you wish to move towards theocracy, liberal democracy, socialism, or communism… You must first begin your argument, by insisting that human beings are inherently evil, and they can’t be trusted. You must then prove, that religious, or state authorities, have a better track record of non violence than civilians. If intellectuals insist on this distinction through shame, and ridicule, it will only be a matter of time, before everyone begins the argument with “What are we going to put in place of a central banking system, and democratic governance by force? How can we find peaceful solutions to these problems without a violent central authority?”

I think the answer lies in not for profit, government by voluntary contribution. Free online public education, and expensive private education, that everyone knows is a lot better. Personal public retirement accounts which naturally transfer to dependents, or a charity of choice upon early death. Local public hospitals, again funded by voluntary contribution, to avoid the moral hazard of forcing everyone to pay for drunks, smokers, and fatties by force.

Whatever decisions we make… I think it’s important to remember the framing of the argument for capitalism. If you want to argue for a central authority, Christian, Muslim, Democratic, or Authoritarian, you must start by admitting “I think civilians are inherently evil… and left to their own devices, they would destroy themselves… I think my authority will save them”. I imagine this view will be very unpopular, as it always has been among the vast majority of common, reasonable people.

Why do most communes fail, and why should all religions fail? Sexual behavior, and jealousy. No one wants to live in a world, where they contribute equally, share resources… and then only a small number of religious, charismatic, or attractive people, have all the sex and children. Except, of course, that small number of attractive, charismatic, or religions men and women.

Socialism, and religion, by forcing reasonable people to pay for the greedy, have always been forces violently opposed to reason. The concept that I am my brothers keeper, enslaves the good to the evil, the hard working, to the lazy, and the sharp to the dull. Modern “capitalism” is no better… Certainly people of inherited wealth would love to divide up control over their fellow humans as well, and when‘s the last time someone got rich inventing something?

Theoretical capitalism however; The concept of only trading with, and only letting people acquire wealth, who make peaceful contributions to society, the concept of letting people who contribute a little more, have a little more sex and children, and the concept that civilians would be more likely to do this freely, than by force… are better than their alternatives, and more popular, at least in my mind.

Of course, in my mind, this is a war, reason can win.

Peace and love friends…

That Fool Dave Saves the Guns

“The man who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security, Benjamin Franklin said that… Yeah… well… Fuck Benjamin Franklin! That fat slave owner” Jim Norton.

Great one liner, and I laughed at it, because I agreed with it. He was talking about the TSA, and people who complain about scans/pat downs… I don’t think it’s “out of control”… As he said “People are willing to blow themselves up dick first”, and no one really knows how to deal with that. A plane is an enormous weapon with a guaranteed concentrated group of people.

That said, I don’t mind the TSA… but, I also don’t think Americans will ever let someone hijack a plane again. Now that intentions are clear, we’re cowboys at heart still, and I like that about us… I like that a terrorist now has more to fear from the passengers, than the authorities. I could live without the TSA, I think we’d do fine.

I feel the same way about guns… but unlike the TSA, which I can endure. I don’t want to endure harsh national gun restrictions… Why?

In my mind, the major conflict over gun rights is a conflict between a rural way of life, versus an urban one. People often forget that rural areas have an enormous brain drain, called cities. The best and brightest move out, leaving often poor uneducated communities. What is the one thing these communities typically have to offer a wealthy or intelligent individual?

Freedom… I know it sounds tacky… but I don’t mean it that way, I mean it in a very literal technical sense. If you have a good job, and want to live outside of the city limits, you can own land… Real land, vast tracks of open space.

Aside from runways, paragliding, kayaking etc… What’s one of the coolest things you can do when there’s no one around to put in danger? Any of you liberals, not thinking about guns or explosives right now… Have you ever seen “Mythbusters”, because they make owning high powered rifles and grenades look like a lot of fun for people in the middle of nowhere.

Rather than immediately thinking “Well, that’s violence on TV”… etc… Just recognize that there are 2 incredibly under discussed advantages of living in a rural area, with weak substance laws, and strong privacy laws. You can conduct experiments, and you can blow stuff up.

Both of these rights are absolutely crucial… Why? The first is obvious… Tesla… We’d put him in jail today, in a heartbeat. This is what is stifling economic growth, worldwide. “The man who shook New York” would have been his terrorist brand before he was executed today, and it’s a tragedy.

Why blow stuff up, shoot high powered rifles, or buy an old tank? Because some people, think it’s fun. Deep in the minds of most men, and plenty of women, is a child that wants the coolest, biggest toys. Some want a kite to hang from, or parachute, or rubber band… but if you want to mess around with a rocket launcher, in the middle of nowhere, more power to you.

Does this mean there should be no gun laws? Not at all. The same rocket launcher is, and should be, illegal in any city where people gather by the tens of thousands. Gun laws should limit people to hunting weapons, 6 shooters, and shotguns in major cities, freely, by choice. That said, we shouldn’t take away a human beings right to be left alone, with awesome toys, in the middle of nowhere… until they actually get violent. Being left alone, doesn’t include protecting rapists or wife beaters of course, but that‘s another issue.

It does include letting Tesla be Tesla. It does include letting Hunter S Thompson play with awesome guns on his 60 acre ranch. Let the places in the middle of nowhere who have nothing to offer but privacy, and lax legislation, continue to offer it, provided they never encourage actual violence. Let the middle of nowhere be a refuge for experimentation and madness.

Why else is this important? Well… I’ve never killed a child with a flying killer robot… Have you? I reckon 99% of Americans have never killed a child with a robot. I bet there are people on 30 acre ranches right now playing with flying killer robots, and almost none of them killed any children with their toys… You know who has killed a lot of children with flying killer robots? Employees of the United States Government.

The reason you should never trade the slightest bit of liberty for security… Is that civilians are always less dangerous than members of government. We almost only call on government when a situation escalates to violence, because they are the best at it. In almost all Western societies save America, the government has a monopoly on the tools of violence. Our backwards approach to regulated militias, has allowed normal civilians of means, to choose to purchase tools of self defense of almost military grade. This is not a threat to our security, it is a display of our security.

If you live 100 miles outside of town, and a group of rapists, murderers, or thieves, sneak on your property, it is perfectly legal to kill them, and then call the police here. Why? Almost all of European civilization thinks this is crazy… but isn’t that how people who would organize themselves into gangs and bandits want it?

Imagine you’re desperate, poor, angry, and on the run from police… Wouldn’t it be great if everywhere in the country there wasn’t a patrol car, you were the best armed person? Wouldn’t it be great if your stolen or black market assault rifle, was always pitted against a kitchen knife as soon as you got 10 miles away from a sheriff?

In a city, letting someone “defend property” with weapons that could win against 5 intruders with pistols… sounds crazy…. Because it is… the second you get a hundred miles away from a major city… It’s not crazy… It’s risky… You could shoot yourself accidentally. If you store guns improperly someone could steal them, they could blow up, or be used by a member of the family… but if you ever get assaulted, or invaded… and the police are 20 min away, that’s risky too. If people choose one risk over the other, that’s up to them.

Finally… Mental health. There has been a lot of talk about mental health threats, and what we can do to limit gun ownership among crazy people. This is very dangerous. If doctor patient confidentiality is to be violated to enforce gun laws, gun owners will immediately begin to justifiably fear seeking help for mental illness. This is an enormous moral hazard, that I virtually guarantee would have a negative impact on gun violence. Just the discussion of making mental health gun laws, is making a gun owner thinking about getting help, reconsider, right now.

Please don’t discourage young hunters who get depressed from seeking help they might desperately need.

So… That’s how I would save guns. Strict local and aerial laws… virtually no control in small communities. Leave people who want to be left alone, alone. Don’t bring your high powered weapons to a baseball game, buy them in the desert/forest, shoot them in the desert/forest, or visit someone doing the same. If you do that… no one should ever have a problem with you.

Just to be clear. I am not, nor really intend, to be a gun owner. If I was, I’d buy a shotgun or six shooter… but I occasionally like the idea of moving into the middle of nowhere… and if I did that… I could totally see myself playing with some crazy toys. Making an electric helicopter, designing solar concentrators, even setting up a real life Borderlands 2 style obstacle course and shooting range… Why not take advantage of the fact there’s no one around?

That Fool Dave Saves the Empire

Before we start… Of course, I mean the American empire, not because it’s the most important empire necessarily, or because it is the worst… or best… but simply because I live here, and I know the most about this particular empire.

While I do admit, that we are an empire, I would always try to insist that we add the qualifier, economic empire…  and over this issue I have had much disagreement with progressive friends.  I often, for example, remind some of my progressive friends who insist that this is the “evil American empire trying to control the world”…  Well… Not really.  For the most powerful military nation in the world, we have probably taken less territory, than any other.  At no time in human history, that I can think of, has the most powerful nation in the world, taken so little territory.  We have also never fought the “We’re the best in the world and everyone else should die” war, as most nations have.

The response is often…  “Well, that’s not how it’s done anymore, you don’t take territory, you finance puppets, and back people it’s all economic”.  To my progressive friends who agree with this sentiment… Yes, you are right… Thanks to America, pure warfare, and the theft of territory, directly by force, is now slowly going the way of the buffalo.  We are a brutal economic empire… but, simply by virtue of choosing this path, after inventing the bomb…  The United States of America, permanently changed the game among first world nations.

That being said… In our wars of aggression, or revenge, or profit, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, we took an enormous step backwards, and have begun to resemble the empires that all of humanity once feared.  I like to believe, that this will go down as the worst decade in American history, that we will return to our shores and once again leave the people of the world alone, save to occasionally sell them the few products we actually make well.  If we continue the path of old school imperialism into Iran… We will regret it.  Not because America will lose… Simply because human life will be lost needlessly, and everyone loses in that case.

The people of the United States of America, want to compete with our neighbors…  economically.  We don’t want to compete with any of you militarily…  You’re not competition in that venue…  If people choose the path of territorial old school warfare again, the United States of America, will be the nation that turns the surface of the earth to glass, and shatters it on the crust.  The ancient ways of humanity are over, whether the rest of the world likes in or not… because of mutually assured destruction.  If you think the United States is trying to take over Afghanistan or invade China, you’re mad.  That’s not how it works anymore… but for what it is worth, that is one thing that you can thank America for, as well as our brutal competitors, the Russians and Chinese.

There are no terrorists in the world like us.  We’re the crazy ones.  We built the mechanism for the destruction of humanity, in the hopes that it would bring world peace and prosperity… Islamic fundamentalists have nothing on that logic.  So…  Spaghetti monster in the sky please save the American empire… by disassembling it, and returning it to the free democratic republic it once was.  Get the Army corps of engineers to teach the Army how to rebuild Detroit, and get the hell back to home soil.  Fix the NDAA, end the Patriot Act, Free Bradley Manning, and impose a human rights tariff…  Wait, that’s our job as active citizens.  Fuck You Spaghetti Monster in the Sky!…  Sometimes I’m not even sure if I believe in you at all.

In short, economic imperialism, was an enormous upgrade from it’s predecessor… but it’s not good enough, and stop going backwards America.

That Fool Dave Saves the Religion – Capitalism

So… Why is capitalism a religion? Just like all major religions, it is, at its core, obsessed with sex. Capitalism, makes wealth, an alternative form of plumage, based on contributions one makes to society. Before merit based pay, and merit based rewards, men and women used two major tools to make sexual choices… Genetics, and “breeding”… Symmetry, fertility, hips, skin, all of these things, both sexes are built to be attracted to, and whether we admit it or not, we can’t help but fall for our genetic programming some times. “Breeding”, represented, inherited wealth, which was one of the only forms of power (save in small pockets of society, for example the Mongols for a time actually had their best warrior lead).

Capitalism… Turned that idea on it’s head, especially in America, at the beginning. “Breeding” didn’t mean anything. You could lose a fortune, or gain one here, much more easily than in any other place in the world. Very few wealthy people moved here, to jump in wagons and head out west. We were mostly farmers, laborers, and puritans. As rich, cutthroat, and powerful as these men would become… Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt… These men were born poor, laboring class at best. One was sold into indentured servitude to a rich man… and he probably had it the easiest.

When Andrew Carnegie, is at the peak of his powers… It doesn’t matter if he’s symmetric, or fertile, or tall, or strong… He can meet any man or woman of his choice. Just like a blue blooded Englishman. No one can make anyone fall in love, but certainly being rich and powerful in society, not because of your birth, but because of your wisdom and insight, because you made more steel for this country than anyone has ever seen… it doesn’t hurt in the pursuit of “high value sexual targets”. Capitalism, rooted in Darwinism, survival of the fittest… is all about, providing men who contribute greatly to society, with high value sexual targets.

This is an incredibly patriarchal and oppressive form of sexual control before the sexual revolution, and I am not defending it, merely explaining it. I would also argue, that it is less patriarchal, and more society focused than aristocracy and “breeding”. People who do incredible things for society, are objectively more valuable than people who notoriously inbreed, and inherit their money. However, there is no meaningful role for women in this society… and men, after competing over social stature by merit, are still allowed to look at women, solely through the naturalistic lens, of symmetry, hips, fertility, etc.

This needed to change, and the feminist movement took great steps to do so… but, during the conflict, capitalism, seems to have lost its roots. We no longer talk about how it is tied directly to ideas of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and sexual options of high perceived value. So the motor of the world, is gumming up.

In my mind, the new revolution, is about forcing men to see women as much for who they are, and how much they contribute, as how they look, much as capitalism, and at times religions, forced this on women generations ago. Many would turn the other way. Many would encourage orgies and sexual liberation… but that just created airborne gonorrhea, and left an generation of children without adult parents… So, I don’t think that’s working out so well.

I would suggest that during the feminist movement, and civil rights movement, corporations used the glut in the labor market, to stagnate and reduce pay of labor in the community. Thus, relegating mediocre producing men and women both, to a slightly lower standard of living than previously enjoyed. Do you realize, that at numerous times in human history, a single man has been able to work 40-60 hours a week, and provide for a family of 4? How come no man or woman laborer, regardless of color could afford to do that in today’s society? Per person, with automation, we produce far more goods than our ancestors… Shouldn’t we be paid as well as they were if not way more?

I would like to suggest that the future of capitalism, is a labor rights movement, centered around gender neutral single parent incomes. Where a man and a woman can compete on equal ground for the provider role, and can gain self esteem from knowing that they feed their family. Whichever contributor society values more on the free market, can work and provide, while the other can provide the absolutely necessary role of parent, and community builder… which society has come to neglect over the last four decades.

Women have been less unemployed than men, for almost a generation. They have also been better educated than men for almost a generation (both of these things in America)… Why are women not able to labor, and provide for a family of four yet? We have lost the labor rights movement, and we have lost the struggle for maintaining a tight family structure, but we can build those things again, in my mind, through gender neutral single parent incomes.

What does the role of parent entail? Museums, art galleries, reading, cooking, keeping the place clean, engaging with the community, finding weekend trips, projects and events, civil activism, and possibly starting a small family business. The parent, is also the person who should know what local politicians and issues are on the ballot. The role of active parent is as important as any economic contribution to society has ever been. It creates people who will continue to contribute to society. Without an active parent at home, we have been relying heavily on the public school system, and I’ve got news for you… It’s not their job to raise your kid, and teach them right from wrong… If you don’t want to do that… Stop fucking : p

Are any of these roles set in stone, or should they be forced on anyone? No… Of course not… That would be insane… but, if we, as human beings, don’t realize, that for our labor, we deserve enough money to provide for a family of four… This will be an enormous mistake, because we have already earned it through our evolving skill sets and interactions with technology. Once we have this economic power, I see the return to gender neutral single parent incomes, as the natural norm, which requires no force to implement.

Why? Because it’s easy to start a small at home craft business now. Instead of getting a job to kill time while your child is at school, you can buy a 3d printer, or silk screener, and be your own boss… Why would you want to work for someone else?

What’s in it for women? This is where it gets tricky, because history, and cultural conditioning, might, at first lead to them being more likely to return to the parent role, in some ways unfairly… but, what’s in it for women? The same exact thing, that has always been in it for men… Perceived high value sexual targets.

Women who don’t fall into the role of parent, because they contribute enough to society, to provide for a family of four, will now have the plumage men once did. Young attractive, not particularly useful or productive men, will faun all over them… That’s all men ever got with patriarchy… That’s equality.

That’s our carrot… Does it work for women? I think so, though I know few who would admit it. In order for this to work though, men and women need to stop arguing over unequal pay, and band together to fight for the fact that we all produce 5 times as many goods as we used to, and we get paid less… There needs to be a visceral and angry labor movement that is unified around gender neutral single parent incomes, and merit based pay above that. There needs to be a ladder to climb, money needs to be distributed by merit, and needs to act as social and sexual plumage… but we all need to be able to provide for a family of four, if we labor our asses off for 40 hours a week, because we’ve earned that, we have the skills for it.

Capitalism may die. Automation, may prove Marx right, and lead to the end of working labor… but, even if that ends up being true, for thousands of years, men have used money as plumage… and it worked better than hitting women over the head with rocks. Capitalism, is the most functional religion, which ever existed, and it brought us to this phase in human evolution. Personally, I think if we don’t fight to get it back, men and women alike… Will miss it.

We can’t all be born great looking, and not everyone will grow up to be hard working, or nice. Creating an objective system of evaluating our contribution to human society, is a great way of helping some of the people who aren’t both, find each other, and provide each other value. Or, maybe I’m just crazy and Freudian : p

That Fool Dave Saves Democracy

We need public online voting attached to social networks.  The ballot should be finalized 6 months before the election, and you can log on at any time, and post your vote.  It will be impossible not to count your vote, because it will be public, you can see what it was counted as.

If you post your vote early.  You can leave brief descriptions as to why… and you can then comment on your friends and neighbors votes, trying to get them to change their mind.  They can of course try to influence your vote as well.  There could be contests and competitions among great communicators and celebrities, to see who can change the most votes… but ultimately, everyone will be able to log on, and count one at a time each vote in their district, to insure that the right person won the election.  We can all see arguments and responses… and understand our fellow citizens better, for next election cycle.

This is the next evolution of participatory democracy, and I hope people learn to appreciate, and support it.  Your vote is not a private matter, it is in fact the only thing, that the public has any business knowing about.

That Fool Dave Saves Religion

God is love. Love, is a rational attempt to control the sex drive. Religious myths are meant to encourage a rational family structure.

If you found out something created the world, and it didn’t care about you, or the world it created, in fact, it disliked you both… How would you feel about it?

If you found out something created the world, and it had infinite love and compassion for you, and enjoyed every moment of life… How would you feel about it?

More importantly, would it effect the way you feel about life?

Alright… Well, are you having sex with anyone? If not, are you trying? Well, that’s perfectly natural. You’re going to want to do that a lot… but, do you enjoy life? Are you ready to have infinite love and compassion for someone other than yourself? Are you with one of them? If not.. Stop it! Birth control is not 100% effective…

This was the lesson religion was designed to bring to the masses. You want to create life, all the time, so much so, that your desire, is destructive. Without self control, and society, you would create way more life than you could feed…

You are god. You are the author of your story, and the creator of your life, and others if you choose it. The choice as to whether or not to continue in the cycle of life, is the most important choice you will ever make.

Love… A magic force that makes life worth living? No. A rational approach to controlling your desire to create life. Without a concept of monogamous love, between a man and a woman, society would fall apart. It doesn’t need to be forced, and there is no reason to discriminate against difference… but, homosexuals can’t produce offspring. Sharing partners, means sharing diseases, and expecting men who didn’t create children, to then raise them… a very difficult proposition.  The foundation of the traditional family unit, just makes rational sense.

The basic design of the family structure, laid out in religious texts, was meant to convey rational messages about controlling your sex drive, respecting your parents, and taking the choice as to whether or not to create life very seriously, in a time of mysticism, and nonsense.

What is the best evidence of this?  Adoption.  Until modern times, the church was where almost all children without parents were sent, to have a chance at life.   If your charity organization, was responsible for raising children without parents, wouldn’t god be an insanely useful tool for convincing them that life is worth living, and that they are loved?   Without physical creators, parents, to teach these children, someone needed to come up with a mythical creator, so that they felt loved.

Religion, is actually an outcrop of the public service, or charity work, that is adoption.  Adoption centers continue to believe in an all knowing creator, because the children they care for, often have drug addict, or drunk asshole creators, that make their lives miserable.  So the adoption center tells them… “Don’t worry, that’s not your real creator, god is, and he loves you”.

God is a rationally created myth, designed to give children without parents, a sense that they were created for a reason…  and to encourage parents, to take their decision to create life very seriously.  Are you god yet?  Are you happy?  Are you ready to love things unconditionally?  Are you ready to forgo your own desires, for those of your creation?  If not… Stop fucking.  Of course, this is all just my opinion… I could be wrong.

Did Coursera Steal My Webcam Idea? That Fool Dave Saves Public Education

So, a few months ago I posted a conversation on Ted Conversations, talking about my strategy for public education.  Basically.  We need one international online public school.  One of the highlights, in my mind, was the idea that testing should require students to have webcams, and someone should be paid a living wage to watch a few test takers, and make sure they are staying on the website, and not looking at books or other source material while testing.

Then recently I read… Hey that’s what Coursera is doing… and their speaker, uses a ted photo… Did they jack me, or do great minds think alike?

That frustration aside however, there were other elements of this idea which were innovative.   We already have a public university system, write it into teachers contracts that they have to record their classes, and post them.  As incentive enter a small pay increase, and rewards, for the most popular teachers online.  Ask each teacher to label each question they are asked with a tag, so any student with that question, can find the answer.

This could create teaching celebrities, and we could offer million dollar prizes to the “Best Physics/Algebra/Literature Teacher of 2013” because they have millions of students.

If you’re in politics, and you want a world changing education system… You want one international online public school.

Welcome to That Fool Dave Saves the World

I am always complaining about what people and governments are doing wrong… and, usually, I also have a strategy for simple elegant solutions.  This blog is my proof.  Here I will rant, rave, get angry, and waste boat loads of time… but I will also explain simple governing strategies that will hopefully one day, save the world. I’ll start with simple text, but eventually I would like to upgrade to video rants.