Return to

Level1 News December 5 2017: Amazon Yule Log | Level One Techs


Systemic dictatorship exists beyond our dogma concerning how people in general should be treated. We find ourselves playing game theoretical games when we might actually be capable of producing long term solutions. By judging our ideologies by theoretical basis, we can at least move forward; rather than being stuck in an economic cycle that is known for aggregating access into the hands of the more sociopathic members of society. This is important because of the degree of suffering that it causes.

Humans have evolutionary predisposition to contend with. Nature has the answers in it’s own systemic dictatorship. It eventually boils down to basic biological requirements and needs for security; physical and mental. Population growth is already producing a very intense level of environmental pressure.

That’s just it. Systemic dictatorship is probably a maximally coherent view of natural systems. There is an extremely important point there though. It’s demonstrated by considering how we got here. The short story is that entropy (which is the most prevalent form of interaction) produced novel emergence (in human understanding and production of technology) that resulted in disruption of normative function. This is how I see the emergence of civilization. Though it is out of character at the moment, it’s likely to be swayed by normative pressures. It was indeed human ideology and hubris that created this problem to some degree though. Those who could make the grasses grow and build mountains were considered gods; and probably even believed that. That hubris still exists in the notion that humans can control the environment that we ourselves are merely a product of.

From a zoomed out, general systems view, we are constantly running for our lives, from abrupt extinction, with no successor. This novelty is to be normalized with or without us. There is no similarity in the risks that are posed by not giving due to normative function. Many of the most concerning problems that we face are extinction and existential risk factors. We could actually take the entire biosphere down with us. We have already created mass extinction level events that are easily supported, with hard evidence. Anthropogenic, climate change is only one of them. We also have to be concerned with the probability of asteroid strikes, nuclear war, the expansion of the sun upon it’s death and eventually the heat death of the universe.

There is perspective to consider however. Evolutionary predisposition isn’t the only human motive to consider. It’s often quality of years lived vs quantity. We are eventually, similarly fucked; but not necessarily because of ideology.


Yet, would sistemic dictatorship not still be an artificial system, created to only mimic nature (which is pure anarchy under laws of physics and biology), but requiring error-prone maintenance over time? What would it require of a person? What kind of personal identities would it create?

One other thing I am pretty sure of is, we don’t have the same picture of the very system of the proposed sistemic dictatorship, and I am actually curious about what system that would be. What would you say it would look like?

I’m quite intrigued now that I come to associate this idea to the Ayn Rand (perhaps overly romantic) idea of deregulated capitalism as a law of nature and the best wild world there is, while completely lacking any catastrophic failure handling. It seems diametrically opposed, yet similar in claiming to be deregulated down to some kind of natural systems? Or am I getting this wrong? What natural systems? And how? Indeed, what would it look like?

Indeed, it is a fallacy that we will always learn something from a failure, because those who have learned may not be around to have any impact on the next iteration. Yet, it is remains very unclear (more like a personal conviction) whether it makes more sense to try again until you get it right (fix it), or try doing something else entirely (replace it).

Are we not sociopathic and/or narcissistic (well, certainly elitist) in this very thread for even considering to remove democracy from the hands of people whose less rational but very human needs still remain to be satisfied to a commonly reasonable degree? Aren’t we at a fault for thinking we could imagine a better system? I haven’t still heard exactly what sistemic dictatorship means to you so I honestly don’t know, I mean it really could have highly desirable advantages to significant amounts of people which would not be achievable in a democracy. But who are we to decide, and who are they not to get a say?

You certainly are one of the more intelligent people I’ve been honored to discuss politics with here. But if we have a hammer, everything might look like a nail. If you pardon me for asking, is this not a case where intelligence and systemization is the proverbial hammer? And is this problem really a nail? Can the hammer be applied to this particular nail?

Perhaps another model of society is an attractive idea to hold in mind, especially so as to test the ability of the mind. Perhaps even it does solve the perceived set of problems. But perhaps also it should not become applied, ever, like a nuke?

Why should we not just get the proverbial thumbs out of our asses and be active citizens, instead?

It is not as big an idea, for sure, as replacing democracy is, so no one gets a chance to become famous for pursuing it. Is that the only reason it does not pander to our own intellectual prejudice? Are we power hungry ourselves, prone to sin of pride, but blind to the sin of not just being our human selves?

I think it is quite less dramatic and to just reach out to a politician, any politician you agree about 80% with, any party with a quality person you can stomach, and just do your best to keep that person straight and coach their ability to perform their role as a representative:

  • Point out when they just said something insane.
  • Point out when they made a good point.
  • Point out when you disagree and why, and ask them to improve.
  • Help them improve and master their carrier of representing YOU.
  • Ask them to expand on unclear topics.
  • Don’t try to change them as people - accept them for the human beings they are, and accept you don’t agree on everything.

And this is what I mean by active citizens. Make sure you root your representatives in your reality. Make sure that one person whose carrier you decide to follow - and I don’t mean twitter-follow, write a damn letter or at least an email - have your actual face, your life, your family in their mind when they decide for you. And if they do you bad, show it you are sad about it. Show them what happened.

My solution is much less assuming:

Humanize them, humanize yourself, and humanize democracy.


@GFX_Garage @Blunderbuss you two have finally found each other.


We have become disconnected from the systems that bore us. We generally no longer understand them or ourselves. We live in a little bubble of artifices that we have constructed. Climate control is an actual phrase for the heating and cooling in cars and homes while we upset the overarching climate. The big one is a systemic dictatorship. We manage that risk or suffer the consequences. That is the systemic dictatorship that I’m referring to.

Diminishing returns is a known issue that exists with increased complexity by the social sciences. Currency systems are failing miserably at a rate that is likely to diminish general confidence in them in the coming decades. With Kurzweil’s “Accelerated Advancement” comes crises that are more and more frequent over time. Currency systems are displaying attributes that are indicative of systems that are being driven into extinction.


I say good riddance to the tyranny of the majority. It promotes all of the nefarious isms.

It would look like a unified, dynamic, scientific risk management experiment. Here is a free PDF of the pre-alpha proposal. I may have the alpha WTFPL v0 written up in about a month. I’m suggesting going with the natural flow.


Thank you, will surely have a look. It is always interesting to expand the available idea space.

However, I do maintain that perceived disappointment with a system does not in and of itself invalidate the system (this of course applies to any system). I recall reading some public study pointing towards 60% of US youth no longer finding democracy to be important to maintain. In EU, this is I think at about 30%. The perceptions are different, but the validity of the system as an ideal, outside the context of reality, is the same whether it is 100% supported or 0% supported by a population, and whether population can actually motivate it (earth is either flat or it isn’t, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of it).

It is (to me at least) academically interesting to see the “this is the best we have come up so far” argument defeated. But the problem really is agreeing on what really constitutes the “best” values to optimize the system by. As you point out, quality and quantity of life may be at odds with each other, but there is more than that.

Whether a system should be changed in reality has much more to do with the perceptions and much less with actual system validity. Matrix (the movie) proposes another system with high degree of validity, exemplifying oppression and total relative lack of choice, but also achievability of happiness (perception) within it.

Lol, in a way. We don’t orbit the same star, but the occasional encounters are hopefully interesting enough to watch from within a reasonable (self-)distance :slight_smile: .


The New Deal was a move toward Socialism. The ACA was a move toward Socialism. This talk of UBI is a move toward Socialism. These things do gain traction as confidence in the current state fades. The rapid succession of crises is more of an obstacle to function though. It’s the game theoretical behaviors that are likely to promote will for change. Losing big several times in a lifetime isn’t likely to be tolerated. There are people who were born during the Great Depression that are likely to see the next one. That is completely without precedent.

BTW I do enjoy our conversations. It’s a refreshing change from the talking points.


Anyone else having problem with the rss feed for the podcast? Mine just keeps showing the latest episode from November 28th. =/


The file hasn’t refreshed (yet):

Categories might be messed up because they don’t show up in the news category for a while now either (then again there are quite some missing there anyway):


Talking points are a strategic waste of time and energy. In military terms, you have an advantage if you can choose where exactly a fight will be happening and you try to contain the enemy to those fights you won’t lose (even if you may not win them either).

A contemporary example of talking points misdirecting resources (such as voter’s attention) is the North Korea thing, when we should be talking net neutrality. Introducing new talking points just makes us forget the previous ones, without having put in sufficient effort to resolve them. Thanks a lot Putin, here is a participation medal.

Interestingly, there was a calculation of how much energy resources the “Gangnam Style” you tube video wasted. But not how much attention-resources it actually wasted, when other things should have been done instead. And no one has yet made a calculation on exactly how much resources (energy-wise, or attention-wise) are being wasted on the North Korea topic. Resources that would have been spent better (of course, not everyone lets themselves be diverted from important work, though some people do).

Talking points. Pfft. 2 + 2 equals 4 every time. You want another result, try 2 + 3. We aren’t really that far from talking points ourselves, mind you, we are just using less usual numbers, hoping the results end up a little different, more exciting.

Regarding human relation to catastrophic failures

Having lived a formative part of my life during the Iron Curtain period, I can tell you guys one thing, you can never act as if the nukes are going to blow you away tomorrow. If they do, then the value of anything you have accomplished is erased. If they don’t, the value of anything you accomplished remains. If it remains, then you want it to be accomplished towards the scenario where the nuclear holocaust did not occur. Because, if it remains, then the nuclear holocaust did, in fact, not occur.

Which is exactly why, the only reasonable thing is to discuss things under presumption of current state projection. The fact that I can imagine multiple catastrophic failures (some irrecoverable) is not much different from me being able to imagine a thousand ways to die (or become disabled) in horrible accidents each morning I journey to my work. Still, the only reasonable assumption is - I will make it there, and do it again tomorrow.

The world does not end until it ends. If it ends, chances are it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t end, everything continues to matter.

However, this is still quite different from how people build houses in dangerous places, in spite of knowing they may die in a flood, volcano eruption, forest fire, or earthquake.

I am not sure that I can directly put perceived failures of a democratic system (specifically the inability to provide a both sustainable and rewarding distribution of wealth) in either of these catastrophic failure types, though (either the nukes or the house-building). Not without really stretching it.


One of the most important things to remember about the abundance that has been increasing since The Enlightenment is that it is accompanied with population increase. All biology takes advantage of available resources. I was born in the winter of 69; where the global population was 3.6 billion. In 2014 it doubled to 7.2 billion. That’s half a lifetime. This issue is compounded by the fact that resources on the planet are finite. The carrying capacity becomes an issue along with the influence that we have on climate, potable water, destruction of habitat, pollution etc.etc.

These are all economic issues that require economic solutions that include “externality”. These are not political or social issues. There is no “should we or shouldn’t we”. We either do or face the consequences. For the time being, the risk is built into the system… a system that was formed during the Neolithic to solve issues with barter. It’s just grossly oversimplified for such a large population.


I love Twitter.

Screenshot from 2017-12-08 14-36-33


No. First, who is “we”? Second, what’s in it for “me”? Unless I can see “me” in a sistemic dictatorship, unless I can imagine myself actually living in it a full and happy life, a better life, there is no way “I” can support it.

For example, “I” could accept any number of sadistic roles in a society, but very few masochistic. The “id” gets exposed when it involves another person, such as when it comes to sex, but not as much when it comes to other aspects of life. Gulag was full of “deviants” sent for “re-education”, to the degree that remaining scientists, were much better at ideology than at science, leading to some extremely bad decisions in the USSR, communist China, etc. Besides, the communists lost the fight because they had to compete with the alternatives, and the alternatives weren’t playing nice either. I still don’t see this can succeed, even if you manage to (and you really haven’t yet) motivate people dissimilar to yourself towards the new government system. Until you do, no one will believe there is a place for them in it. And maybe, there isn’t. At least not without a change of personal identity. Who can “I” become?

So, I would even go further to add a further question of “even if we should, can we?” - is it even possible? I do not think it is. Getting enough traction to overthrow the current system is quite different to successfully implementing the one you intend instead of it.

I do note in your link (I only did a single cursory read) that the aim is to find a method to evaluate/validate this new governing system of sistemic dictatorship. This is actually a perfectly good goal. I would very much like to see more methodology development, especially if it can be comparatively and objectively applied to other governing systems.


You already live in a systemic dictatorship. We are all subject to natural law whether we are ok with it or not. That’s the point. Thinking that we can control the overarching systems has already been discredited. Asking anyone to be anything other than naturally cooperative isn’t just more hubris; it’s unethical.

Naturalized Socioeconomics is just what it says it is. It’s not governance. It’s the risk management that governance has failed to provide. I’m of the opinion that the lawyers are pretty useless; but I don’t necessarily want to get rid of them. Besides this isn’t the dictatorship of me. It’s open. It’s a conversation in the making.


It is unethical to remove the choice. Ethics is about knowingly choosing to make the “right” choice based on your individual personal values which may or may not match the general social values. Ethics is not about having that choice made up for you.

I won’t go into defending specific points raised earlier, to avoid this discussion becoming a lengthy debate.

I’ll just be happy to wait a while longer until you get around to formulating the idea in such a way that, when I read it, it comes across such that it addresses the earlier points I’ve raised without dismissing them. I still need to be able to imagine an actual life (my life) within that idea before I can even relate to it on a personal level.


I’m not feeling confident that that is going to happen.

(EDIT) As described in the “implementation” section of the proposal, I’m not concerned with selling the model to the public… because it’s not a model for governance. It’s a scientific model for Socioeconomics. I’ve been concerning myself with making it scientific and nothing else. My intention is to continue on that path.

I have no intention of predicting how it will effect every individual; as that is a fruitless path. It’s pander to one, piss off another no matter what one does. I’ve been trying to expose it to the right people. Those who understand the concepts and methodologies. Distributions of skill sets are to be considered but not pandered to. Even the sciences have presented problems in that respect. That’s the reason for development of cross disciplinary inferential statistical analysis.

It’s nothing more than a more general, scientific methodology for economics. Governance would still exist beyond it. It doesn’t lock in any rules that don’t already exist in nature. There is no force applied that isn’t applied right now. It’s acceptance of the fact that we can’t do what ever we want and survive. It only covers survival in nature; and doesn’t even address things like personal liberties.

You are completely misunderstanding it. It’s not a political opinion. It’s a scientific analysis of Socioeconomics. That is what it will continue to be.


I know I am misunderstanding it, and it is not so much on purpose - my level of knowledge in social and economic science is really not on the level necessary to visualise those interactions without considerable effort. Due to several circumstances and other topics (in real life) I can not disengage from, I am presently not able to give the subject the effort as it deserves. For that reason, what you got from me is what it is - very cursory, very low key, and very layman. Unsurprisingly, I will be spending most of my “politics” time and energy being an active citizen and demanding quality arguments, quality solutions, and defusing idiots in the upcoming elections 2018 in my country. I simply need my thought bandwidth applied to other topics.

I am rooting for the science of it. Especially when it comes to economics, I completely agree that part needs to be regulated towards both wealth distribution and rewarding effort. I mean, who the fuck needs a company with a larger income than the GDP of an average country!? I certainly doubt the 1-percenters will even notice the impact of losing 99-percent of their wealth on their day-to-day life style. I also want people to be able to run their own businesses and succeed at it without fearing any choice-of-Godzilla taking a stroll in their back yard, crushing them by waiving its tail, and taking a shit (and that’s an airplane-sized turd) every times it feels like marking its territory for Mothra to know.

I suppose you talk more in terms of decoupling politics of values and law from the economy as a science. As a science which in turn may be employed to enable some of those values, and perhaps also invalidate some of those values as being impossible within certain scientific parameters.

However, there are significant implications of this I am yet unable to visualise. I have perhaps foremost exemplified in our exchange here the difficulty of passing this idea even once it is completely formulated.

In defeating the concept of state-religion we have replaced our beliefs and values with politics - something politics wasn’t and isn’t tailored to suit. Something which pushes economical and social (and maths, and all other) sciences outside the window in the current political discourse, replacing them with religious fervour. I truly believe in the significance of what you are working on, and we certainly need more takes on economy. What frightens me is the likelihood it won’t get picked up and considered for what it is. I don’t mean accepted or rejected, I mean not even considered, and I firmly believe, as a scientific work, it needs to.

You have had me at a disadvantage in this conversation - you know your subject well and I don’t, which would make it a pretty one-sided discussion if I went on to accept each part of it unprepared. I would need to master it to a fair degree in (a further bit past the mountain stupid) order to come back and criticise it scientifically. And I am at this time certainly unprepared and unable to walk that walk. So I just focused on the part of selling it in - making its usefulness apparent enough for consideration, as opposed to dismissing it as another radical crack pot theory (and I certainly don’t think it should be readily dismissed). Perhaps some other time you could produce a faster lane to concepts and subconcepts necessary to understanding the topic. Not so much the motivation for the topic you are so passionate about, but the topic itself. Preferably in a way which makes it more difficult to misunderstand?


I may be able to describe it in more common terms later on; but for now it takes a great deal of my focus. I may actually have bitten off more than I can chew. It’s going fairly well now; but I can’t say what the future holds.

Systemic dictatorship is a bit of a loaded term to begin with; even though we have a cartoon character in the white house denying evidence and putting everyone at risk.

You are a very reasonable person; and I hope that is contagious in the discourse. I can’t help but appreciate how it might make things easier for me.