Trade-offs between
violence and contract civilizations
Like Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and Friedman, I am also a free-trader, but I am not a firm one. Let me give you a brief introduction to this most famous economic leader. Adam Smith, the18th century founder of modern economics, rejected the conventional wisdom of his day by arguing that government interference in the economy is generally harmful and that the public's interest is best served by competition among private buyers and sellers. Regularly, normally today, if you take economics classes, Adam Smith is presented as the person who is advocating the self-interested individual, and a committed theorist of the self-regulating markets of the invisible hand, as little government as possible, pursue just your self-interest, and your self-interest will lead to the common good. It comes about in the first place because self-interest acts as a driving power to guide men to whatever work society is willing to pay for. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner,” says Smith, “but from their regard to their self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities, but of their advantages.” Second, Smith points to “a certain propensity in human nature . . . to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another . . . it is common to all men.” How is it possible for a community in which everyone is busily following his self-interest not to fly apart from sheer centrifugal force? This question leads Smith to a formulation of the laws of the market. But self-interest is only half the picture. It drives men to action. Something else must prevent the pushing of profit-hungry individuals from holding society up to exorbitant ransom: a community activated only by self-interest would be a community of ruthless profiteers. This regulator is competition, the conflict of the self-interested actors on the marketplace. For each man, out to do his best for himself with no thought of social consequences, is faced with a flock of similarly motivated individuals who are engaged in exactly the same pursuit. Hence, each is only too eager to take advantage of his neighbor's greed. A man who permits his self-interest to run away with him will find that competitors have slipped in to take his trade away; if he charges too much for his wares or if he refuses to pay as much as everybody else for his workers, he will find himself without buyers in the one case and without employees in the other. People, Smith thought, could move in different paths yet harmonize and help each other—but not intentionally. In his classic statement, Smith announces that if all seek to promote their self-interest, the whole society prospers: “He . . . neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it . . . he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” All in all, People should be acting out of self-interest in order to achieve the common good. That “invisible hand” becomes the transparent symbol of Adam Smith's economics. Smith vigorously praised free trade and division of labor because he was convinced that they helped the common man even more than the prince. All this was ignored in favor of the great point that Smith made in his inquiry: let the market alone. What Smith is against is the meddling of the government with the market mechanism, and he believes quotas, tariffs, and trade wars mar the world's economic history. To increase the wealth of nations, Smith argues that society should exploit these natural drives. Government should not repress self‐interested people, for self‐interest is a rich natural resource. People would be fools and nations would be impoverished if they depended on charity and altruism. What he sought was “the invisible hand,” as he called it, whereby “the private interests and passions of men” are led in the direction “which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.” In short, the selfish motives of men are transmuted by mutual restraint to yield the most unexpected of results: social harmony.
To be frank, I am absolutely a Smithist, but I clearly realize that this kind of harmonious society Smith described only exists in the perfect capitalist transaction model where unqualified producers and consumers are automatically ignored by Smith. I can conclude that Adam Smith was an optimist seeing the harmonious side, but Ricardo saw a bitter conflict in trade civilization. Like Ricardo, I see economics in a different and far more pessimistic light than Adam Smith. Not everyone may be happy with the outcome of this free-market process. Contradictions indeed exist everywhere. “The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community,” Ricardo wrote in 1815. Yes, he was right. Because buyers of any good always want a lower price while sellers want a higher price, the interests of the two groups always conflict. Ricardo almost alone among the respectable people admitted that perhaps machinery did not always operate to the immediate benefit of the workman. Similarly, the interest of women is always opposed to the interest of men in sex-service market, and I am the only person who dare declare this in the world now. Like Ricardo became an enemy of the upper class by declaring this cruel truth, no wonder I will also become another enemy of almost all men by declaring another cruel truth. Like there is natural injustice rooted in violent civilization, there is also natural injustice rooted in trade civilization. Next, let's compare their similarities and differences. Let's look at violence civilization first. As its name suggests, anything belongs to those who can rob it by strong muscles, at least temporarily. In other words, you can rob me, and I can rob you, and nothing belongs to someone forever. Contract civilization, also known as trade civilization, is a civilization peculiar to mankind based on two properties: Property right perspicuity and Contract transaction. In other words, contract civilization must be recognized that first, private property is sacred and inviolable, otherwise, that is the category of violence civilization. What are the similarities between the two? The similarities lie in any of them is a rule to allocate scarce resources and aimed at eliminating unqualified survival machines. Compared with survival machines' unlimited needs and wants, resources are always scarce. Scarcity means that society has limited resources and therefore cannot produce all the goods and services people wish to have. Just as each member of a household cannot get everything he or she wants, each individual in a society cannot attain the highest standard of living to which he or she might aspire. There is always a contradiction between limited resources and limitless desires whether under contract civilization or violence civilization. Neither of rules can guarantee everyone has sufficient food, decent clothing, adequate healthcare. What are the differences between the two? The differences lie in the change of rules must be accompanied by creating new winners and losers. Under violence civilization, when an article is scarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that can shew the most valid patent, that is he that is the most violent, becomes the possessor, but under contract civilization, while when an article is scarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that can shew the most valid patent, that is, he that offers most money, becomes the possessor. In other words, muscles are the mechanism for rationing scarce resources under violence civilization, while prices are the mechanism for rationing scarce resources under contract civilization. Generally, in public, the benevolent social planners chose to intervene in the free trade under the guise of “Unfair”. Price controls are usually enacted when policymakers believe that the market price of a good or service is unfair to buyers or sellers. Their reason for intervening in the free trade is that, the benefits of free trade only belongs to a small number of people at the expense of the vast majority. Do you think this saying is correct? Up to a point this is right. According to welfare economics, we measure social welfare by measuring consumer surplus and producer surplus. What is consumer surplus? Consumer surplus, the amount that buyers are willing to pay for a good minus the amount they actually pay for it, measures the benefit that buyers receive from a good as the buyers themselves perceive it. Apparently, this way of measurement determines that the rich are more important than the poor in welfare economics, or we can say that the essence of market economy determines that the vast majority of products and services will fall in the hands of the rich because they have more consumer surplus than the poor. Additionally, sometimes authorities choose to intervene in free trade under the name of positive externality or negative externality. I do not deny the existence of externalities, like pollution, but in reality, it is difficult to define the definition of externality. Besides, externalities are reciprocal in nature. Like I said before, at any moment of time, the number of all goods and services in the world is constant, subject to the productivity of society, so the only remaining problem is how to divide these goods and services. Men and women, as well as the American and Chinese, are as much our partners in the world economy as they are our competitors. In other words, in any short-run, all consumers are in zero-sum game, which means the more one a person possesses goods, the less one another person owns, but the essence of economics determines the vast majority of products and services must fall in the hands of the rich because they have more consumer surplus than the poor do. Is this negative externality? According to welfare economics, it is the result of market economy, but according to “human rights”, this result has negative externality because the purchasing power of the rich reduces the purchasing power of the poor and the sellers always want to sell goods at a higher price. People mistakenly believe that a market economy in a contract civilization can solve all human contradictions, which is the biggest misunderstanding of contract civilization. The essence of violent civilization replaced by contract civilization is the inequity of physical replaced by inequality of money. The driving force of evolution is the non-random elimination whether in violence civilization or contract civilization. In short, “Unfair” is deeply rooted in contract civilization as same as that in violence civilization. It makes sense that a common saying goes, “business is as fierce as war.” Karl Marx was right, and he told us that capital came into the world “dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” Capitalism only magnifies this inequality. The free market is not a pain‐free market. The invisible hand does not protect us the way a mother protects her child. If people prefer more stability, perhaps they should opt for protection. To borrow the words from Adam Smith, market economy of capitalism is a system that placed the interest of the rich over that of the poor. Surprisingly, this problem that the rich have more weight than the poor has not attracted any attention. History is a pageant of ceaseless struggle between classes to partition social wealth. For as long as the technics of society change, no existing division of wealth is immune from attack. In my words, there are only two things in human history: (1) how to divide profits; (2) how to share costs. Here comes the trouble! Under violence civilization, the one, who has been eliminated, is wiped out or die out immediately, and death is the end of all troubles, but under contract civilization, the one, who has been eliminated by prices, is not wiped out in the world, and they are still alive that is the beginning of all troubles. As a result, troubles appeared because those people who are new losers in contract civilization but old winners in violence civilization become troublemakers by resorting to violence civilization to maximize their profit. All the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you cannot eliminate them completely.
As I said above, the essence of capitalist market economy decides unequal distribution of wealth. It was these unqualified consumers that led to trouble. To Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and Friedman, the greatest threat came not from trade civilization, but from the degeneration. They forget the benefits to the poor throughout the country. These people were regarded in trade civilization as a disturbing threat to the established order of market economy. Here I'd like to talk about the division of labour first. Obviously, the great gift of division of labour is not only simplicity, but also greatly improvement of production efficiency. But the same words “Every coin has two sides,” also applies here. Socialized division of labor in capitalism will inevitably lead to occupational dementia. Before the emergence of capitalism, human beings were in self-sufficient trade civilization where everyone can live without depending on others even inefficient, but things had been changed after capital Enclosure Movement that forced farmers to leave their land and go to cities to work. These workers became a tiny of a complex huge production chain. After this capitalist professionalization, workers were becoming more and more specialized, and dementia as well. Many workers had only one occupation in their lifetime. Once they lost their jobs, they lost all their viability. They can't do other jobs. Suddenly one day, they were laid off. How do they survive? This is a very realistic and cruel question. Just because of the division of labour, unemployment drived these workers into despair. Unfortunately, capitalism which belongs to the category of trade civilization had to face those people who were not saints but selfish devils. History was wrought almost exclusively through the meaner and more selfish impulses of mankind. For if any problem absorbed the public mind, it was this omnipresent problem of the unprofitable poor. As Keynes said, “Men will not always die quietly. For starvation, which brings to some lethargy and a helpless despair, drives other temperaments to the nervous instability of hysteria and to a mad despair.” In 1720, England was crowded with a million and a half of them—a staggering figure when we realize that her total population was only twelve or thirteen million. Hence the air was full of schemes for their disposition. As early as 1779 a mob of eight thousand workers had attacked a mill and burned it to the ground in unreasoning defiance of its cold implacable mechanical efficiency, and by 1811 such protests against technology were sweeping England. Wrecked mills dotted the countryside, and in their wake the word went about that “Ned Ludd had passed.” By 1813 the situation had gotten out of hand. From 1816 to 1820 with the exception of a single year, business was very bad. The misery threatened to explode: “bread and blood” riots broke out, and a kind of hysteria gripped the country. In Europe, mobs rioted not only in England, but also in France, Italy and so on. Unemployment had reached the point at which some sort of action was dictated by pure political necessity—after all, this was a time when there were riots in Dearborn and a ragged march on Washington. In 1818, a very important Communist prophet Karl Marx was born. That's why I don't hate Marx. The turmoil happened first, and the Marx came after. But had Marx not lived, there would have been other Socialists and other prophets of a new society. Karl Marx was just to discover “laws of motion” that described how capitalism proceeded slowly, unwillingly, but ineluctably to its doom. The Manifesto opened with ominous words: “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism.” The specter indeed existed: 1848 was a year of terror for the old order on the Continent. There was a revolutionary fervor in the air and a rumble underfoot. For a moment—for a brief moment—it looked as if the old order might break down. “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims,” cried the Manifesto. “They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social relations. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!” The ruling classes did tremble, and they saw the threat of communism everywhere. Nor were their fears groundless. The Manifesto had something else in mind: a philosophy of history in which a Communist revolution was not only desirable but demonstrably inevitable. Marx also prophesied the collapse of capitalism, a system that provides its own “gravediggers.” That the foundations of capitalism were quickly crumbling, and that the masses would soon erupt in revolution and shake the owners until they tumbled from their pedestals. Lenin believed that capitalism would destroy both others and itself and the “boundless greed” of capitalists forces their destruction. In international conventions, Gini coefficient is widely used in representing the income or wealth distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measurement of inequality. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0 (0%) to 1 (100%), with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing perfect inequality. A higher Gini coefficient means greater inequality. If every resident of a nation had the same income, the Gini coefficient would be zero. If one resident earned all of the income in a nation and the rest earned zero, the Gini coefficient would be 1. Wealthy countries such as Sweden can show a low Gini coefficient for disposable income of 0.31 thereby appearing equal, yet have very high Gini coefficient for wealth of 0.79 to 0.86 thereby suggesting an extremely unequal wealth distribution in its society Countries with a high Gini Coefficient are more likely to become unstable, since there is a large mass of poor people who are jealous of the small number of rich people. Poverty is not terrible, but comparision is terrible. The poor are always the factor of social instability. In countries with large Gini index, how to maintain the precarious contract civilization? Later, I will use two examples of South Africa and Thailand to illustrate this issue.
Speaking of jealousy, maybe jealousy is deep-rooted bad habits in human nature, especially for initial endowments, such as heritages, land ownership, ownership of vagina. Like I said in Chapter Six that the competition for initial endowments is the most intense because those people who own the initial endowments have all the resources without any costs, and others can only take possession of scarce resources through transactions. Why, asks Henry George, should rent exist? Why should a man benefit merely from the fact of ownership, when he may render no services to the community in exchange? We may justify the rewards of an industrialist by describing his profits as the prize for his foresight and ingenuity, but where is the foresight of a man whose grandfather owned a pasture on which, two generations later, society saw fit to erect a skyscraper? George believed that land rent can be regarded from the start as a kind of social extortion, naturally it represented an unfair distribution of produce to landlords at the expense of workers and industrialists. They regard those who have the initial endowments as the exploiting class, and those who need to obtain the initial endowments through transactions as the exploited class. I bet George must believe female vagina is also a form of social extortion because it represent an unfair distribution of sex resourse to women at the expense of all men. I admit it's not fair, but we can't change it because it's up to God's endowments. Workers hate capital in the hands of capitalists as much as men hate women's vagina and uterus and as farmers hate land in the hands of landlords. Their ultimate goal is to use them for free. But in Marxist garb, the theory took on tones both more menacing and more inexorable, therefore, Marx called on the proletariat to rise up violent revolution in order to break this unfair initial endowments. Of course it is naive, and the equation of initial endowments with sin could have occurred only to someone as messianic as George and Marx. Here I give you three famous examples: Cheung Tze-keung, nicknamed “Big Spender”, was best known for having masterminded the abduction of Victor Li, son of Li Ka Shing, in 1996. From the perspective of game theory, at first he had no initial endowments to trade with Li Ka Shing, but later, he resorted to violent civilization to gain bargaining chips(Li's son), and then deal with Li by resorting to contract civilization. Have you ever remember that, on Saturday night February 23, 1974, Vermeer's Guitar Player was stolen from Kenwood House, in Hampstead, London, which was finally confirmed that IRA did it. This organization tried to have the initial position to negotiate with the British government on the matter of independence of Northern Ireland by stealling the famous painting. Previously, they don't have bargaining chips. Similarly, D.B.Cooper, one of American famous Hijackers, first resorted to violent civilization to change the initial endowments and then resort to trading civilization to benefit himself. Who blackmailed or extorted who? These proletariats do not really hate the initial endowments, but hate that they don't have any initial endowments in their hands. Instead of hating land rent, farmers hate they don't have any land, and when they changes seats, they may charge more for rent. Men don't hate women, they hate that they don't have women, when they start to sell their daughters, they may sell more expensive. The interests of sellers and buyers are always opposite and your position determines your interests, and how to solve the contradiction between buyer and seller? I think “veil of ignorance”is the only way. Should I hate that I was born in China, not in England or America? This is the randomness of fate. It is well known that the earth rotates from West to East. I don't know why, maybe some mysterious force pushed like this by accident. Similarly, some countries drive on the right while some on the left. But once the initial endowment is determined, everything after that is based on this premise, called Path-Dependence. What if now, suddently, earth changes its direction of rotation? Present balance would be immediately broken, and then go through a period of chaos, and finally a new balance must be struck. I'm not sure how long this will take, maybe couple of years or thousands of years. But the thing I am confirmmed is that all buildings on earth would be destroyed, and the ocean would redistribute heat by changing the flow direction. I guess the final equilibrium converges to the outcome that the Sahara desert in Africa will become a tropical rainforest, while most of North and South America will become deserts, and maybe Europe's temperature will drop sharply while cold Russia will warm up. We humans will experience another 4.6 billion years to return to the present state of inequality. Do you think we should change its direction of rotation by external forces? Similarly, after these proletariats rob the initial endowments by resorting to violence, they still have to resort to trading civilization to establish social order, otherwise you rob me and then I rob you again which is a dead cycle. Of course, under the guidance of capitalist abuse of freedom, the behaviour of some rich people is really abhorrent. Here I give you another classical example. Gunther IV, a German shepherd, is one of the richest animals in the world today with a total worth of $400 million. However jaw-dropping the fact might be, Gunther IV, who was born around 1991, had inherited enormous fortune from his father, Gunther III. Now, Gunther III was owned by the multi-millionaire German countess Karlotta Leibenstein. Karlotta, in absence of her own children and being the ardent pet lover that she was, left a whooping $80 million for her furry companion when she died. When Gunther III passed away, this vast fortune was passed over to his son. Over the years, Gunther IV's caretakers had been smart enough to turn this fortune into five times through worthy investments, giving Gunther IV the position he commands today. Gunther IV had been to several auctions and had even won a rare white truffle in 2001 with the winning bid of $1.1 million. He is a so-called high maintenance dog owning several cars and mansions including estates in the Italy, Germany and the Bahamas. Surprisingly, one of his acquisitions includes the $7.5 million dollars home in Miami that was once occupied by the pop star Madonna. A typical day in the life of Gunther IV can leave anyone awestruck. He is attended by a personal maid and butler along with quite a few other human staffs. He travels around from one of his homes to the other in his luxurious limousine and enjoys the summers in his customized swimming pool. Gunther IV's overall lifestyle is surely exemplary in terms of luxury, sophistication and worth. Like I said before, in barbaric capitalism, the dogs of the rich are necessarily more valuable than the poor themselves. These rich but without benevolent have increased the hatred in my heart because they make me think that I'm not worth as much as a dog. To be honest, as a bourgeois conservative, I want even to kill it and take its assets for myself, even if my actions violate contractual civilization. Recommend you a good Korean movie named “Parasite” (기생충 2019) which will tell you how sharp the contradiction is between the rich and the poor. People, including myself, always demand others by the standards of saints and themselves by the standards of bitches. By the way, shouldn't the government control the so-called legal wills of these ignorant women? At least her legacy should be used for human beings instead of a dog.
To be honest, we humans were not or are not in perfect contract civilization, maybe never. In the previous Chapter 6, I have discussed already, violence civilization, as the ground state civilization (E0), is the most stable Figure 6.2), while contract civilization, as the excited states, is in relatively stable states. Our contract civilization is so fragile because it is threatened by degeneration all the time. Don't think my words are alarmist. Looking around, we are still surrounded by lots of violence. One principle of taxation, called the benefits principle, states that people should pay taxes based on the benefits they receive from government services. The benefits principle can also be used to argue that wealthy citizens should pay higher taxes than poorer ones. Why? Simply because the wealthy benefit more from public services. Consider, for example, the benefits of police protection from theft. Citizens with much to protect benefit more from police than do those with less to protect. Therefore, according to the benefits principle, the wealthy should contribute more than the poor to the cost of maintaining the police force. The same argument can be used for many other public services, such as fire protection, national defense, and the court system. I basically agree with the benefits principle, but my only question is theft and robbery do not seem to belong to the category of contract civilization. In other words, the wealthy employ police to protect their property away from violent civilization. What's the difference between this logic and Mafia protection fees? Both of them charge fees to protect contractual transactions from violent civilization. This has nothing to do with justice and fairness. Following the same logic, the army is the organization employed by citizens to protect us from other country's violence. It that right? This is the reality that we are far from perfect contract civilization and threatened by degeneration all the time. For many decades, bullying has been a profitable occupation. All across world, bullies have built up skills so they can take advantage of that opportunity. If we toughen the rules to make bullying unprofitable, must we compensate the bullies? This is the typical logic of bullies and proletariat rogue that the winners from free trade must compensate the losers? Bullying, Luddites and Proletariat have a lot in common. They all use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich themselves at your involuntary expense. That is why communism and fascism are often viewed as twins. Actually, we human beings always lie somewhere between violence civilization and contract civilization. Faced with this risk of degeneration, how should the authorities deal with it? Generally, there are only two ways: Either suppress or compromise. To choose which one depends on which is more beneficial or less harmful to the authorities because they face trade-off as well. By the way, either suppress or compromise is necessary because we need to accumulate in one direction. Slowness is not a big problem because degeneration does more harm than slowness in evolution. When the number of these mobs is small, the authorities tend to act in this way, but when the number of these mobs are big enough, the authorities tend to compromise because the mobs will unite to resort to violence to overthrow the regime, which the authorities will lose everything. Here, needless to say, suppress means eliminating them physically, which is cruel but still necessary. What is the nature of compromise? On the one hand, let the mobs enter the market by reducing the threshold through some means; on the other hand, all the losses arising there from compromise redistributed among each market participant. Taxation is the most typical compromise, whose essence is a kind of compensation or transfer from the winners in free trade to the losers. In-kind transfers, as the name suggests, is a transfer from someone to someone else. Previously, I mentioned that due to the staggeringly low rates of crime in the Netherlands, five Dutch prisons are going to be closed by autumn. Why is the Dutch crime rate so low? It is not because there are no bad people in Holland, but about 50% high tax. The Dutch government provides high unemployment benefits. In order to get the money, some Dutch people pretend to look for several jobs but don't work hard to cope with government procedures. The nature of low crime rate is spending money to buy safety, which is justs no more than blackmail. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” The government enacts taxes to raise revenue, and that revenue must come out of someone's pocket. Any party in the market attempts to intervene in the normal market economy by kidnapping the authorities. That is political economy. Now comes the question, who will pay for it or the revenue will come out of whose pocket. This is the point of contention. “Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax that fella behind the tree.” That is the real thought in everybody's mind, but finally taxes must fall on someone, so the struggle between the middle class and the wealthy is on the stage, aiming at how to divide the burden of a tax between them. That is why economists' advice is not always followed by authorities. Economics is a lecture to teach people how to face trade-offs under the category of perfect contract civilization and does not involve any category of violent civilization. More precisely speaking, under perfect contract civilization, everyone's behavior must be restrained by the budget constraint and indifference curves. When you walk into a store, you are confronted with thousands of goods that you might buy. Because your financial resources are limited, however, you cannot buy everything that you want. Contract civilization pays more attention to what you can afford rather than what you want because its default premise is you will consciously give up your desires when you can't afford the market price. Most economists support free trade because any barrier must lead to deadweight loss. They view free trade as a way of allocating production efficiently and raising living standards for both parties. Almost American economists oppose such barriers to free trade, but it is still illegal to prostitute in the United States. There is no doubt that trade can make everyone better off. But will trade make everyone better off? Probably not. Not everyone may be happy with the outcome of this free-market process. Like the good news for farming is bad news for farmers, most important among these issues is that each country has many citizens with different interests. International trade can make some individuals worse off, even as it makes the country as a whole better off. We can now see why the debate over free trade is often contentious. Whenever a policy creates winners and losers, the stage is set for a political battle. The strongest link between economics and the real world has always been politics. Throughout the history of economic thought, we see confrontations and sometimes cooperation between government and economists. If we think that the essence of microeconomics is how to exchange, and the essence of macroeconomics is how to transfer costs. The essence of any government intervention based on market economy is the redistribution of costs and benefits, and some people could benefit but at the expense of the whole welfare. As long as the authorities give different weights to sellers and buyers, the government will adopt certain policies to interfere with free trade. In other words, when the authorities are threatened by losers in free trade, they will intervene in the free market. A so-called “good” policy can increase the welfare as a whole but at expense of authority, or the new losers would pass some of costs on to the authority by resorting to violence civilization, so authority has to make a compromise to find victims to divert costs. In the language of game theory, this is the idea of “cruel bind”, and authorities were bound by the new losers in free trade. That is why bureaucrats and legislators frequently frustrate free trade, because authorities only take actions in their own interests. Of course, there is a default premise that the losers of contract civilization are not the losers of violent civilization, otherwise the authorities need not compromise because the threats of degeneration do not exist. This statement is correct that leftover women are not the problem while leftover men are the big problem.
Authorities often intervene in the market under the guise of fairness. The pursuit of fairness has been distorted as the patron saint of their intervention in the market. To be honest, people care about fairness but have a vague understanding of fairness. It is this blind and ignorant mentality that the government takes advantage of. In my view, fairness requires everyone to start running at the same time but does not require everyone to arrive at the same time. But in the western political system of one man one vote determines that the poor and the rich enjoy the same political rights, contradiction arose. Unfair in welfare economics VS fair in political rights, who would win? It depends on which side has more market power? Anyway, the struggle started on the stage. As Teddy Roosevelt put it, you could carve men with stronger backbones from bananas. No one is safe when Congress is in session—including congressmen. Olson and Stigler portray special interest groups swinishly struggling to stick their snouts in the public trough. Why does the government feed them? Why does the government supply the goods and services that different groups demand? The answer is very simple: Cruel binding. Public Choice economists do not say that all regulations help industry and harm consumers. They do not argue for pure laissez‐faire economics. They do, however, urge that people compare the free market result with a realistic model of government regulation rather than a mythical vision that assumes a benevolent government always striving to serve the public interest. In fact, regulation is almost always bad for an economy as a whole, though good for a particular group. There is no good or bad policy; there is only one question who will be sacrificed? Of course, those who weigh less on the authorities' accounts. The government is also discriminatory. Only be required can be valued. The government favors those who are more useful and discriminates against those who are fools and useless. The trade-off can change over time not because of feminism, but interests. The authorities have increasingly needed the social value created by women just like they needed the social value created by bottom men in that year. A question is inserted here: Why females are more valuable than males in any of human livestock and poultry industries, but, the opposite is true in human beings' reproduction? Take the pigs for example, generally in a pig farm female pigs are worth more than male pigs except a few breeding male pigs. The answer is simple, pigs have only reproductive value but no other value for human, so, apparently, sows are more valuable than boars. The situation is different in human beings. Women still trapped in the vicious circle of reproduction, but men have already demonstrated their social values. The authorities have preferences and prefer some people who are more useful to them, which can be regarded as “cruel bind.” That is why men have market power and men are set over women. Here I give you three human examples to illustrate the idea of “Cruel bind.” One example is ongoing escalating trade war between China and America. Why did Trump launch a trade war against China? Using his own words, “I'm the president of the United States, and I'm not the president of the globe.” Apparently, he does not give any weight to foreign producers, so the essence of tariffs is that the U.S. government colluded with domestic producers to devour some interests of domestic consumers and foreign producers. Of course, Trump was convinced that, comparing with free trade, the tariff can make the country as a whole (U.S. government + domestic consumers + domestic producers) better off at the expense of foreign producers. Just like in a divorce case, foreign producer is not one of “Us”, because Trump does not need the votes of foreign producers, so it's normal thing that President ignored the interests of them. In the language of game theory, this is the idea of “cruel bind”. In my words, President Trump was bound by American interests instead of Chinese interests, so he chose to sacrifice Chinese. The other example is monogamy. Following the same logic, the essence of monogamy is that the government colluded with all sex-service consumers to devour interests of producers. Monogamy indeed can make all men as a whole better off at the expense of all women. Why is that? It is because during this collusion, women are not one of “Us”. Like foreign producers in tariffs, women are sacrificed, because they are external objects, the Other, not human beings at all. For the same idea of “cruel bind”, authorities were bound by male interests or we can say men become more and more interdependent, because with the development of transaction civilization, in terms of value, the bottom men are more useful to authorities, but at the same time, women are still stuck in the value of vagina and uterus. Sexual satisfaction belongs to physiological needs in the basic level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which can be viewed as physical requirements for male survival, so after the trade-off authorities gave up the excess uterus and vagina in order to get more social value, otherwise the bottom men will resort to violent civilization. The last example: On October 25, 1971, Resolution 2758, sponsored by Albania and Algeria, was passed by the General Assembly, withdrawing recognition of the ROC as the legitimate government of China, and recognizing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. What is the cost? More than $100 million USD aid. Who takes the cost? Apparently, for dictators, sometimes other countries are insiders while own citizens are outsiders, because Foreigners are more useful to them. To be precise, in the eyes of the dictators, the nation is only the host. Obviously, the parasite does not think that the host is an insider. Similarly, during the three years of so-called Chinese natural disasters in the 1960s, Mao ordered the blockade of the countryside and banned rural people from going to the city, which led to the starvation to death of many whole villages. Did he make a mistake about the blockade the countryside? Obviously, he didn't. Food was in extreme shortage at that time, and he had to face a trade-off between workers and farmers. Apparently, workers are more useful to him than farmers at that time. To be frank, if I were him, I should do the same thing. Similarly, for the same reason, authority gave up Japanese reparations after World War II? Through the above four examples, you should understand that, the authorities always prefer those who are more useful to him because authorities also face the trade-offs and rational authorities must think at the margin. In short, the key question is whether you can drag the authorities into the water, or, let me put it another way, whether you can make a “cruel bind” to the authorities. Apparently, those people who can pass the cost on to the authorities have more market power in under imperfect market economy.
Economic freedom is a highly desirable state—but in bust and boom we must be prepared to face its possible consequences. Friedmanism is ideal; Keynesianism is reality. In theory, I want to shout like Friedman: “Just stand there! Deregulate something!” But in reality, I have to act like Keynes: “Don't just stand there! Do something!” I don't think Keynes was burying capitalism, instead, he was trying to save it. For at heart he was a conservative as I am, it would be a grave error in judgment to place him, whose aim was to rescue capitalism, in the camp of those who wanted to submerge it. True, he urged the “socialization” of investment, even if he sacrificed the part; it was to save the whole from degeneration at least in short run. Frankly speaking, I am against active stabilization policy because it only transfers the cost instead of eliminating them, but I know my objection overruled! I know it's overwhelming because short-term stability is more important than long-term benefits. All in all, all interventions are aimed at maintaining current stability. Policymakers use of policy instruments to stabilize aggregate demand or supply and, as a result, society. Social stabilization has been an explicit goal of any government including authoritarian or democratic government, also a continuing policy and responsibility of anyone. The essence of compromise is to lower the standards to allow these mobs to enter the markets, including survival market, mating market, reproductive market and real estate market and so on. This is a strategy of sacrificing space for time in short-run because in long-run the losers will opt out of the market as a Counter-Strategy. It is because, according to Principle 4: People respond to incentives, firms can choose to enter or exit as a Counter-Strategy in the long run but not in the short run. The elasticity of supply curve often depends on the time horizon. For many firms, the division of total costs between fixed and variable costs depends on the time horizon. Due to the fixed costs, as the sunk cost, unrecovered, in the short run, supply curve is relatively inelastic, but firms tend to have more elastic supply curve over longer time horizons. When the government intervenes in the market through various means to lower prices, the response depends on the time horizon. In the short run, supply curve is relatively inelastic, so the price falls substantially. By contrast, in the long run, supply curve is relative elastic, and prices will rebound. The short-run and long-run decisions differ because most firms cannot avoid their fixed costs in the short run but can do so in the long run, or we can say many decisions are fixed in the short run but variable in the long run, because the fixed costs are sunk in the short run, and the firm can ignore them when deciding how much to produce, but firms have greater flexibility in the long run. Consider, for instance, monogamy. In the short run when a father cannot recover its fixed costs, he will choose to continue production temporarily if the price of a girl is more than average variable cost. In the long run when father can recover both fixed and variable costs, it will choose to exit if the price is less than average total cost. Decisions about entry and exit in a market of this type depend on the incentives facing the owners of existing firms and the entrepreneurs who could start new firms. If firms already in the market are profitable, then new firms will have an incentive to enter the market. This entry will expand the number of firms, increase the quantity of the good supplied, and drive down prices and profits. Conversely, if firms in the market are making losses, then some existing firms will exit the market. Their exit will reduce the number of firms, decrease the quantity of the good supplied, and drive up prices and profits. At the end of this process of entry and exit, firms that remain in the market must be making zero economic profit. We can conclude that in short-run market supply with a fixed number of goods and services, but in long-run, the number of goods and services in the market will drop with the gradual exit of producers. Apparently, free entry and exit in a market is a powerful force shaping the long-run equilibrium, and an invisible hand of self-interest keeps the intervention by authorities in check. No one can beat the market in the long run, and the market must strike a new balance by self-love. In short, government intervention, viewed as a kind of expediency, really works in lowering prices in short-run exploiting the supply curve in without flexibility, but in long-run inevitably causes a shortage or inefficiency, and these suppliers are victims in this trade-off. Keynes dryly wrote: “In the long run we are all dead.” What was the great contribution of Marshall to the conceptual tangles of economics? The main contribution to economic analysis was the element of time. For equilibrium, as Marshall pointed out, changed its basic meaning according to whether the adjustment process of the economy took place in a short-run or a long-run period. Marshall and I coincide on this issue of time, I do believe the time horizon plays a key role in evolution. What is God waiting for? Wait for substitutes for scarce goods to be invented. How to distinguish short-run from long-run? To borrow the words from Schumpeter, in his almost perversely teasing way he first maintained that in the “short run” capitalism would indeed trace a long climbing trajectory, adding that “in these things, a century is a 'short run. '” Exactly. From the perspective of God, a century is not a long run in human evolution, but from the perspective of a person, a century is his/her whole life. To be honest, there is no better way because evolution requires sacrifice; Sacrifice of others, of course. It is a better risk than watching the entire system collapse. It is wise of you to relieve the problem of the poor, but it is foolish of you to eradicate the problem of the poor, so we can regard all these strategies as a palliative. So, the next key questions are how to transfer the cost to others and when and who to take it? In terms of time frame, authorities generally adopt two ways to transfer costs: transfer costs to contemporary people and posterity. Let's talk about it one by one.
To transfer costs to contemporary people, there are three main ways in general: Inflation, Mandatory law, and Deception. Of course, there are other means like In-kind transfers, Poor Laws and so on, which are obvious and equivalent to direct money delivery. Here I mainly talk about three ways of concealment.
The first one is by inflation. Unemployment is the greatest and gravest threat to the capitalism continuance, so Keynes's aim is to create a capitalist economy in which unemployment would be largely eliminated. Keynes believes that during recessions, balanced budgets are stupid, for there are two sides to a budget: tax revenues and outlays. Since in recessions incomes fall, governments collect less in taxes. If the government is obsessed by a balanced budget, it must either cut spending or raise taxes. But each of these squeezes the economy further by the multiplier process! Over the course of the business cycle, budgets should be balanced, Keynes urged. During prosperity people pay more money in taxes and budget surpluses should result. But during recessions the government should allow deficits. Keynes succinctly stated his position on the proper role of government: “not to do things which individuals are doing already . . . but to do those things which are at present not done at all,” for instance, promoting full employment by augmenting consumption and investment. I am a nerd and let me take you back to some knowledge in Economics. Principle 10: Society faces a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Honestly, I do not think economists have elucidated the essence of this trade-off. Here let me give you my view about this classic trade-off because it helps us to understand other trade-offs. What is the essence of the unemployed in the market economy? They are unqualified suppliers in labor market. How to make these unqualified workers in the market economy to be qualified workers in short run? The government provides them with jobs. I wonder what magic jobs can turn these unqualified labor suppliers into the qualified immediately. With his tongue only partly in his cheek Keynes had written: If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again ... there need be no more unemployment and with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community would probably become a good deal larger than it is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are practical difficulties in the way of doing this, the above would be better than nothing. Perhaps his statement is just an analogy, but it's better to do a little useless work in a recession than to do nothing at all because it indeed solves the problem of unemployment. China is now experiencing this duplicate ineffective work of burying and digging bottles. One road in front of my house is like this. Today, it was dug by a group of people and filled up. Next month, it was dug by another group of people and filled up again. Today, a shopping mall had been built here and it would be blown up tomorrow. Some people are busy all day doing some useless work repeatedly, and as a result, social goods and services have not increased, but money has. These useless products are bound to lead to inflation, but the price of inflation is borne by all people, so this transfer cost is hidden in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. Its concealment lies in the dilution of everyone’s interests. More precisely, those people who are inflexible bear most of the cost. I don't think Keynes himself didn't realize the flaws of this system, he knew but kept quiet. People were taught that “everyone” knew that more jobs could be created, if only society would allow slightly higher inflation. Discretionary fiscal policy depends on the wisdom of politicians. Unfortunately, I don't think they have a sharper eye. Too often, policymakers trying to stabilize the economy do just the opposite. Because of this, policymakers can inadvertently exacerbate rather than mitigate the magnitude of economic fluctuations. In the history of capitalism, there is no lack of hyper-inflation caused by a serious act of stupid and illogical political programs. The German Weimar Republic presents the model case. Between 1921 and 1924, the printing presses worked full speed, blasting the money supply into the stratosphere. It did not just double, triple, or quadruple. It rose by more than 25 trillion percent! The price index followed, soaring in a year and a half from 1 to 200 million. Everyone was a billionaire! And nearly every millionaire was hungry. Closets burst with bills while cupboards were bare. In America, Samuel Goldwyn said that “an oral contract is not worth the paper it's printed on.” In Germany, money wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The German economy was destroyed. The moral here is that cheap money does not come easy. If the amount of money overwhelms the capacity to produce goods, consumers, with more money to spend, bid up prices. The town is no wealthier than before; more bills do not bring a higher standard of living any more than if everyone added two zeroes to his or her salary. Remember that wealth is measured by the goods and services it can buy, not by numerals. Since one U.S. dollar can buy thousands of pesos, a Mexican millionaire might be poor compared to a low‐income American. Giving all the Mexicans suitcases packed with pesos would not help. Merriment does not necessarily follow more. Many of the major economic fluctuations in history, including the Great Depression of the 1930s, can be traced to destabilizing policy actions. In the 1970s and again now, Federal Reserve officials repeatedly promised themselves and each other that they would lower inflation. But as soon as the unemployment rate ticked up a bit, the promises were forgotten. “Full employment” and “economic growth” have in the past few decades become primary excuses for widening the extent of government intervention in economic affairs. Full employment is a zero-threshold slogan, just like the slogan of “common prosperity” in Communist countries. It's impossible to get full employment in perfect market economy. The essence of fiscal policies is the government employs the unemployed with taxpayer's money to make something utterly useless. These useless products and services are bound to cause inflation. This is not fundamentally different from poverty alleviation, even worse because once the program was adopted, it was bound to be dominated by the special interests that it could serve. A large part of the support for fiscal policies comes not from disinterested men of good will but from interested parties. For example, some special interest groups are the major beneficiaries in China's fiscal policy. With minimal procedure of relief fund, the grasping politician may have little or no opportunities for graft, but with a complex expanding spending program, there must be numerous opportunities. Of course, there are special examples. Inflation gradually drifted downward, approaching zero by the end of the decade in US. Unemployment also drifted downward, leading many observers to believe that the natural rate of unemployment had fallen. Part of the credit for this good economic performance goes to Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve, for low inflation can be achieved only with prudent monetary policy. But good luck in the form of favorable supply shocks is also part of the story. This illustrate that Alan Greenspan is a very wise policymaker with very keen eyes because he employed the unemployed with taxpayer's money to make something useful. To be honest, it is very difficult. Almost all fiscal policies cause inflation because its aim is to reduce the threshold to let those unqualified people into the market, but everything should have a threshold including any labor market. I think you are familiar with the words “lowering the threshold” which have appeared many times in my book. In many cases, lowering the threshold is accompanied by transfer costs. Like I said before, as same as subprime crisis, lowing standards can only result prosperity in short-run but must lead to confusion in the long run. One lesson of the inflationary 1970s in America: A country that will not accept the possibility of a small recession will end up having a big one when the politicians at last respond to the public's complaints about inflation. Instead of paying the relatively small cost of a possible recession, the public pays the much larger cost of sustained inflation and a deeper recession. China's economic boom also relies on this zero threshold. The Chinese have overdrawn their consumption capacity in the coming decades by loans. China is also facing the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Do you think the Chinese government will squeeze these unqualified people out of the real estate market? Of course not, otherwise these proletariats will resort to violence. This kind of news comes every day that a crowd of people smashed windows at the sales office of a real estate firm after the builder had ended a sales promotion on a project. The protestors had bought properties in earlier phases of the same project at prices as much as 30% higher than the discounted ones. Like Trump said, “These aren't people. These are animals.” I can't agree with him more because they are a group of incompetent people who are not responsible for their actions. The government know the strength of the mob's unity very well is very afraid of these proletarians, because their regime was seized by the violence of the proletariat as well, but now they exchange places. Like I said before, at any time, contractual civilization has a spontaneous tendency to return to violent civilization because the losers of contract civilization did not die. What will the Chinese government do? Bingo, pass the cost on to the public by printing money, so I predict that China will enter a period of high inflation right now. In many ways, the Chinese government has fallen into the fallacy of broken windows. Many garbage projects have been built, demolished and rebuilt and again and again. You know the drill. The chain of spending will multiply and generate higher income and employment. In this way, GDP has been increasing over and over again, but ultimately there is nothing left. In China, a famous joke goes that, two people bet on eating shit. Two friends named John and Jack went out together. Suddenly seeing a pile of poo, John said to Jack that, “if you eat a pile of poo, I'll give you a million dollars,” and then Jack got a million dollars after his eating shit. Another day, seeing another pile of poo, Jack said to John that, “if you eat a pile of poo, I'll give you a million dollars as well.” In order to recover the previous losses, John also chose to eat this pile of poo. From an economic point of view, GDP has increased by 2 million dollars. The joke satirizes that the government has fallen into the trap of blindly increasing GDP. The broken window didn't create net new spending; it just diverted spending from somewhere else. The broken window does not create new activity, just different activity. People see the activity that takes place. They don't see the activity that would have taken place. In fact, this kind of government investments actually interfere with the normal market economic order. Might is right because there is no way out, the victim is necessary. Only children distinguish right from wrong, but adults only distinguish advantages from disadvantages. Li Ka Shing began selling Chinese property from 2013, until 2015 he sold out completely. He is a smart guy, yeah? In my view, there is no essential difference between exploiting inflation to solve unemployment and The Poor Law. At first glance, the costs of The Poor Law are on the taxpayer, but no specific person pays for inflation. Our intuitive understanding is totally wrong. Victims in inflation are those whose wage increase is less than inflation, and of course, they are invisible victims, so it is hard to observe and would not cause strong reaction. There is an old saying, “Everything has a cost”, which is the first principle in economic thinking, but the key question is who will pay the price or who will bear the costs, which is the core idea of trade-offs. Now, I can answer the previous question: What is the nature of trade-offs? The nature of trade-offs is to transfer the costs. The rest is commentary, including how and to whom. To maintain contract civilization, the human society requires sacrifice, sacrifice of others, of course. Transfer costs not only occur under the dictatorship but also under the democratic system. As everyone knows, 'Yellow Vests' Riot happened in Paris in Nov. 2018. University fees for students outside of the EU, which would include Brits after Brexit, are set to shoot up by as much as 16 times the current cost, the French prime minister has announced in a few days later. The cost of attending a French university for students from outside the European Union is set to shoot up from €170 to €2,770 per year, a jump of 16 times the current fees, from autumn 2019. According to some news, India just staged the biggest strike in history as 200 million workers took to the Streets in Jan. 2019. The strike is a protest against new legislation that passed on 2 January and is a de facto verdict on Prime Minister Narendra Modi providing an opportunity for millions of workers to protest against high prices and high levels of unemployment. I wait and see how the Indian Government transfers costs. To be honest, Capitalism inevitably leads to transfer costs, which is determined by the nature of capitalism. First of all, in order to maximize the benefits, capitalism will inevitably lower the threshold and let more people enter the market. Any pseudo equilibrium state can be maintained only at the cost of some victims. I know of no pseudo equilibrium state in any country or any time that was not accompanied by victims equally of no victims that was not accompanied by pseudo equilibrium state. There is no trade-off between degeneration and victims in the long run because with the development of science and technology, new and cheaper alternatives will emerge. This process is called the strategy of “Trade space for time.” Any trade-off problem follows this logic, even including the trade-off between truths and lies. The so-called bullshit “human rights” are built at the expense of others.
The second one is by Mandatory law. Mandatory law can be divided into two categories: price control (Bride-price control) or quantity control (Monogamy), and Market-based policy (Taxes and Subsidies). In the scenario of regulation, two common examples of a price control are rent control as a price ceiling and minimum wage as a price floor. Indeed, the benevolent social planners are led to control prices because they view the market's outcome as unfair. Price controls are often aimed at helping the poor. For instance, rent-control laws try to make housing affordable for everyone, and minimum-wage laws try to help people escape poverty. I never deny the kindness of many people, but their kindness is biased. In the case of rent control, they do not take into account the welfare of the landlord, while in the case of minimum wage, they do not take into account the welfare of employers and outsiders either. But there are indeed some people who benefit from rent control. Who are they? In the short run, two groups profit. First, politicians, who sound like heroes slaying the evil landlords. Second, tenants who already occupy units at the time rent control is invoked and thus continue to enjoy bargain rents. Similarly, there are indeed some people who benefit from minimum-wage laws. In the short run, politicians, who sound like heroes slaying the evil employers. Second, insiders who benefit from high union wages. In other words, workers in unions reap the benefit of collective bargaining, while workers not in unions bear some of the cost. That's why I despise so-called the benevolent social planners because they just only shift costs instead of eliminating costs. Following the same logic, bride-price control is aimed at helping the poor to get a wife but at the cost of sacrificing the female's welfare. Monogamy also creates beneficiaries and losers in short run. These are all inequitable because some people benefit at the expense of others. By the way, prohibition of transactions is equal to setting a price ceiling of zero. As you know, prostitution as the world's oldest profession for women, organ market and blood market and so on and so forth are illegal in many countries around the world, even in the United States the most developed capitalist country. There is no doubt that these prohibitions stem from the idea of unfairness. These markets, once legalized, would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor because these rare resources would then be allocated to those most willing and able to pay. Have these markets really disappeared? Of course not, these markets still exist in the underground economy because where there is a demand, there is a supply. In addition to price controls, there is an uncommon means of regulation: Quantity control or Purchase restriction, which is so rare that it has not been mentioned in Economics. The essence of purchase restriction is to shift the demand curve to the left in order to lower the price, also from the benevolent social planners' kindness, but they still do not take into account the welfare of sellers either. The two classic examples I can remember are Monogamy all over the world and Housing purchase limitation in China. Both reasons are, due to the dramatic increase of consumers in short-run, almost all products and services fall in the hands of the rich, but these two are not exactly the same. The purchase of many girls is for himself to consume, but the purchase of many houses is to sell after the price rises. The former is consumer behavior while the latter is speculative behavior. How to distinguish consumption from speculation? One is for self-use, the other is for sale. The government should crack down on speculation rather than regulate self-use. I think vacancy tax is good way, much better than purchase limitation. Frankly speaking, it is not a good thing to develop too fast because it is difficult to say something perfectly, precisely false. In the scenario of taxes, sometimes policy makers prefer taxes to help the poor, but the essence of tax determines that a tax burden falls more heavily on the side of the market that is less elastic, and maybe the costs will be passed on to the poor in the form of higher prices. The biggest difference between price/quantity control and tax control is that hegemonists get the benefit at the expense of sellers from the former, whereas the government get the revenue from the latter, so generally speaking, the authorities adopt price and quantity control as a means of intervention because they just want to pass on costs instead of provoking the poor. Public policy is made not by angels but by a political process that is far from perfect. Sometimes policies are designed simply to reward the politically powerful. Sometimes they are made by well-intentioned leaders who are not fully informed. In many cases, the two are hard to distinguish.
Everything described in the previous paragraph is based on rational decision makers, so an invisible hand of self-interest keeps the intervention by authorities in check in the long-run. What if the short-run is really very short, or how to stop the seller from exiting the market? Of course, the authorities can enact laws to force suppliers to stay in the market, but this situation is very rare and invalid in general, and I don't know any case else except for the prohibition of female infanticide, moreover, the government has not explicitly forced women into P-V model, and the fact is women voluntarily enter P-V model. Why? When a conspiracy failed, another bigger conspiracy emerged. The third one is by deception. In the previous two ways, the poor also have to pay a price, even useless labor and limited prices. Free is the poor's favorite thing. Yes, who doesn't like free stuff? Free games, free food, free smartphone, free TV. People often lose their minds when they meet something free. I love free things too, but I know everything has a cost. Everything that claims to be free is because real costs can be delay paid or borne by another way or borne by others. For example, The World Cup is free. It means everyone can watch the World Cup without paying. In fact, we paid the price by another way-endure MasterCard and Coca-Cola advertisements at halftime-instead of money. Anyway, free things goods and services are the best magic weapon to cater to the poor. Faced with the proletariat with nothing, how can the authorities make something free to cater to them? Deception is always the best strategy. More precisely, deception can be divided into types: Deceive from imaginary axis and deceive from real axis. In the former scenario, authorities created all kinds of perfect Utopian stories to deceive the fool, under the guise of love, morality, human rights, patriotism and so on and so forth which all belong to imaginary axis. You could find a common phenomenon that in the dictatorship, the government advocates high morality. Why is that? The essence of high morality is to shift the costs away from authorities on to those fools. Egalitarianism caused by capitalism is one of them. Here I'll give you some personal experiences. Because of the low price, I often take Cathay Pacific to transfer from HK to the American mainland and back. Due to the frequent delay of the previous flight, after the first landing, I must hurry up to catch the connecting flight. Sometimes, the crew blocked the road and let the disabled get off first, and sometimes, the white people in front of me often pretend to be hypocritical and humble, and block in front of me to let others go first. So-called politeness and humility of him come at the expense of my interests. I hate these hypocrisy gentlemen because he just passed on costs instead of eliminating them. As same as tax incidence that a tax burden falls more heavily on the side of the market that is less elastic, I bear the entire burden of this bullshit modesty because I only have half an hour to transfer and he has three hours. Everything has a cost, including so-called kindness because you pass on the cost to the side that is less elastic. Similarly, Merkel's kindness just passed on the cost to other Germans and other people at the bottom of the EU. To be honest, these refugees will not cause any personal loss to Merkel because they live at different levels with no conflict of interests. It's not kind but insidious and ignorant. When you bear all the costs, you are qualified to be kind. Any priority follows this logic, including ambulances, fire engines, the shoulder of the highway and jumping in line and so on and so forth. The cruel truth is everything has a cost, and those people who has less elastic bears the cost. Here I have another question for you. Why should Airlines sacrifice the interests of normal people to open the door for the disabled? Don't tell me it is because these capitalists are benevolent. There's only one truth: For money. If priority services such as these wheelchairs are not provided, these disabled people are unqualified consumers. In order to let them in the market, capitalists have to lower the threshold by providing priority services. Perhaps you will ask me why capitalists not afraid to squeeze normal people out of the market by passing on the cost? In fact, they are afraid, but-there is a big but here-the elasticity of demand curve of disabled people is very different from that of normal people. Obviously, in the aspect of civil aviation transportation, the demand curve of the disabled is very elastic, while that of the normal people is almost inelastic. Lowering the threshold of the disabled can let many disabled people in this market, while raising the threshold of the normal only force a small number of normal people out of the market. This logic is the same as the seller reducing the unit price of goods. For the sellers, the original drive of reducing the unit price is not to be kind, but to increase the net profit, and I bet for inelastic life-saving drugs, no seller will reduce the price. Imitate Adam Smith's words, and it is not from the benevolence of the sellers, but from their regard to their own interest. The essence of pursuing profits lies behind all seemingly benevolence because lowering the threshold is in the blood of capitalism. Anyway, the world dominated by capitalism has been deeply involved in all kinds of lies whose purpose is to create new victims to pass on the costs. Ironically, this indoctrination even begins with children. For example, in The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, the screenwriter made up a beautiful Utopian vision that Kiara and Kovu fell in love, which aimed at encouraging women to betray their father and run away from home and pursue love bravely. How vicious they are! When people old and realistic and no longer believe any imaginary axis, they try to deceive fools from the real axis. In the latter scenario, authorities created all kinds of win-win game to deceive the fool by confusing the black and white, fabricating nonexistent concepts, aiming at shifting some behaviors from costs to revenue in the fool's income statement. For example, donating blood is good for health of donors as well as those who need it; women can get multiple orgasms from penetration as well as men. I wonder whether there is anyone telling me that one day, “Having only one kidney can make my better than two kidneys”. The public may be misled into believing these fallacies. How absurd the world is! They all have the same goal: Create a placebo to appease those hegemonists who are not qualified in free trade. Deceptions are good things, which can produce free goods and services in the markets. Deceptions and fools are accompanied together, and neither is dispensable. Under all kinds of deceit, some fools start offering free products and services in the markets, such as sex-service market, human organ market, and blood market and so on and so forth. Deception is always a stable strategy in evolution. I am a strong advocate of contract civilization because my identity determines that I must be the loser in violent civilization. Contract civilization cannot eliminate deception completely. You can't blame others if you are stupid. Compared with the victims of macro-control, these fools are not to be pitied. The stupid can't blame the cheaters but yourselves only. We can view their cost as a stupid tax and means as a brainwashing. Authorities, along with vested interests, implanted a Trojan into the victims' brains to make them lose sense and logic and make sacrifice by manipulation. Like advertising brainwashing, the fool is implanted in the subconscious. Like I said before, what is a good government? Good government, in my view, is that you can cheat but can't force. Rather than aiding common workers, unions raise wages by stepping on the backs of the nonunion employees; similarly, rather than helping the fool, government maintain Pseudo-equilibrium by stepping on the backs of them. In nature, the only purpose of deception is to transform some private property into public resources. Under the guise of active pursuit of love, women even become the public goods, which are neither excludable nor rival in consumption. Today, a woman can sleep with one guy under the name of love, and tomorrow a woman ca sleep with another guy also under the name of love. Because free sex-services are not excludable, men have an incentive to be free riders. A free rider is a person who receives the benefit of a good but does not pay for it. Because people would have an incentive to be free riders rather than ticket buyers, the market would fail to provide the efficient outcome. What great the love is! Except free services, in most cases, fools provide common resources which are rival in consumption: One person's use of the common resource reduces other people's ability to use it because the goods that these fools can provide are also limited, for example, one person has only two kidneys. Since the goods is limited, it turns out tragedy of commons inevitable. What caused the high extramarital affair? The problem is on woman instead of on man because she is easy girl who is much like a slut, which is easy for men to take sexually advantage of. Recently, a legendary Italian playboy has died aged 63 while having sex with a 23-year-old tourist. Maurizio Zanfanti, dubbed the Romeo of Rimini, slept with more than 6,000 women after becoming famous as a nightclub promoter in the beach-side city in the 1970s. I sure these women are easy girls because they are irrational market participants. If all females of a population force males to do some difficult and costly deed, like slaying a dragon or climbing a mountain, before they would consent to copulate with then, they could in theory be reducing the temptation for the males to have an affair. The zero threshold of mating right is the main cause of confusion between the two sexes. This is main reason why many countries illegalize prostitution. The protester is often posed in egalitarian terms. “The middle class and the poor will not be able to pay these fees and the rich will.” The great thing about love is it can create free services. To be honest, the strategy of deception is more insidious than mandatory law, since the government will not be subject to any accusations because there is no any force and you are volunteers. If one truth shines through, it is that people are not consistent or fully rational decision makers. Different from mandatory law, in the case of deception, as long as you are rational enough, you will not pay any price. Contract civilization cannot eliminate fools and swindlers completely. What is good contract civilization? You can cheat but not coerce. Women are brainwashed by God rather than men. The observance of it may be called good society. The Tragedy of the Commons is a story with a general lesson: When one person uses a common resource, he or she diminishes other people's enjoyment of it. Because of this negative externality, common resources tend to be used excessively. This is why women become cheaper and cheaper after the collapse of patriarchy. This lesson has been known for thousands of years. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out the problem with common resources: “What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others.” How to deal with it? Switch some common resources into a private goods. Property rights is the cornerstone very important in contract civilization. In all cases, the market fails to allocate resources efficiently because property rights are not well established. That is, some item of value does not have an owner with the legal authority to control it. There are only two ways for a woman to go: Return to patriarchy and be a rational market participant. Any free goods and services will disturb the normal market order. If we view the hegemonism as a variant of market power, we can regard common goods and common resources as a kind of externalities, and both of them can cause markets inefficiency and failure in long-run because they keep the price and quantity away from the equilibrium of supply and demand, but in short-run indeed can cause irrational exuberance.
Whether resorting to mandatory law or deception, the sole purpose of the government is to create the victims to transfer costs in short-run. This is the essence of trade-offs. You may wonder if this short-term strategy is useful? I can be very responsible to tell you: Useful because once a policy is ineffective, and policy makers can create the next policy, as same as one lie after another. Americans are the ancestors of trade-offs in short-run. Let's see how the Republicans and Democrats play the trade-offs together in recent years. In the book of Microeconomics, Mankiw wrote:
The recent history of tax policy shows how political leaders
differ in their views on equity and efficiency. When Ronald Reagan was elected
president in 1980, the marginal tax rate on the earnings of the richest
Americans was 50 percent. On interest income, the marginal tax rate was 70
percent. Reagan argued that such high tax rates greatly distorted economic
incentives to work and save. In other words, he claimed that these high tax
rates cost too much in terms of economic efficiency. Tax reform was, therefore,
a high priority of his administration. Reagan signed into law large cuts in tax
rates in 1981 and then again in 1986. When Reagan left office in 1989, the
richest Americans faced a marginal tax rate of only 28 percent.... The pendulum of
political debate swings both ways. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992,
he argued that the rich were not paying their fair share of taxes. In other
words, the low tax rates on the rich violated his view of vertical equity. In
1993, President Clinton signed into law a bill that raised the tax rates on the
richest Americans to about 40 percent. When George W. Bush ran for president,
he reprised many of Reagan's themes, and
as president he reversed part of the Clinton tax increase, reducing the highest
tax rate to 35 percent. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican John
McCain advocated making the Bush tax cuts permanent, while Democrat Barack
Obama proposed increasing the top marginal tax rate.... Economics alone cannot determine the
best way to balance the goals of efficiency and equity. This issue involves
political philosophy as well as economics. But economists do have an important
role in this debate: They can shed light on the trade-offs that society
inevitably faces when designing the tax system and can help us avoid policies
that sacrifice efficiency without any benefit in terms of equity.
Is the joint performance of Republicans and Democrats brilliant? There are two broad reasons for a government to intervene in the economy and change the allocation of resources that people would choose on their own: to promote efficiency or to promote equality. That is, most policies aim either to enlarge the economic pie or to change how the pie is divided. In many cases, infringements or torts have many positive externalities. Piracy and generics drugs are typical examples. Frankly speaking, I support piracy because I have been watching pirated Hong Kong films since I was a child. Similarly, I'm also a beneficiary of pirated intellectual property, open classes such as Yale Open Class and Khan Academy. I would like to take advantage of these free online learning materials to expand my knowledge and broaden my horizons. How to define piracy? Piracy is just that users don't pay money to suppliers of goods and services, which does not mean that the content is incorrect or invalid. The dissemination of knowledge always has positive externalities but at the expense of providers. The extreme value of education is free education for all citizens, which has been adopted by many western countries. With the widespread of Internet, the marginal cost of online education is almost zero, which makes it possible for education to spread all over the world. Like I said before, any free product or free service are going to disturb the original normal economic market order, which inevitable leads to reshuffle of education industry by eliminating a large number of unqualified teachers. Eventually, I guess, online education should be all in the hands of the authorities by hiring the best teachers to record online courses. Additionally, generics drugs have positive externalities for the same reason. I recommend you to see a Chinese film named Dying to Survive (2018) which tells people a story on how a small drug store owner became the exclusive selling agent of a cheap Indian generic drug against Chronic Granulocytic Leukemia in China. As is known to all, generic drugs from India are both cheap and effective. The extreme value of medical care is free medical care for all citizens, which has been adopted by many western countries, but people should need to queue up to wait because the key question remains how to allocate scarce resources. How should the government cope with those kinds of delicts with obvious positive externality? A rational government must adopt a swing strategy as a mixed strategy to strike a balance in the world by positioning suppliers in a dilemma. When piracy is so serious that suppliers are going to withdraw from the market, the government should crack down on piracy to protect the personal interests of suppliers in order to keep them in the market; when these suppliers increase input such as research and development, the government could turn a blind eye to these pirated products to increase this positive externality of piracy. In fact, when education and medical care have positive externalities in the social education and social pension system, the government should bear part of the costs. One end of the pendulum is perfect capitalism with high threshold where individuals should bear all private costs, the other is perfect communism with zero threshold where the government should bear all the costs. We human beings lie in somewhere forever between the extremes. The government is not a fool either, and he is always thinking about how to transfer costs to others, so the rational strategy of the government is swing strategy to reduce the original threshold by tolerating the piracy and generic drugs. Do you still remember that in 2015 Alexandra Elbakyan, who is a Kazakhstani computer programmer and created the website of Sci-Hub, the world’s largest pirate site for academic papers, opened her email to a message from the world’s largest publisher: “YOU HAVE BEEN SUED?” Apparently, Sci-hub posed a direct threat to the academic publisher’s business model. The publisher Elsevier owns over 2,500 journals covering every conceivable facet of scientific inquiry to its name. Elsevier charges readers an average of $31.50 per paper for access; Sci-Hub offered them for free. Who is just? The world's largest infringer Elbakyan or the world’s largest publisher Elsevier? There is no right and wrong, no good and evil, but only winners and losers. Piracy has a great positive externality. If we can conclude that the essence of negative externality is to benefit oneself at the expense of the public, we can also deem that the essence of positive externality is to benefit the public at the expense of one person or a juridical person. The former is that the individual violates the interests of the public, while the latter is that the public violate the interests of the individual. In theory, positive externalities should be borne by the government, and, however, smart and cunning governments can pass on the costs to corporations by turning a blind eye and acquiescing in piracy. In perfect Elsevier’s mode, the magazines don't charge the authors, but readers whoever download the article pay, while in perfect Elbakyan’s mode, readers do get articles for free, but I do deem that at that time magazines must charge the authors. In China, Journals charge authors instead of readers. It's not a question about charging or not, but a question about charging who. Of course, those authors are not stupid either, and the only reason they are willing to bear the cost is that they can get more, and costs will continue to pass on. In my words, Alexandra Elbakyan, as a great revolutionary leader of the proletariat, just shifted costs, not eliminated them. To be honest, in capitalist countries, people have taken it for granted that they should pay for any goods and services that they enjoy, but in socialist countries, people always think they should get goods and services for free, including me. For some examples, since the birth of computers, we have not bought genuine software, so deep in my mind, I take it for granted using all kinds of software for free; similarly, since the birth of TVs, we have never paid for any TV shows, so we can't imagine paying for any TV shows. The audience really didn't pay for shows, but did the producers really offer them for free? Of course not, conversely, the television entertainment industry is one of the most profitable industries in China, and as we all know, actors are super rich in China. Why? The advertisers paid for them. They are not philanthropists either, and how they make money? Finally, the advertising cost will be added to the price and transferred to end-consumers. Not surprisingly, prices in China are almost the same as those in the West. In my opinion, due to people's irrationality, there are a lot of vampires raised between producers and end consumers. I certainly support piracy because I am a buyer. It is normal attitude that any buyer wants free goods and services, but the key is whether there is a seller to provide goods and services for free. Let’s go back to the problem of piracy. As a smart government, how to trade-offs between monopoly and infringement? Elsevier posted profit margins of more than 40%, while Facebook and Google have a net profit margin of only 20% and Apple, which is in a monopoly, has a net profit margin of just over 30%. This is the result of monopoly. I agree that the government should adopt a swing strategy as best counter-strategy, especially in monopoly industries. Because in competitive markets, price equals marginal cost; but in monopolized markets, price exceeds marginal cost. Monopolies do have some profits to be squeezed, even if it's unfair to them. There are indeed some public policies toward monopolies, such as increasing competition with antitrust laws, regulation or public ownership, but I do believe acquiescence to piracy is the best strategy. In one hand, the pendulum of policy swings back and forth may never change because unqualified consumers are always the biggest threat to contract civilization, since the market is not perfectly effective, nor can it be perfectly effective, and victims are always necessary and keep constantly changing; in the other hand, the pendulum of deception swings back and forth as well. This swing strategy can not only cheat individuals in short-run, but also cheat genes in short-run. It is well known to all, man's nipples, as well as women’s clitoris, are useless for an individual in gene’s account, but why genes waste amino acids and energy to make them while the useless tail was disappeared already? The answer is simple. Genes are cheated in short-run because the God adopted swing strategy. In its long journey down the generations, an average gene will spend approximately half its time sitting in male bodies, and the other half sitting in female bodies. Because of inertia, genes don't know whether to synthesize some organs or not in one generation to maximize their own profits. To put it another way, this swing strategy succeeded in keeping those genes in the market by putting them in to dilemma. Only a long-term loss and long generational accumulation in one direction will lead individuals or genes to exit a market. Swing strategy could put individuals and genes in a dilemma in the short-term. To a certain degree, truth is only a function of time and space because God also faces the trade-offs in short-run between the truth can lead to degeneration. The differences in ideology around the world are staggering. So far, Americans and Chinese still have opposite views in many ways. Even within the same nation, people's ideology varies greatly in different periods. Same-sex sexual activity was characterized as "sinful" and, under the Buggery Act 1533, was outlawed and punishable by death in UK. Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts, “gross indecency” was a criminal offence at that time. Same-sex marriage was legalized in England, Wales and Scotland in 2014, but remains unavailable in Northern Ireland where it is recognized solely as a civil partnership. What explains these large differences in ideology among countries and over time? The answer is surprisingly simple: ability. Like a country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services, whether a truth comes out or not depends on human ability to accept and control this truth. There is no thing called “Human rights”, neither is “Freedom”. The fundamental relationship between ability and freedom is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If ability is the primary determinant of freedom, other explanations must be of secondary importance. Yet the real villain was not competition from dictator but human low ability. I always say, “Order matters a lot in evolution.” The fundamental lessons about the whole human evolution are that ability is the ultimate source of cognitive power. Whatever resort to mandatory law or deception, what are we waiting for? I think we are waiting for only one thing: Substitutes, such as substituting pension for reproduction, inflatable dolls for vagina, and reproduction machines for uterus. Substitutes play a critical role in evolution. Without substitutes, God will not yield, the truth will not be revealed. Let's imagine what would happen if the truth of female orgasm has become known to all. There are only two outcomes after the collapse of G-Spot: Jump into the next equilibrium state or Return back to the previous equilibrium state. There was a YouGov study in Germany in 2018 about the sexual life of the Germans. The results showed that one in three men said they would have sex with robots as long as this is technically possible. I guess as time goes by, the acceptance rate will be higher and higher, and western civilization is ready for the truth both technically and mentally. I said that before the truth of female orgasm has nothing to do with African because any truth cannot change the relationship in violence civilization. What about Americans? Do you think Americans, as the leader of world civilization, can accept and control this truth? Do they still hold this idea-the penis, the pussy, the baby? Frankly speaking, I have little faith in so fragile contract civilization. According to latest news, after this Indonesia earthquake, Lombok was in chaos with shops being robbed following the earthquake, “All the shops are being robbed by people and tourists and locals are taking food.” Now, China's real estate bubble is about to burst, and some real estate developers start cutting prices in order to withdraw funds, but the price reduction caused the dissatisfaction of former buyers, so they began to smash the sales office for a refund. The Chinese government had to compromise again with Luddites to maintain high housing prices. Apparently, we can see that the contract civilization is so vulnerable when Physiological needs can be satisfied, unfortunately, which sexual satisfaction belongs to. In my view, substitution effect plays far more important role than income effect in sex-service market because fewer and fewer women will become suppliers accompanied by the increase of female opportunity costs. The only way to force women into P-V model is to prevent women from reading and working, and then women will lose their social value and can only get survival materials from men. Do you think the government can do that? I don't think so.
God's strategy is the trade-off among conflicting objectives because the truth conflicts with stability. Anyway, before getting ready for substitutes which must take a long time to get prepared, the victims and deception are required because “Trade space for time” is the will of God. Because when the truth threatens their own interests, even if it is illegal interests, vested interests will choose not to hesitate to defend their illegal interests. It's easy to put them in with zero-threshold, but hard to force them out. Zero-threshold is always a short-term strategy. We can regard this process as a kind of shielding effect. It means God choose to deception before we have enough abilities to face the cruel truth. We also can view this strategy as creative destruction, which means human creativity must catch up with the speed of the collapse of deception, otherwise, humans will be extinct or degeneration. The truth is always cruel so it tends to the dissolution or degeneration of society. Before that, dictators either cheat victims or lower the desire of hegemonists. As you have seen that, Japan enters "low desire society." Low desire is the inevitable trend of future mankind because it is the only equilibrium state in contract civilization. There is no vacuum in evolution, either the truth or the deception, and God also faces the trade-offs in short-run. What is the history of mankind? It's the relay race of truth and deception. What is the truth? It is also a relay race of all Saviors. What is the deception? It is a relay race of all victims as well. Why deception? It is because the truth, which is going to intensify the contradiction, but at present human beings cannot solve this contradiction, is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of vested interests. So, the Saviors and victims are both necessary. Unlike non-human evolution based in violence civilization, our human evolution has truth-deception duality as same as wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and shows different properties under different conditions. That is why the truth is always late, because a lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots. We can view it as human evolutionary periodicity where the pendulum swings between truth and deception, so self-love and general-will are all indispensable parts in God's plan. This is why people always wander between rationality and irrationality. Rational choices can lead to bad outcomes, so it is difficult to say deception perfectly, precisely false. Self-deception may even be a good thing. A man who lives in a hope is happy. After you know the truth, you will be more painful and helpless because you can do nothing to change it. The essence of any religion is to help people forget the cruelty of reality and seek spiritual comfort. The purpose of lies is to create false harmony or false equilibrium, to cover up the cruel truth in Short-term because the truth is too cruel, and people can't accept it which inevitably cause confusion and generation. All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Pseudo equilibrium state must be maintained by religion that is just mass delusion. So, it is very hard to distinguish which religion is good and which one is evil. In short, in human long history, generally, we regarded the religions which brainwashed people to endure and keep hope as good one and which drove people to resort to violence as evil one. There is no fault with this distinction according to the demands of contractual civilization. From this point, FO is a good religion. The reason why God chooses deception is that short-term interests are more important than long-term interests. Reason is a double-edged sword for both sellers and buyers. The former would lead to extinction, whereas, the latter degeneration, so God's strategy is to castrate people's desires or reason before they have the ability to achieve the next Equilibrium. Do you remember Holocaust during World War II? Nazi racial ideology characterized the Jews as Untermenschen (German: “subhumans”). Jews don't believe in religion but in money only. Let me put it another way, Jews are perfect egoists. Religion is just an excuse, and the real reason is Jews are rational, shrewd, selfish, indifferent, mean, mean and greedy. Aren't these qualities the real human nature? When most people are the losers of truth, they will choose to kill the truth mercilessly, so it was not so much a genocide as a proletarian revolution. I only agree with half of Hobbes, Kings are maybe not gods but the people are indeed beasts. This is main reason why I prefer moderate political reform, such as Britain and Thailand. The greater the gap is between rich and poor; the more religion is needed. There is also a large gap between the rich and the poor in India, but India's poor did not have a proletarian revolution. Religion plays a critical role. Voltaire said, “There is no God, but don't tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.” Paradise can never exist, but few of us ever give up our longings for paradise, so someone must be convinced of its existence. Not everyone is rational, nor should they be rational. Behind every seemingly irrationality, there is always a cruel rationality. Reason and civilization are not a concept. The problem is: facing a pseudo-equilibrium, the fast the victims react, the more aggressive and radical the society is. The God prefer soft landing. Like I said before, lies are shameless, but useful. God has only one preference, namely, useful things. Why did Constantine choose Christianity as his religion? It is because Christianity was most useful for his rule. Western radicalism only saw the harm of irrationality but didn't see the harm of rationality. The higher Gini coefficient a country has, the more lies are needed to sustain social stability. Here I give you two examples to illustrate this issue. The Gini coefficients of Thailand and South Africa are both between 0.8-0.9, and, however, I’d like to go to Thailand for a holiday every year instead of South Africa. Frankly speaking, South Africa was my only choice on the African plate, but after learning about local security, I decisively removed the African plate from my global travel plan. According to 2019 annual crime statistics report, the murder rate in South Africa rose to 36.4 per 100,000 people, from 35.4 in the previous year, an average of almost 58 a day. The rate is more than six times higher than that of the US. Needless to say, women, children, unaccompanied foreigners have become the targets of massacres, which is completely in line with the characteristics of violent civilization. The Chinese Embassy in South Africa has expressed strong condemnation of the criminal acts against Chinese citizens in the country that have caused seven Chinese people to be killed in the past 50 days, according to a statement that the embassy published on Aug.24,2020. Thanks to Mandela's unremitting efforts, South Africa has finally degenerated from a developed country to the most dangerous developing country. Speaking of the royal family, many would believe that the United Kingdom's Queen Elizabeth II is the world's most wealthy monarch. While she may be the most famous royal, she's not in actuality the richest. Forbes estimated her net worth at $500 million, with the large sum of her money coming from real estate and investments. Even though, the Queen's net worth is in the upper echelons, it doesn't make the top spot. Today, the richest ruling monarch is King of Thailand, Maha Vajiralongkorn, officially known as King Rama X, whose net worth is estimated to be between $30-45 billion, eight times than Elizabeth II. It is curious why so many poor Thais do not have a proletarian revolution to overthrow the King and divide his property. When I first went to Thailand in 2015, I realized the charm of religion. Buddhism in Thailand is largely of the Theravada school, which is followed by 95 percent of the population. Practiced by more than 95% of the population, Theravada Buddhism is the official religion of Thailand and plays a key role in many aspects of Thai culture. In fact, Thailand is so connected to the religion it’s often referred to as ‘The Land of Buddhism’ and many people travel here from all over the world to study its teachings. Buddhism is so revered in our Thai culture it is custom for all Thai men to become a monk at some point in their lives, even if only for a short period of time. It’s thought that this tradition brings with it good karma and merit. There are five moral precepts of Buddhism which are to refrain from killing, lying, drugs, stealing and adultery. These moral precepts are really important to Thai people and helps Thai men to become calm and peaceful, which is what rulers like to see. In my experience, Thais are generally simple and unsophisticated. This is the role of religion. Thai patience has reached tipping point after economic downturn caused by COVID-19 in 2020. Thousands of protesters staged another anti-government rally in the Thai capital, Bangkok, on Aug.16 to demand political reforms. Demonstrators want a revised constitution and are also calling for reform of the monarchy - a sensitive subject in Thailand. Under Thai law, anyone criticizing the royal family faces long prison sentences. Protesters waved banners and chanted: "Down with dictatorship, long live democracy. Our dream is to have a monarchy which is truly under the constitution." I don't know what the end will be, but I hope the King can make some concessions because Thais are worth it. Keep in mind the curse by King Taksin that, "clogs to clogs in ten generations." Additionally, I don't want see that the scene of China in 1989 will be staged in Thailand again. God do play tricks on human. If we think deception is the process of making bubbles, the fact that the truth is revealed by the Savior is the other process of squeezing bubbles. Buffett once said, “You never know who's swimming naked until the tide goes out.” Women are swimming naked but they just don't know it. I support continuous wavering strategy like this because in human evolution telling lies is no more evolutionarily stable than telling the truth. This is why there is an old saying, “Truth is never absent, but it is often late.” You can't see the truth in your short life. Lies can deceive all people for a while, or some people for a lifetime, but they can't deceive all people for all time. The time to debunk one lie depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting interests because humankind cannot bear very much reality at same time.
Next, I am going to talk about how the authorities transfer costs to posterity. This kind of transfer can be divided into two ways: transfer to him future self; transfer to future others. Obviously, the former is loan, which transfers the cost to the future himself/herself. I have said it many times that, in short-run the poor are indeed put into the market with zero threshold, but in long-run there are many hidden dangers buried in future. The essence of loan is to borrow money from your future self not from bank. The latter is much more complicated. The most typical are taxes and social security. There is a movie in China called Let The Bullets Fly where the government has already collected taxes what they should collect in next 90 years. In essence, both two are the strategies of deficit spending. Social security is much more hidden than taxes. To clarify social security, we should trace its origin first. America Social Security got its start during the Great Depression, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, as a plan to help senior citizens maintain their dignity when they retired. In exchange for paying a new tax on their wages, the government would keep old people from falling into poverty when they could no longer work. Frankly speaking, I don't see any difference between this project and Ponzi scheme. This worked fine at the beginning because most people died before sixty-five, and few of people would get this money actually. Two developments demolished the arithmetic. First, people started living much longer. Typically, Americans retire in their sixties, but now live to almost eighty. Second, Because of the baby boom after World War II, during the next few decades, the United States will have more and more retirees, but relatively fewer and fewer workers to support them. Currently, about 12 percent of the population receives Social Security. That number will jump to about 20 percent in the decades ahead. So, who is going to support the baby boomers gone to pasture? Where are we going to raise so much money to pay promised benefits? In other words, who are we going to transfer this cost on, and how? Cut spending, raise taxes or find some as yet unidentified pot of gold or immigrants maybe. Because deficit spending ignores the future, it harms future generations, Economist Buchanan asserts. Congressmen today enhance their constituents' present welfare by jeopardizing the welfare of their grandchildren. The unborn cannot vote. Yet each child is born with financial liabilities. James Buchanan maintains that politicians foster deficit spending and therefore cheat future generations. I agree with James Buchanan, and if we regard personal loans as the transfer of costs to ourselves in the future, we should regard pension as the same transfer of costs to the next generation. In my opinion, it's a typical selfish robber logic as same as raising sons as insurance against old age in Chinese, which is just a unilateral contract with unborn people. No wonder this unilateral contract would provoke the hatred of generation Xers for generation (X-1)ers. To be honest, I hope they die early, the sooner the better. I do believe in thirty years they want me to die as soon as possible. To be honest, more and more young people no longer believe in social security in China, and they choose not to pay social security, but the government will not easily let them off and force them to pay. Why did this deficit spending happen? A Polish Marxist, Michal Kalecki, was the first to present “Political Cycle” theory, in 1943. Bruno Frey, another Public Choice economist, maintains that political cycles exist in democracies, that politicians manipulate inflation and unemployment in order to win elections. I basically agree with Frey. Politicians are people too, so they must take actions in their own interests. This is normal thing that politicians sacrifice the interests of future generations who have no right to vote yet to cater to current voters. In other words, in politicians' account, contemporary people have more weight than the unborn, which is typical short-sighted strategy. Deficit spending is a special kind of negative externalities. Here, I give you a class example, in recent years, Argentine politicians made unrealistic promises of high welfare in order to win the election, which lead to the crazy devaluation of the Argentine peso. I believe that the problem with Argentina lies not only in its authority, but on the public. Irrational Argentines are so credulous, and they never give up their yearning for Utopian paradise, so when a politician comes to carter to them, they easily surrendered their votes to become blind fans. The majority of voters are poor who are more short-sighted, so, they vote for politicians who give them a little benefit in short run. Ironically, deficit spending always happens in democratic state instead of authoritarian system because as a dictator I also care about the interests of my son and my grandson. And then, can sustainable development be realized? And how? It is known to all that the per capita residential area in Hong Kong is only 16 square meters, and 75% of the land is undeveloped in HK, however. Why is that? Is the Hong Kong government far-sighted? for the sake of future generation? From the macro level, it seems that HK has a vision of sustainable development, which extruded the desires and interests of contemporary people in order to leave room for future generations to develop. From micro level, land development right is in the hands of vested interests, who are the owners of existing high-priced houses, and the development of new land is bound to cause housing prices to fall because of the increase in supply, so the overall wealth of these authorities may shrink after new land development. If I were these authorities, I would have made the same decision. The truth is always cruel, right? The game of interests has crossed generations. You may have a common interest with someone unknown in the future. So-called unsustainable development is no more than a by-product or a free-rider of selfishness. You must bear in mind that contradictions exist everywhere, not only among contemporaries, but also between the contemporaries and the posterity. To sum up, not only fiscal deficit, prepay in accounting and social pension but also over exploitation of non-renewable resources and crazy investment in real estate, as a short-sighted behavior, is a plunder of the wealth of later generations, called intergenerational extrusion, as result of which future generation are forced into low desire.
Conflict between genetic interests and individual interests
Now let's start with the theory of group-selection. Dawkins is not a group selectionist, nor am I. I basically agree with him, but I still have something to add. Anyway, let's take a look back at Dawkins's point of view in the book of The Selfish Gene:
Although the group-selection theory now commands little support within the ranks of those professional biologists who understand evolution, it does have great intuitive appeal. Successive generations of zoology students are surprised, when they come up from school, to find that it is not the orthodox point of view. For this they are hardly to be blamed, for we find the following: 'In higher animals, behaviour may take the form of individual suicide to ensure the survival of the species.' The anonymous author of this guide is blissfully ignorant of the fact that he has said something controversial. In this respect he is in Nobel Prize-winning company. Konrad Lorenz, in On Aggression, speaks of the 'species preserving' functions of aggressive behaviour, one of these functions being to make sure that only the fittest individuals are allowed to breed. This is a gem of a circular argument, but the point I am making here is that the group selection idea is so deeply ingrained that Lorenz, like the author of the Nuffield Guide, evidently did not realize that his statements contravened orthodox Darwinian theory.... I recently heard a delightful example of the same thing on an otherwise excellent B.B.C. television programme about Australian spiders. The 'expert' on the programme observed that the vast majority of baby spiders end up as prey for other species, and she then went on to say: 'Perhaps this is the real purpose of their existence, as only a few need to survive in order for the species to be preserved'!... Perhaps one reason for the great appeal of the group-selection theory is that it is thoroughly in tune with the moral and political ideals that most of us share. We may frequently behave selfishly as individuals, but in our more idealistic moments we honour and admire those who put the welfare of others first. We get a bit muddled oyer how widely we want to interpret the word 'others', though. Often altruism within a group goes with selfishness between groups. This is a basis of trade unionism. At another level the nation is a major beneficiary of our altruistic self-sacrifice, and young men are expected to die as individuals for the greater glory of their country as a whole. Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation. (Curiously, peace-time appeals for individuals to make some small sacrifice in the rate at which they increase their standard of living seem to be less effective than war-time appeals for individuals to lay down their lives.) ... Recently there has been a reaction against racialism and patriotism, and a tendency to substitute the whole human species as the object of our fellow feeling. This humanist broadening of the target of our altruism has an interesting corollary, which again seems to buttress the 'good of the species' idea in evolution. The politically liberal, who are normally the most convinced spokesmen of the species ethic, now often have the greatest scorn for those who have gone a little further in widening their altruism, so that it includes other species. If I say that I am more interested in preventing the slaughter of large whales than I am in improving housing conditions for people, I am likely to shock some of my friends.... The muddle in human ethics over the level at which altruism is desirable—family, nation, race, species, or all living things—is mirrored by a parallel muddle in biology over the level at which altruism is to be expected according to the theory of evolution. Even the group-selectionist would not be surprised to find members of rival groups being nasty to each other: in this way, like trade unionists or soldiers, they are favouring their own group in the struggle for limited resources. But then it is worth asking how the group-selectionist decides which level is the important one. If selection goes on between groups within a species, and between species, why should it not also go on between larger groupings? Species are grouped together into genera, genera into orders, and orders into classes. Lions and antelopes are both members of the class Mammalia, as are we. Should we then not expect lions to refrain from killing antelopes, 'for the good of the mammals'? Surely they should hunt birds or reptiles instead, in order to prevent the extinction of the class. But then, what of the need to perpetuate the whole phylum of vertebrates?
Apparently, it is ridiculous that if you ask lions not to eat antelopes 'for the good of the mammals.' I swear I am not a group-selectionist, and to be precisely, I am a gene-selectionist. Just like an individual would not sacrifice himself for the good of the group, a gene would not sacrifice itself for the good of the individual. The reason is that group and individual incentives differ, so are individual and genetic. To be honest, individual self-sacrifice behavior is not common whether in human society or animal kingdom, but indeed exist, and Dawkins also gave an explanation in the animal kingdom:
The other example that I said I would return to is the case of the kamikaze bees, who sting honey-raiders but commit almost certain suicide in the process. The honey bee is just one example of a highly social insect. Others are wasps, ants, and termites or 'white ants'. I want to discuss social insects generally, not just suicidal bees. The exploits of the social insects are legendary, in particular their astonishing feats of cooperation and apparent altruism. Suicidal stinging missions typify their prodigies of self-abnegation.... In the human sense they do not live as individuals at all; their individuality is subjugated, apparently to the welfare of the community…. The sterile workers are the analogy of our liver, muscle, and nerve cells.... Kamikaze behaviour and other forms of altruism and cooperation by workers are not astonishing once we accept the fact that they are sterile. The body of a normal animal is manipulated to ensure the survival of its genes both through bearing offspring and through caring for other individuals containing The same genes. Suicide in the interests of caring for other individuals is incompatible with future bearing of one's own offspring. Suicidal self-sacrifice therefore Seldom evolves. But a worker bee never bears offspring of its own. All its efforts are directed to preserving its genes by caring for relatives other than its own offspring. The death of a single sterile worker bee is no more serious to its genes than is The shedding of a leaf in autumn to the genes of a tree.
In short, any altruistic self-sacrifice from the individual level is just a kind of egoistic self-interest from genetic level. You are deceived by superficial phenomena because you are not observing it across different levels. Most of the acts of altruistic self-sacrifice that are observed in nature are performed by parents towards their young. Obviously, any forms of altruism only work during close relatives, called kin selection. Kin selection accounts for within-family altruism; the closer the relationship, the stronger the selection. In other words, genes choose to manipulate individuals to make sacrifices for genes' own interests, when individual interests and genetic interests do not coincide. When you stand at the level of group interests, you would be confused by lots of absurd inferences like lions should give up eating antelopes for the good of the mammals. In the game of Prisoner's dilemma, when you take the overall interests of the two prisoners as the basic unit of exchange, you must be confused by the result why both of them choose “Defect,” but when you take the anyone of two prisoners as the basic unit of exchange, you would immediately understand why they end like this. In the Wealth of Nations, Adams believed that the basic unit of exchange is family, so he did not elaborate on how to trade within a family, and this leads us to serious misunderstanding and confusion about marriage so far. As long as you stand at the level of individual interests, you can understand marriage between men and women is just a trade. Here is another confusion: Why do women haven't awoken so far? As long as you stand at the level of genetic interests, you can understand the reason of this question. The answer is very simple: The genes choose to sacrifice the individual in order to protect the genetic itself, when the interest of the individual violates that of the genes, just like individuals choose to sacrifice groups to protect individuals themselves. To explain it clearly, I need to explain three nouns first: genetic interests, individual interests and group interests.
Start with the most obvious one: Group interests. Group, like a country, is a nothingness concept and made up of individuals which are made up of genes. Trade can make both countries as whole better off, but it does not mean everyone can benefit from free trade. Microeconomics tells us two conclusions about an importing country: one is when a country allows trade and becomes an importer of a good, domestic consumers of the good are better off, and domestic producers of the good are worse off; the other is trade raises the economic well-being of a nation in the sense that the gains of the winners exceed the losses of the losers. In my words, for an importing country, the interests of domestic consumers are consistent with national interests as a whole, but inconsistent with the interests of domestic producers. Similarly, there are two conclusions about an exporting country: one is when a country allows trade and becomes an exporter of a good, domestic producers of the good are better off, and domestic consumers of the good are worse off; the other is trade raises the economic well-being of a nation in the sense that the gains of the winners exceed the losses of the losers. In my words, for an exporting country, the interests of domestic producers are consistent with national interests as a whole, but inconsistent with the interests of domestic consumers. What is national interest as a whole in microeconomics? It is the sum of domestic producer surplus plus domestic consumer surplus. The increase in well-being of a nation as a whole must be at the expense of one side. That well-being is measured by surplus in economics, leads to an inevitable outcome that the consumption of the rich has a greater contribution in well-being of a nation as a whole than the consumption of the poor. Similarly, the increase of group interest does not mean that every gene or individual could be better off, but at the expense of the bad or pathogenicity genes or individuals. Group is the result of genes or individual existence, not the cause, so we should forget this concept in evolution.
Next is genetic interests. In biology, a gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA that codes for a molecule that has a function. Strictly speaking, the fundamental unit of selection is gene instead of individual or group, so we can regard gene as the basic unit of interests' game. The genes are the immortals, or rather, they are defined as genetic entities that come close to deserving the title. It is its potential immortality that makes a gene a good candidate as the basic unit of natural selection. we can ask the question, what is the purpose of a single selfish gene? It is trying to get immortality. What I am doing is emphasizing the potential near-immortality of a gene, in the form of copies, as its defining property. How does the gene plan to achieve its purpose? By creating qualified survival machines. So far some of genes still exist because they are good at making survival machines, whereas some of genes have disappeared because they are not good at making survival machines. In the process of pursuing immortality, genes do not grow senile, and are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course, they march on. That is their purpose. It leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death. When survival machines have served their duty, they are cast aside. Please keep in mind the purpose and means of gene. What we have not previously considered is that gene controls human cognitive ability in their own way, simply because it is advantageous to itself.
Last is the personal self-consciousness. Since genes choose to achieve immortality by creating survival machines, what is the relationship between genes and survival machines? In essence, they are the relationship between parasites and hosts. In other words, genes exploit and manipulate the survival machines for their own ends. To quite a large extent survival machines don't have self-consciousness, and just behave motivated by genes' purpose, so we can believe the interests of parasite genes and host genes may coincide in most cases. In this scenario, the genes (parasites) and the survival machine (host) share a common destiny that when a survival machine is the winner in survive and reproduce, the genes which make up this survival machine is the winner as well and vice versa. The parasites and host get along very well with each other until divergence appears. What if, in another scenario, the genes (parasites) and the survival machine (host) don't share a common destiny? What if the survival machines (hosts) begin to have self-consciousness and their own purpose different from gene's? About self-consciousness, I want to say more. First, I don't think non-human animals have self-consciousness because so far, many people have not self-conscious yet let alone the animals. Therefore, genes can manipulate the survival machine to make sacrifices for their own interests, when individual interests and genetic interests do not coincide, so the genes manipulate the worker bee completely. For them, the only purpose of survival is survival and reproduction as many as possible. Secondly, so far, human beings are still lying in somewhere between perfect self-consciousness and zero self-consciousness. Let me put it another way, human beings are in the semi-orc stage. The salient feature of self-consciousness is people start to think about what can I gain or profit from it as an individual? For example, the only purpose of male mating is to reproduce, so they only mate during the female ovulation period, but for men, orgasm is the primary purpose of mating, while reproduction is just a by-product, so they still choose to mate when the female is not ovulating. Obviously, men are more self-conscious than women. Frankly speaking, the idea of gain is a relatively modern concept. The profit motive as we know it is only as old as “modern man.” Even today the notion of gain for gain's sake is foreign to a large portion of the world's population, and it has been conspicuous by its absence over most of recorded history. Gain is an idea that was quite foreign to the great lower and middle strata of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and medieval cultures, only scattered throughout Renaissance and Reformation times; and largely absent in the majority of Eastern civilizations. Not only is the idea of gain by no means as universal as we sometimes suppose, but the social sanction of gain is an even more modern and restricted development. In the Middle Ages the Church taught that no Christian ought to be a merchant, and behind that teaching lay the thought that merchants were a disturbing yeast in the leaven of society. In Shakespeare's time the object of life for the ordinary citizen, for everybody, in fact, except the gentility, was not to advance his station in life, but to maintain it. The idea that gain might be a tolerable—even a useful —goal in life would have appeared as nothing short of a doctrine of the devil. In the book of The Worldly Philosophers, Robert L.Heilbroner carefully describes people's behavior patterns before the idea of gain:
The absence of the idea of gain as a normal guide for daily life—in fact the positive disrepute in which the idea was held by the Church—constituted one enormous difference between the strange world of the tenth to sixteenth centuries and the world that began, a century or two before Adam Smith, to resemble our own. But there was an even more fundamental difference. The idea of “making a living” had not yet come into being. Economic life and social life were one and the same thing. Work was not yet a means to an end—the end being money and the things it buys. Work was an end in itself, encompassing, of course, money and commodities, but engaged in as a part of a tradition, as a natural way of life. In a word, the great social invention of “the market” had not yet been made.... And that mechanism was far from clear to the minds of the medieval world. The concept of widespread gain was blasphemous enough, as we have seen. The broader notion that a general struggle for gain might actually bind together a community would have been held as little short of madness.... Take, for example, land. As late as the fourteenth or fifteenth century there was no such thing as land in the sense of freely salable, rent-producing property. There were lands, of course—estates, manors, and principalities—but these were emphatically not real estate to be bought and sold as the occasion warranted. Such lands formed the core of social life, provided the basis for prestige and status, and constituted the foundation for the military, judicial, and administrative organization of society. Although land was salable under certain conditions (with many strings attached), it was not generally for sale. A medieval nobleman in good standing would no more have thought of selling his land than the governor of Connecticut would think of selling a few counties to the governor of Rhode Island.... In the country, the peasant lived tied to his lord's estate; he baked at the lord's oven and ground at the lord's mill, tilled the lord's fields and served his lord in war, but he was rarely if ever paid for any of his services: these were his duties as a serf, not the “labor” of a freely contracting agent.
To be honest, there must be a reason for any blindness. Man is essentially an acquisitive creature and that left to himself he will behave as any money-oriented businessman would. Rational choices from individual can lead to bad outcomes in genetic level, which is the reason why God chose to castrate women self-consciousness and rationality, which is also the reason why prostitution is still prohibited in the United States. In a word, “the market”, as the main characteristic of trading civilization, should not yet appear between two sexes although the idea of exchange must be very nearly as old as man, as with the idea of gain. Similarly, so far, lots of women would no more have thought of renting their vaginas and uteruses than a medieval nobleman in good standing would no more have thought of selling his land centuries ago. Just as labor is lack of salability, woman is rarely if ever paid for any of her sex-services: these were her duties as a female, not the “labor” of a freely contracting agent. Hence the fact that so far, the world could not conceive the market system between two sexes rested on the good and sufficient reason that evolution needs victims. There is a vast deal of difference between the envy inspired by the gain of a few mighty personages and a general struggle for gain diffused throughout society, and the self-consciousness of a few are a far different thing from an entire society moved by the self-consciousness. Even Adam Smith used family household as a unit of interest rather than an individual because the idea of the propriety of a system organized on the basis of personal gain has not the right timing yet. In my own opinion, any relationship that can't talk about money directly is bound to harbor a conspiracy that can't be debunked. This is why economists are excluded from all religions because they can be called worldly philosophers, for they sought to embrace in a scheme of philosophy the most worldly of all of man's activities—his drive for wealth. But, there is a big but here, a separate, self-contained economic world has not yet lifted itself from its social context. The world of practical affairs is inextricably mixed up with the world of political, social, and religious life. Until the two worlds separate, there will be nothing that resembles the tempo and the feeling of modern life. And for the two to separate, a long and bitter struggle must take place. Anyway, a profit-oriented society in which people live to make money was activated by Adam Smith, and, indeed, self-consciousness began to rise on the stage of history step by step. The old saying, “There is no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, only permanent interests” can also be applied here. When the aims of the two begin to diverge, manipulation and anti-manipulation begin as well. These two uses for the survival machines are mutually incompatible, therefore there is conflict of interest. For example, before self-consciousness, the only meaning of individual existence is survival and reproduction which belong to the physiological needs at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy, but after self-consciousness, once an individual physiologically needs are relatively satisfied, self-consciousness would lead individuals to pursue other needs, such as safety needs and social belonging. By the way, esteem belongs to the middle class, and self-actualization belongs to the elite, and self-transcendence belongs to the Savior. This three have nothing to do with the masses. Poor people are not qualified to pursue dignity but interests only, because dignity belongs to imaginary axis which would make the poor poorer. Individuals face trade-offs among various needs because any need must be constrained, or limited, by time, energy and indifference curves because whose time and energy are limited. Finally, how to choose? It depends on both marginal revenue and marginal cost because rational people think at margin. Anyway, survival machines begin to get rid of the manipulation of genes and think about what they could get from each act. You could find a diametrically opposite phenomenon. In animals' world, mother, as an individual, never expect to get any reward from offspring, so mother would drive away offspring when they grow up. In level of individual interests, reproduction belongs to the category of altruism. In human beings, the situation has changed. There is an old saying in China, “Raising sons as insurance against old age.” What is the truth of this old saying? The essence of raising sons is the best investment against inflation, so adoption becomes an option in human beings which is rare in animals, and an orphan is left to die in most cases. To be honest, this investment of adoption is against the purpose of genes, so in general, genetic and individual interests finally reached a compromise that individual adopts a nephew. Like I said before, raising son is a long-term investment, and raising daughter a short-term investment. In terms of return on investment, animals are communists who don't need anything in return, and humans are capitalists who are good at calculating returns. It is precisely because of the emergence of personal consciousness that we have escaped from Malthusian trap because people should stop reproduction to maximize profit when marginal cost equals marginal revenue. Subjectively I feel like a unit, not a colony. This is to be expected. Unless otherwise stated, 'altruistic behavior' and 'selfish behavior' will mean behavior directed by one animal body toward another. When you give up the idea that the individual is a unit of interest, you will be open-minded. Similarly, when you give up the idea that the household is a unit of interest, you will understand the game between the sexes. This is also a process of compromise from collectivism to individualism. So far, the most striking properties of survival-machine behaviour is still its apparent purposiveness, but the situation became more complicated because sometimes it motivated by gene's interests and sometimes individual interests.
Since self-consciousness had appeared, trouble came. It means there is a conflict of interests between genes and individual on how to use this survival machine. The essence of this conflict is the divergence of the two purposes. There is an economic term called “Moral hazard” which is a problem that arises when one person, called the agent, is performing some task on behalf of another person, called the principal. If the principal cannot perfectly monitor the agent's behavior, the agent tends to undertake less effort than the principal considers desirable. The phrase moral hazard refers to the risk, or “hazard,” of inappropriate or otherwise “immoral” behavior by the agent. The employment relationship is the classic example. From an economic standpoint, the most important feature of the corporate form of organization is the separation of ownership and control. One group of people, called the shareholders, own the corporation and share in its profits. Another group of people, called the managers, are employed by the corporation to make decisions about how to deploy the corporation's resources. The separation of ownership and control creates a principal agent problem. In this case, the shareholders are the principals, and the managers are the agents. Apparently, the purpose of shareholders is to maximize profits, but the managers may have purpose of their own, such as taking life easy, having a plush office and a private jet, throwing lavish parties, or corruption. Moral hazard will arise when the managers' purpose doesn't coincide with that of shareholders. The corporation's principal-agent problem is not rare in the history of capitalism, and the top managers of several prominent companies, such as Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, were found to be engaging in activities that enriched themselves at the expense of their shareholders around 2005. How to mend this split? In general, the principal tries various ways to encourage the agent to act more responsibly. Fortunately, criminal activity by corporate managers is rare. But in some ways, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever ownership and control are separated, as they are in most large corporations, there is an inevitable tension between the interests of shareholders and the interests of management. Similarly, in a survival machine, there is also the same problem caused by the separation of ownership and control. Obviously, in this case, the shareholders are the genes, and the manager is the individual; the purpose of genes is to get more numerous in the gene pool, but the individual may have purpose of their own, such as scuba diving, travelling round the world, or self-actualization. Moral hazard also arises when the individual purpose doesn't coincide with that of genes. This confrontation can not be avoided because genetic and individual incentives differ. There is no doubt that genes would try various ways to manipulate individuals for coordination two purposes.
Under the leadership of individual interests of capitalism, it seems that individual interests have prevailed over gene interests for now. Global integration, division of labor at the world level, is the inevitable result of maximizing individual interests, but ignoring the interest demands of genes. Of course, advantages of global integration are unassailable, which lead to the maximization of surplus based on the level of individual interests by global division of labor. Subsequently, the social pension has led to the professionalization of reproduction as well. It seems that all the development is very smooth under the guidance of individual interests, but, based on the principle of “Every coin has two sides,” there are some serious side effects that people haven't noticed yet. It is all known that a plague is raging through the world from the beginning of 2020. Under the conservative segregation, this global plague is impossible. Every country has been affected, except one. Can you guess which one? Of course, that is North Korea because it adopted a strategy of isolation. In the era of global integration, the plague can be spread from one place to another by just one plane. The people who are in low civilization can bring the other people who are in advanced civilization not only low-priced products and services but also coronavirus. Wearing a mask is a simple isolation strategy, although the effect is very small, but anything is better than nothing and prevention is better than cure. Keep in mind that isolation is always a conservative stabilization strategy. Additionally, during racial segregation, each race is like an independent individual where there are complete organs and systems necessary inside for survival, but after global integration, due to the existence of comparative advantages, such as innate physical advantage or low opportunity cost advantage, each race may be transformed from an independent organism into dependent organ. In this situation, an industry may be monopolized by a race, and division of labor inevitably leads to occupational dementia. Especially after the division of labor in reproduction, the race in lower civilization will become qualified supplier in the global breeding market, which must lead to Reverse Elimination of the high-level race by the low-level race. When there is no blood supply caused by some accident, these dependent organs first die because they have lost their hematopoietic function already. For example, Thailand's position in the world is clear. You can't see any other brands of cars in Thailand except Japanese Toyota, and it gave up industry and manufacturing in order to provide the world with tourism wholeheartedly. Thailand's tourism industry is completely frozen after the outbreak of the plague because every country chose blockade to stop the spread of the plague. Eventually, many people in Thailand are unemployed and elephants are even starved. Globalization is indeed a double-edged sword. In any crisis, food is the foundation. Recently, Thailand, Vietnam, Russia, Kazakhstan and other major grain exporting countries have announced to stop exporting grain. Their purpose is very clear, aimed at selling to those grain importing countries at a high price. And then, according to the script, they, like OPEC, will collude with each other to form a cartel in order to maximize their profits, and then some original grain self-sufficient countries are going to increase grain exports in order to maximize their profits, and then Cartel is broken and grain return to normal price. The script has been written, and there is no short-cut. By the way, I'm not particularly worried about this global plague. The virus, as a segment of DNA or RNA, what is the purpose of its invasion? Is it to kill people? Of course not. Any parasite doesn't want to kill the host, like dictators don't want to kill slaves. The purpose of virus is to make use of human beings to complete replication and eternity by cruel bind. Extermination of humans is not the best strategy for viruses, and the end must be that let's give in on both sides. For example, HPV, HBV, RhV and poliovirus are all successful viruses, while smallpox is a failing virus because it has been wiped out due to its lethality. Anyway, our human beings have about 75% "junk DNA" already, and it's OK to have a little more. You can find that the deaths occurred mostly in the elderly. Maybe in some years, the young in capitalist countries with high pensions will appreciate this plague because they can pay less for their pensions. Have you ever thought about why China and the western governments adopt diametrically opposite strategies towards this plague? It is well known that The Chinese government adopted shock therapy to deal with the plague; western governments adopted adopt laissez faire strategy to deal with the plague. The general public view is that it is because Westerners advocate freedom, while Chinese advocate life. This claim is nonsense. Let me tell you the cruel truth. In contract civilization, shock therapy means that people cannot trade freely, which also means a lot of people get zero income but they have to pay back the loan every month because they borrow money from the bank to enjoy products and services that they shouldn't have at their age. Both the poor and the rich will pay for this plague, but different people pay different price. In the shock therapy strategy, life seems to be put first, but the key problem is that the life price of the poor is not the same as that of the rich. Mandatory segregation can indeed lead to zero risk, but zero-income as well. Let me put it another way, rich people are not willing to risk 1% death to make money; while poor people are willing to risk 1% death to make money. In short, the poor are willing to exchange their lives for money; while the rich are willing to exchange money for their lives. That's why all dictatorships choose shock therapy as a counter-strategy to plague, but democratic governments choose laissez-faire as a counter-strategy to plague. In the former, the poor have no right to speak; in the latter, the dead have no right to vote. Everything has a cost, right? Before an effective vaccine is available, there will always be a price to pay, and the key problem is who pays? In shock therapy, the biggest losers are the asymptomatic infectors who live at the bottom. They can produce antibodies themselves, which means that the viruses have already reached a symbiotic consensus with their bodies. In short, they were supposed to be winners, but they were losers now. I'm certainly on the side of the Chinese government because the government will also pay me wages even if I don't work, and my biggest loss is that I lost my annual leave. Don't be jealous of me. I just didn't lose much, but some have benefited from this plague. Who? Mask sellers, the infrared measure temperature gun sellers, all sellers in the nucleic acid reagent chain and so forth and so on. The public indeed doesn't pay for their nucleic acid testing, which does not mean no one pays. The central government allocated 700 million RMB to Xinjiang for testing. Those people, who did the money end up in, is real winner in this plague. In fact, the number of patients with depression is much higher than that of patients with COVID-19. Globally, more than 300 million people of all ages suffer from depression, and so far less than 50 million people in the world have been diagnosed with this pneumonia. Why are all governments panicking about pneumonia instead of depression? The answer is simple; pneumonia can infect the authorities, but depression cannot. This is human nature that plague and interests allow our human beings to integrate different races into a unified organism, community of common destiny. Be nice to Chinese, OK? Although we are useless to you, we can do fatal harm to you. Considering to the idea of cruel bind, western developed countries have to donate to poor countries to control the plague because to help others is to protect yourself. As I expected, Britain said it was pledging 200 million pounds ($248 million) to the World Health Organization (WHO) and charities to help slow the spread of the coronavirus in vulnerable countries and prevent a second wave of infections. We can view this money as international taxes which are what high-level society has to pay for their own safety. There is no point in blaming the source of the virus when matters have reached this stage, where how we make a decision to cut losses. Even if the vaccine is successfully developed, higher-civilization has to bear most of the cost of lower-civilization. There is no other better strategy because you have to choose the lesser of two evils. In addition to the assistance based on the community of shared destiny as Britain decided, there is the other strategy, Anti-Globalization, which is adopted by the United States. In April 2020 U.S. President Donald Trump began to lash out at the World Health Organization, blaming it for what he claimed were missteps, failures, and prevarications in its handling of the coronavirus pandemic. The Trump administration has notified Congress and the United Nations that the United States is formally withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Not only that, but in 2017 U.S. withdrew from Global Compact on Migration, and in 2018 U.S. withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and in 2019 U.S. withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. Why does trump withdraw from various international groups? The reason is simple. It is because the United States has gradually become the loser of globalization as a whole; these so-called international groups are no more than tools for rich countries to compensate poor countries. In the early stage of globalization, the only reason for developed countries to promote global integration is that their marginal revenue is greater than marginal cost; in the late stage of globalization, the only reason why developed countries withdraw from global integration is that marginal revenue is less than marginal cost. According to the principle 3 in Microeconomics: Rational people think at the margin. This is human nature. Whether I'm willing to stay with you depends not on what I've got from you, but on what else I can get from you. You can think of America and Britain as immoral, but evolution has nothing to do with morality. In short, America becomes a tax refugee as well, and want to escape from these international taxes. I can understand his approach because globalization has gradually become a blackmail from poor countries to rich countries. Previously, president of Turkey Erdogan threatened to release millions of refugees into Europe if EU did not increase subsidies. Erdogan, furious that NATO allies had failed to offer his country more support, had warned that Turkey cannot take more refugees. He wanted European support for his efforts in Syria and for the refugees and said a 2016 deal to limit the influx in exchange for billions of dollars was insufficient. Is this blackmail? From Turkey or refugees? Is Turkey justified in threatening Europe with the release of refugees? Of course it makes sense. I support Turkey. Merkel shouldn't be generous at the expense of others. You can sympathize with a mosquito, but please put it in your mosquito net. I quite deem that the international organizations are always quite incompetent because people always like to put themselves on the moral high ground of the world in order to gain a sense of superiority. In fact, they just shift costs, not eliminate them. Have you ever remembered Munich Agreement between Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, signed at Munich on September 29, 1938, under which the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia was ceded to Nazi Germany, without asking Czechoslovakia? Chamberlain famously claimed that agreement would bring "peace in our time." Yeah, you got peace but at the expense of Czechoslovakia. Today not repeating history but doing the same rhyme, Germany and France want to get peace at the expense of Turkey. Why should Turkey bear the evil EU under the domination of mediocrity have made? I support Turkey to blackmail the EU who ask for trouble. Similar, I like to travel alone because I don't want to be implicated by others either. To be honest, withdrawing from the WHO is not very useful, unless The United States is completely isolated from all other countries in the world or U.S. can completely eliminate low civilization physically. Obviously, it's hard to achieve in short-run in the trading civilization because reverse division of labor is also hard to achieve in biology. But it is hard to say. Perhaps as technology advances, these organs will be replaced by cheaper robots, and then Homo sapiens eliminate homo neanderthalensis again. Like I said before, history may not repeat itself but it does rhyme. President Trump ordered U.S. companies to leave china in order to increase manufacturing in the United States. Apparently, Mr. President has already realized that global integration is a double-edged sword. Frankly speaking, it is very difficult for the United States to resist global integration on his own because according to Microeconomics, in any game between the buyer and the seller, the side which has less elasticity has to give in. I guess Mr. President is going to persuade Britain, Japan, Australia, and Canada, all of which are developed and geographical isolated countries, to withdraw global integration. More precisely speaking, he wants to establish a hierarchy among all countries. The continent of Europe is in a dilemma because it has no natural barriers, too close to backward Africa and the war-torn Middle East. After the export was blocked, the Chinese government called for economic inner circulation. Frankly speaking, as a Chinese, I don't want to see this happen because North Korea is the result of a typical economic inner circulation. I am not worried that American enterprises, as an independent economic corporation, will respond to the president's call positively. The United States, as a whole, can indeed benefit from its exit from globalization, but not every industry, every company, every American can benefit from it. Should winners from isolationism compensate losers? If not, the losers will not follow Mr. President's orders. The capital has no national boundaries. For example, Tesla still choose to set up super factory in Shanghai in 2020. The only thing that worries me is many large manufacturing industries choose to ditch China and then build factories in other Southeast Asian countries, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, India and the Philippines. In 2019, Samsung enterprises choose to ditch China and then build factories in Vietnam. The real estate bubble in China has caused a sharp increase in costs over the past ten years, which has led to the loss of international capital in China. The most terrible thing is, China, as the world's factory, is gradually abandoned by international capital. China's real estate bubble is breaking down, and as same as children and cars, houses is becoming negative equity, while Luddites are on their way as well. It's harder to touch people's interests, which even shouldn't belong to them, than people's souls. It's easy to put mice in the rice bowl. It's hard to force them out. In short, the United States is withdrawing from global integration, while Britain has withdrawn from European Integration already. An old Chinese proverb goes that, the empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. I guess it is period for being divided. I do deem that the United States will be strong again because it does no longer wish to be just. Let's wait and see.
Will genes fight back? Of course, yes. Who has more advantages in this game? There is no doubt that it is genes. Individual theoretically could resist manipulation by genes, but it is very hard to do so. In other words, genes should be more selfish than individuals because in this game between genes and individual, there is a sort of built-in unfairness, resulting from unequal costs of failure. The genes must try to force or manipulate individual to propagate them. Once they fail, they will disappear forever. And those individuals could have succumbed to it in short-run and still can pursue other needs after propagation. This is what I meant by 'built-in unfairness', and by 'asymmetry in the cost of failure'. The genes, who are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of the individual, may be likely to go extinct than rival genes, who place their own selfish interest first. A predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness, which usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individuals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the individuals as same as specie are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense. That is the fundamental reason why selfish genes select to attack homosexuality in the Middle Ages. On the issue of homosexuality, genes face a trade-off in short-term as same as authorities I mentioned before. The success of individual homosexuality means the complete failure of the whole genes which make up the gay, so the homosexual genes force homosexual people to enter reproductive roles as well. As it happens the outcome, in my view, is a decisive victory for the genes, whereas the individual is too wishy-washy an entity. If we can regard the gene as the basic unit of natural selection in the struggle for existence, we can also regard the individual as a pawn in the game, which can be sacrificed when there is a conflict between individual interests and gene interests. Over individual, over body and mind, the genes are sovereign, so the suppression of individual self-consciousness is an important part of human history. People need no capacity, but that of surrendering themselves to the will of genes.
By what? Genes choose to manipulate individuals by what? By any means, to be honest, but deception is always the most stable, most convenient and cheapest strategy in any time. Genes choose to use mind-control on individual nervous systems by a kind of chemical materials as a drug, such as Dopamine, Phenylethylamine or Norepinephrine maybe I guess. It is not too surprising that genes exploit and manipulate individual nervous system to make it be a self-sacrificing individual. If so, some individual behaviors appear as individual altruism but it they would be brought about by gene selfishness. By dictating the way survival machines and their nervous systems are built, genes exert ultimate power over behavior I must emphasize this, since the point has been misunderstood. For example, linger over a problem: what is preventing women from getting away from the truth of female orgasm? The selfish genes on female bodies. Because as long as women can get orgasm as same as me, they would refuse entry P-V model. So far, the model of P-V is still the main way of reproduction, so selfish genes choose to sacrifice the individual interests of women in short-run for their eternal purpose, when individuals and genetic interests conflict. Genes win again. In this case, the interests of genes are inconsistent with the interests of some individuals, but consistent with the interests of species. This statement is not wrong that the real purpose of women's existence is for the species to be preserved because that is gene's will. To be honest, self-individual is also a very terrible thing, as same as truth, which would also lead to confusion. Based on the principle that rational choices can lead to bad outcomes, genes deprive women of reason and subjective consciousness and make women an object. An unconscious object can be exploited as a host by parasites. In my view, women do not live as individuals at all; their individuality is subjugated, apparently to the welfare of the species. Women are not great, but slaves of genes. But this conflict can be changed over time because of the emergence of substitutes. So, it is also a short-term trade-off for genes to manipulate individuals to be genes'slaves. When you focus your attention at the level of genes, you can get conclusion that individual behavior, altruistic or selfish, is under the control of genes in only an indirect, but still very powerful, sense. Unless otherwise stated, 'altruistic behavior' and 'selfish behavior', we generally talk about, mean behavior directed by an individual toward another. When you learn to think from the point of view of genes rather than individual, you will understand altruism in the level of individuals goes with selfishness in the level of genes. God guides us to have a proper balance between rationality and irrationality and that is somehow God's will, what we follow. There is no any altruism between individual and gene, but only the winner and loser because anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish.
Just like the authorities have preferences I said before, gene also has its own preferences. The authorities prefer some people who are more useful to them, which can be regarded as “cruel bind.” Similarly, the genes prefer some individual who share the common interests with genes. There is also a 'built-in unfairness' in orgasm competition. Fertility is not dependent on female orgasm, so female orgasm's weight is zero in genetic consideration. Obviously, male orgasm based on P-V model is useful for gene's own ends, so God did have a preference for men by setting men above women. In a sense, we can regard self-consciousness as a kind of transcendence. Apparently, gene endows men with transcendence for its own end, whereas genes deprive women of transcendence also for its same end. Men become the free riders in the process of genes defending their own interests, whereas women become victims because female orgasm has nothing to do with reproduction. This inequality of power is coming from original division of labor in reproduction, determined by the initial endowment. In evolution, God has to choose to sacrifice those who has no market power. So, we can conclude that God really cursed women because men have market power. “From the hour of their birth,” wrote Aristotle, “some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” Women don't have self-consciousness, and to be more precise, women's body determines that women are not qualified to have free will. Freud said. “Anatomy is destiny.” This is a cruel truth that God is so unfair. When we talked about P-V model we accustomed ourselves to the wrong idea that P-V model is useful to woman and man both because it is set by God. This is the root of all misconceptions, which we can be regarded as “General will.” I would rather say women are the slaves of genes instead of the slaves of men. Women do not 'realize' that they are slaves and they set to work following their built-in nervous programs, doing all the duties on bed and off bed. Men get short-term prosperity with the help of genes at the expense of women. Women can not escape animal reincarnation, nor do escape genetic control, nor do escape control of species. We should recognize slavery again. Slavery is a wide spread phenomenon, and human have a long and unchanging slavery history. The essence of P-V model is a kind of slavery where women become men's sex slaves; the essence of Socialization of Old-age Support is a kind of slavery as well where raising children is cultivating slaves from generation to generation. Based on this reason, I, as a taxpayer, am willing to spend my money on those qualified slaves who have good and excellent genes rather than on those unqualified slaves who have retarded and deformed genes. As an investor, I have the right to request qualified and satisfactory products. The essence of human beings is slaves, and they used to be slaves of genes, but now slaves of the previous generation. Therefore, you are not allowed to euthanasia because you are needed to be slavery, either buying goods and services or providing goods and services. That is the cruelty of truth. I don't like anything mysterious because mystery is pronoun of slavery. The male is on the Master side and that Mystery belongs to the slave. Mystery is never more than a mirage that vanishes as we draw near to look at it. Kept on the fringe of the world, woman cannot be objectively defined through this world, and her mystery conceals nothing but emptiness. Whilst the injustice of conquests and enslavings is not perceived, they are on the whole beneficial. Is there any way for individuals to reverse this situation? Like freedom is not free, freewill is not free either.
Will genes compromise in future, and when? How can we mend this split? This is the last disagreement between Dawkins and me. Let's take a look at what Dawkins said first:
It is
possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine,
disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case
one way or the other, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The
point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that
individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight—our capacity
to simulate the future in imagination—could save us from the worst selfish
excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to
foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term
selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a
'conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making
the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth
and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss
ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism—
something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before
in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured
as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone
on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.
To be honest, I don't think a genuine, disinterested, truly altruistic Merkel have foresight in either short-term or long-term. Natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones, and at any time, altruism is an unstable form. Any altruism in the level of individual must lead to unstable chaotic situation. We don't have enough power, maybe never, to rebel against the tyranny of the selfish genes because they are our creators. Let us give up teaching people generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Is there really nothing we can do? In human civilization, self-consciousness leads degeneration and adverse elimination in the level of genes in short-term. How will the genes respond? When gene is in a dominant position, the only thing we can do is to constantly improve our individual creativity to create more substitutes (reproductive machine), so that individual interests and genetic interests are consistent, and then gene would make a compromise with individual. When gene is in an inferior position, I think the gene's best counter-strategy is further division of labor in reproduction as soon as possible, so that individual interests and genetic interests are consistent again. The government should establish a minimum subsistence security policy to achieve such a goal that the good wins while the bad should be eliminated at the genetic level and the good wins while the bad should not be eliminated at the individual level. Either way, we must ultimately unify the genetic and individual interests. Only when we do not harm the interests of genes, it will give us more and more transcendence. This “Human rights” broadening must lead to confusion as same as the broadening of collectivism. I guess, humanism, as same as collectivism, inevitably collapse in the near future. Only by constantly increasing their capabilities will human have enough bargaining chips to negotiate with genes. Before this, human rights are bullshit. The Mayans, a Native American clan; which employed America many, many years ago, are known for their advancement in science, mathematics, astronomy. I don't know why the Mayan civilization perished, but I guess that the only reason for its demise is because of the conflict between individual interests and genetic interests. Today, under the Western Cult of human rights which lead that all losers become qualified breeders, after the accumulation of generations and generations, we must follow Maya's footsteps.
An invisible hand
in human evolution
The invisible hand is a term coined by Adam Smith in the 1700s to describe the operation of free markets. The general idea is that individuals pursuing their own self-interest ends up doing what is best for society "as if guided by an invisible hand". In fact, Adam Smith used the term three time in his works. Each time he was using it in a different sense. He was writing about God, rather than just business and self-interest. One, it means simply the invisible hand is self-love or self-interest in Economics. Then he is using it as the hand of God. And then he is actually using it as the hand of Jupiter, as the bad hand. Here I want to elaborate on my understanding of invisible hand in human evolution.
The hand of self-love on which Microeconomics is built on is well known to all, so I'd like to discuss the other two in detail. Let me discuss the hand of God first. The most important strategy of God is division of labor, wherever within a cell or without cells, within an individual or without individuals. A cell is the smallest living thing in your body. Within a cell, it contains a cell membrane, organelles, a nucleus, mitochondria, ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, chloroplasts, vacuoles, and cytoplasm. Each has different functions, and they work together to maintain the normal function of a cell. Without cells, God also made division of labor. Our body consists of millions and millions of cells of different types. They are all formed from the genome of a single fertilized egg. That means that just one cell, a fertilized egg, is able to become the trillions of cells that make up your body, just by dividing. Those trillions of cells are not all the same though. The process by which a less specialized cell becomes a more specialized cell type is called cell differentiation. This is a process which is seen in multicellular organisms. We can also regard this cell differentiation during a multicellular organism as a kind of division of labor between cells. A cell that can differentiate into all types of cells that make up the body is known as pluripotent cell. These cells are known as embryonic stem cells in animals and mammals. A cell that can differentiate into almost any kind of cell type, including placental cells is known as totipotent cell. It is difficult for a fully differentiated cell to return to a state of totipotency. This conversion to totipotency is complex, not fully understood so far. In order for cells to become whole organisms, they must divide and differentiate. Differentiation means that one cell performs a different function than another cell. Have you ever wondered what determines the direction of a cell, differentiated into a lung cell or a brain cell？I think it depends on initial endowment or original position. Different original position leads to different differentiation, and to different utility functions. The biologist Ancel suggested in 1903 that the primordial germ cell is indifferent and undergoes development into sperm or egg depending upon which type of gonad, testis or ovary, contains it. In the end, all the cells contain the same genetic material and all of them are from one original cell that started as a fertilized egg, but they look different and act different from one another. We can conclude that the initial position determines the function of a cell and the fate of the cell as well. The differentiated cells lose their totipotency, so we can view this process of differentiation as a process of alienation. Professionalization must lead to professional dementia, which is an inevitable outcome of division of labor and phenomenon of interdependence.
There is also division of labor within individuals. Cells make up tissues, tissues make up organs and organs make up organ systems, and organ systems make a living individual as a whole. There are 11 organ systems, which are made of multiple organs that work together to keep the human body functioning. Without individuals, there is division of labor as well. The division of labor in reproduction is a classic example, so almost all advanced organisms are dioecious. In addition, division of labor is more detailed and complicated during human society within a family or without a family. A household faces many decisions. It must decide which members of the household do which tasks and what each member gets in return: Who cooks dinner? Who does the laundry? Who gets the extra dessert at dinner? Who gets to choose what TV show to watch? In short, the household must allocate its scarce resources among its various members, taking into account each member's abilities, efforts, and desires. Like a household, a society faces many decisions. A society must find some way to decide what jobs will be done and who will do them. Comparative advantage is the driving force of specialization in social division. Although it is possible for one person to have an absolute advantage in both goods, it is impossible for one person to have a comparative advantage in both goods. Free trade leads to further the subdivisions of labor because trade can make everyone better off and each one is focused on his/her comparative advantage. In his work of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith elaborated very clearly on division of labour:
The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.... The division of labour, however, so far as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour. The separation of different trades and employments from one another seems to have taken place in consequence of this advantage. This separation, too, is generally called furthest in those countries which enjoy the highest degree of industry and improvement; what is the work of one man in a rude state of society being generally that of several in an improved one. In every improved society, the farmer is generally nothing but a farmer; the manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer.... The nature of agriculture, indeed, does not admit of so many subdivisions of labour, nor of so complete a separation of one business from another, as manufactures. This impossibility of making so complete and entire a separation of all the different branches of labour employed in agriculture is perhaps the reason why the improvement of the productive powers of labour in this art does not always keep pace with their improvement in manufactures…. This great increase of the quantity of work which, in consequence of the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of performing, is owing to three different circumstances; first, to the increase of dexterity in every particular workman; secondly, to the saving of the time which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to another; and lastly, to the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and enable one man to do the work of many.... this division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.... In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the co-operation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely.... As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels in making the frames and covers of their little huts or movable houses. He is accustomed to be of use in this way to his neighbours, who reward him in the same manner with cattle and with venison, till at last he finds it his interest to dedicate himself entirely to this employment, and to become a sort of house-carpenter. In the same manner a third becomes a smith or a brazier, a fourth a tanner or dresser of hides or skins, the principal part of the nothing of savages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he may have occasion for, encourages every man to apply himself to a particular occupation, and to cultivate and bring to perfection whatever talent or genius he may possess for that particular species of business.... The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of labour.... The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they were perhaps very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows could perceive any remarkable difference.
I basically agree with Adams's view. From micro to macro, the situation of human beings is the result of division and transaction. How to divide labor is the product of the interaction of genes and environment together. First of all, we must recognize the power of genes. You can never expect a fish to climb up a tree, or a monkey to swim in the sea. Similarly, we must recognize individual differences, even though their genes come from the same gene pool. Some people are naturally beautiful, but some born ugly. Some people are naturally intelligent, but some born stupid. The power of genes so strong that we cannot change them. When there is little difference of natural talents in different individuals, the initial position determines how to divide the labor. For example, if I were born in Thailand or Malaysia, I would become an excellent diving instructor. Where I was born determines what comparative advantages I have. No matter what kinds of genes you have or what kinds of environment you are born, we can regard both of them as an initial endowment God give to you what you can't change. Here I will give you a classic game to illustrate that what kind of decision you would make is only related to your initial position and nothing to do with who you are. Here is a game called pirate game. Five pirates discover a chest containing 100 gold coins. They decide to sit down and devise a distribution strategy. They drew lots to determine the order in which they would propose one by one. The first pirate gets to propose a plan and then all the pirates vote on it. If at least half of the pirates agree on the plan, the gold is split according to the proposal. If not, the first pirate is thrown off the ship and this process continues with the remaining pirates until a proposal is accepted. The first priority of the pirates is to stay alive and second to maximize the gold they get. How does each of them plan? If you have learned the knowledge of game theory, you will know the answer. No matter what kind of distribution pirate 1 proposes, pirate 2 and pirate 4 would agree, while pirate 3 and pirate 5 would disagree, so whoever is the first, he will have all the gold. What determines the outcome? The order or the position. They drew lots to decide their initial position, and when the initial position is fixed, their fate is fixed as well. When people are endowed different initial positions, they may make the opposite decisions to maximize their profit. A game in The Game Theory from Yale University open course, called a hungry lion game, tells us the same thing that your position determines whether you should eat the previous lion or not. In any trade, because buyers of any good always want a lower price while sellers want a higher price, the interests of the two groups conflict. Each individual body is a selfish machine, trying to do the best for all its genes. The best policy for such a selfish machine will often be one thing if it is male, and quite a different thing if it is female. Karl Marx ever said, “You have ideas in your head. I can tell you why you have these ideas, when I look at your material condition. When I understand your position in the class structure, and I understand your economic interests, then I will be able to tell you why you think the way you think.” Every rational being is thinking and acting according to your economic interests. In any sequential move game of perfect information, when both sides are rationalists, victory or defeat is already doomed by game itself. Some games are doomed to be first-mover advantage, while some second-mover advantage. In the sex service transaction based on P-V model, the fact that a woman is doomed to be a seller and a man a buyer, is determined by the initial position of God, and no one would change it. It's fate, destiny, lot or whatever else you like to call it.
I admit that I am both fatalist and determinist. Fatalism, by referring to the personal "fate" or to "predestined events" strongly imply the existence of a someone or something that has set the "predestination." Fate is dictated by the position of every planet, star, moon, solar system and galaxy in the universe, as well as by the circumstances of your own birth and the very existence of the individual and the make-up of the deepest parts of both the conscious and the subconscious mind. The view that no matter what we do or how we struggle, the outcome is only what fate has predetermined it to be. Regardless of one's desire to rebel or fight against fate or destiny, each person will only rebel and fight as far as he/she has been predetermined to fight or rebel, and there can be no action (no matter how extreme, sudden, unpredictable or spontaneous) which was not predetermined, foreseen, or planned to occur by fate. This is usually interpreted to mean a conscious, omniscient being or force who has personally planned—and therefore knows at all times—the exact succession of every event in the past, present, and future, none of which can be altered. Determinism believes that every event has a cause and that everything in the universe is absolutely dependent on and governed by causal laws. Determinism is typically thought to be incompatible with free will. In my words, all things have cause and effect while all living beings have its own lot. There is an old saying in China, “Character determines destiny.” To be honest, this sentence is wrong. The right thing is initial position determines destiny and destiny determines character. of the strict necessity which attends all the circumstances in which character is successively placed, everyone's course of life is precisely determined from Alpha right through to Omega. whether it be regarded from a subjective or an objective point of view, the subjective conditions in which, as well as the objective conditions under which, every man is born, are the moral consequences of a previous existence. Fate is nothing but the conscious certainty that all that happens is fast bound by a chain of causes, and therefore takes place with a strict necessity; that the future is already ordained with absolute certainty and can undergo as little alteration as the past. In the fatalistic myths of the ancients all that can be regarded as fabulous is the prediction of the future. Instead of trying to explain away the fundamental truth of Fatalism by superficial twaddle and foolish evasion, a man should attempt to get a clear knowledge and comprehension of it; for it is demonstrably true, and it helps us in a very important way to an understanding of the mysterious riddle of our life. Predestination and Fatalism do not differ in the main. But in either case the result is the same: that happens which must happen. Benjamin Franklin said, “If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.” This is the fate when I appeal to interests but cannot awaken women. There is some strictly necessary character behind all action whether it seems rational or irrational, and God creates savior while creating sacrifice. Freud said, “Anatomy is destiny.” Anatomic destiny is thus profoundly different in female and male. She is fated to be subjected, owned, possessed, exploited like the Nature whose magical fertility she embodies. Like everyone is price taker in perfect competition markets, everyone is the destiny taker in evolution. We can't change the market price, and the only thing we can do is to compare our opportunity costs and market price and then decide whether to stay in or leave the market. Frankly speaking, free-will is a luxury for human beings as same as love. The original and fundamental desires is independent of all knowledge, because it is antecedent to such knowledge. Human cognitive ability is always limited, which is subject to the forms of space and time, including the Saviors and the crowds. All the incidents of life occur, strictly speaking, with the same necessity as the movement of a clock, but human have no power to control it. So far, God still interferes with the human cognitive ability according to fixed laws for the advantage of genes. There is new saying in China, “Poverty limits your imagination.” In fact, identity limits your imagination. Each of us has our own destiny, performing different roles according to God's script. The fundamental difference in decision making is cognitive level. People will never be able to perceive anything beyond their cognitive ability. No one can transcend the limits of your identity. This is fate. Under no circumstances should we do anything against the will of God. In essence, we all live in our own destiny, whoever Saviors or the crowds, and no one can save anyone. Our existence is all empty and void. All chance is, at bottom, necessity. Every electron should be in its own orbit depending on its own energy, otherwise the world will be in turmoil.
Next is the hand of Jupiter. The initial position determines the fate of both sides, while determines the misfortune of one side in pseudo-equilibrium state. How unfairly God treat individuals! Yes, it is. The selfish genes only consider fairness at the genetic level instead of individual level. In each gene's long journey down the generations, an average gene will spend approximately half its time sitting in male bodies, and the other half sitting in female bodies. Genes have always ignored the fairness from individual level, but individuals do care. Sex-Changing is not a rare phenomenon in marine lives. A transgender fish has been captured changing sex for BBC's Blue Planet II. In the underwater forests of northern Japan, a kind of giant wrasse called a Kobudai, also known as the Asian Sheepshead Wrasse, has a very special ability. Females, once they reach a certain age, are able to change sex. If there are a lot of dominant males then the female fish doesn't change sex. But if a male is starting to lose his hold on the group, and the social demographic allows it to happen, then a female of a certain age and size can turn into a male. Over just a few months, particular enzymes inside her body cease to work. And male hormones started to circulate. As time passes, her head expands, and her chin gets longer. This is likely the result of a sudden change in the hormones the fish releases into its bloodstream. A she has changed into a he. And with this comes a change in temperament. The old male who ruled all the females here is challenged to a face-off. The territory has a new ruler. Only the largest females transform themselves in this way. But a new male can't afford to be complacent. Inside the body of every Kobudai female, there is a new male in waiting. Scientists believe the female wrasse makes the switch because she can pass on more genes as a male, although it is unclear why some change while others remain female. Besides, clownfish, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place. No one knows exactly how the sex change occurs, but in either direction, the ability to change from one sex to the other seems to have distinct evolutionary advantage by enabling the species to produce the largest number offspring possible. Female-to-male (protogyny) fish which once produced eggs are able to instead produce sperm. This is conversely true for male-to-female fish (protandry). Either way it goes, the sex change works with the lifestyle of that particular fish to produce the largest number of offsprings. While some fish can only undergo a sex change once in their lives, others can go back and forth many times, or even have both sexual organs at once. But several kinds of fish not only can change sex, but do so as part of their normal reproductive cycles. The exact biological mechanism that stimulates the sex change process is not fully understood. What is known is that the determining factors are often social in nature. One such is called disinhibitional or suppressional. It suggests that the presence of a male in a group of females prevents or inhibits them from changing sex. Removal of the male causes one or more of the females (usually the larger one) to become male. In the same way, if a female is removed from a male, she will change sex (called stimulation or induction). In general, Sex-Changing happens in hermaphrodite organisms. Chickens can sometimes undergo natural sex changes. Normally, female chickens have just one functional ovary, on their left side. Although two sex organs are present during the embryonic stages of all birds, once a chicken's female hormones come into effect, it typically develops only the left ovary. The right gonad, which has yet to be defined as an ovary, testes, or both (called an ovotestis), typically remains dormant. Certain medical conditions can cause a chicken's left ovary to regress. In the absence of a functional left ovary, the dormant right sex organ may begin to grow, if the activated right gonad is an ovotestis or testes, it will begin secreting androgens. The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male. By the way, lower survival machines are more rational than higher survival machines because the latter have a self-deception called “imagination.” Imagination is a terrible thing. Love is a kind of self-imagination.
Compared with women, I can say these female fishes are lucky. There are three meanings: One is female fishes get rid of the 'cruel bind' from genes; the other is female fishes get rid of the violation from males; the third one is they can change their sex in their lifetime. Let me explain to you one by one. Firstly, many fish do not copulate, but instead simply spew out their sex cells into the water. Fertilization takes place in the open water, not inside the body of female. Because of the diffusion problem, the male must wait until the female spawns, and then he must shed his sperms over the eggs. But she has had a precious few seconds in which to disappear, leaving the male in possession, and forcing him on to the horns of 'cruel bind'. The female fish who does so has the advantage that she can then leave males in possession of the new embryos-'holding the baby'. So this theory neatly explains why paternal care is common in water but rare on dry land. In short, female fishes get rid of the enslavement from offspring. Secondly, for the same reason that fertilization takes place in the open water, not inside the body of female, female fishes get rid of the violation from males, but women are the victim. Among insects and mammals, he penetrates her. Her body becomes, therefore, a resistance to be broken through, whereas in penetrating it the male finds self-fulfilment in activity. His domination is expressed in the very posture of copulation – in almost all animals the male is on the female. And certainly the organ he uses is a material object, but it appears here in its animated state it is a tool – whereas in this performance the female organ is more in the nature of an inert receptacle. She submits to the coition, which invades her individuality and introduces an alien element through penetration and internal fertilisation. Lastly, female fishes can change sex when they find that they could be better off after sex-changing. In other words, the sex ratio can be adjusted automatically, not controlled by sex ratio at birth. In some sense, some female fishes, as individuals, can partially change their initial endowments, and get rid of the injustice of fate. Every coin has two sides. Women, as advanced dioecious species, are not so lucky because of P-V model which determines that women are slaves to offspring and slaves to men as well, and they can't resist the injustice of fate by changing sex. The division of labor caused the situation of women being enslaved, and then women are alienated in their jobs. The biggest drawback of division of labor is that it will definitely lead to professional dementia，and apparently women have become demented in the role of prostitutes. That is why difficult for a fully differentiated cell to return to a state of totipotency. All of things are written by God. In coition man uses only an external organ, while woman is struck deep within her vitals. Like the female of most species, she is under the male during copulation. This is the lot of women. The normal sexual act in effect puts woman into a state of dependency upon the male and the species. And what's worse is, men have got rid of the slavery of genes, so they mate for orgasm pleasure instead of reproduction, therefore men want to mate frequently even during non-ovulatory period for their individual interests instead of genetic interests. Women subject to not only genes, but also to male despicable desire. Female animals are lucky because they are violated only during ovulation. The identity of woman is doomed to be enslaved by genes and violated by men in her whole life.
“Structure Determines Properties” is a powerful concept in chemistry, which is another expression of “Anatomy is destiny,” which can also be applied to evolution. First of all, you have to admit that God is unfair. Initial endowment is like a random game, such as playing cards. I can't decide what kinds of cards I get, and sometimes bad cards are bound to lose, no matter how I play. In my experience, I would choose to give up this set and do something else useful. I'm doomed to lose points, which I can't decide, but the only thing I can decide is not to waste any time on it. That's the only reason I support female infanticide. Those people who hold the banner of human rights are just the beneficiaries of women's existence and the losers of female infanticide. In their eyes, women are not only tools but also should be free tools. Chinese people want to have sons, while their neighbors have daughters at same time. If there are men around, who will suffer. What is a woman? Woman is a womb in the eyes of genes and vaginal in the eyes of male, so woman-like the females of certain domesticated animals-requires help in performing the function assigned to her by nature. It is in maternity that woman fulfils her physiological destiny; it is her natural “calling”, since her whole organic structure is adapted for the perpetuation of the species. rom initial endowment, their biological advantage has enabled the males to affirm their status as sole and sovereign subjects; they have never abdicated this position so far. The advantage man enjoys, which makes itself felt from his initial position, is that his vocation as a human being in no way runs counter to his destiny as a male. Through the identification of reproduction and transcendence, if we can regard the orgasm as a physiological transcendence, his service to the species is combined with his personal enjoyment. With man there is no break between public and private life: the more he confirms his grasp on the world in action and in work, the more virile he seems to be; human and vital values are combined in him. Woman, on the contrary, is even required by society to make herself an erotic object. The purpose of the fashions to which she is enslaved is not to reveal her as an independent individual, but rather to offer her as prey to male desires. Whereas woman's independent successes are in contradiction with her femininity, since the 'true woman' is required to make herself object, to be the Other. When she has once accepted her vocation as sexual object, she enjoys adorning herself. The destiny of woman and her sole glory are to make beat the hearts of men. There is a great deal of anatomic and clinical evidence that most of the interior of the vagina is without nerve. She does not readily accept the idea of being pierced by a man, and she resigns herself no more cheerfully to being “stoppered” for his pleasure, but she feels the humiliation in coitus, so most of women are frigidity or semi-frigidity, because at the beginning of woman's erotic life her surrender is not compensated for by a keen and certain enjoyment. Anyone who is passive is out of the game. Havelock Ellis remarks that there are certainly more rapes committed in marriage than outside it. Western media are always criticizing rape in India and Africa, but in fact, Chinese students are often raped by white people in Australia. According to Dailymail, a group of eight Taiwanese women on the 457 visa were working at a fruit picking farm in the Riverland region of South Australia and were expected to perform sex acts for more hours. In my view, the P-V model is not fundamentally different whether resorting to violent civilization or contract civilization. The only difference is whether women have the right to say no. Sex desire is gross appetite, male embrace a degrading duty. Women hate the man forever who selfishly takes his pleasure at the price of their suffering. At a matter of fact, many women become mothers and grandmothers without ever having experienced the orgasm or even any sex excitement at all. Battle of the sexes changes into a duel between the exploiter and the exploited. Sexually women are completely deprived of their rights. Kinsey states that there are many wives “how report that they consider their coital frequencies already too high and wish that their husbands did not desire intercourse so often. A few wives wish for more frequent coitus”. Woman's erotic capabilities are castrated for the interest of genes. The female is the slaves of the species, the interests of which are dissociated from the female's interests as an individual. A slave cannot have the sense of human dignity. Her anatomy compels her to remain clumsy and impotent like a eunuch or a castration. Whereas it is required of woman that in order to realize her mission she must make herself object and slave, which is to say that she must renounce her claims as sovereign subject. More precisely: She is not as a subject but as an object paradoxically endued with subjectivity. She is not a free human being who regards someone else as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. She is just a passive instrument. This is a deeply rooted and irreconcilable conflict which between the interest of the feminine individual and that of the species is so acute in natural circumstances. She must give up subjectivity and transcendence to complete the multiplication of species. Her misfortune is to have been biologically destines for the repetition of Life. So far, women don't free from bondage to P-V model because women are indeed cursed by God.
So far, you could find that women are in a so unfortunate and inferior position wherever they are in violent civilization or in gene's trade-off. Everywhere, at all times, the males have displayed their satisfaction in feeling that they are the lords of creation. 'Blessed be God ... that He did not make me a woman, ' say the Jews in their morning prayers, while their wives pray on a note of resignation: 'Blessed be the Lord, who created me according to His will. ' The first among the blessings for which Plato thanked the gods was that he had been created free, not enslaved; the second, a man, not a woman. “Nature is good since she has given women to men.” No man would consent to be a woman except very few transgender, but every man wants women to exist. Why? The reason is that, from a strategic point of view, they do not play a strictly dominated strategy. You must figure out that son preference is the result of this unfairness instead of the reason. So far, the two sexes have never shared the world in equality. Frankly speaking, these is no possibility of absolute equality between the sexes because they share different initial positions. It is doomed to failure that seeing justice in absolute equality. How to deal with this injustice? Let us resort to “Veil of ignorance” to promote justice. Compared with the equality, I care more about balance. When being women and being men are equivalent to everyone, the balance is reached between two sexes, because if I am using a mixed strategy as a best response, it must be the case that everything is itself best in my strategic set, otherwise I must kick out the other. Originally it was not right, but might, that ruled in the world. Might has the advantage of having been the first in the field. The authority is so supreme, indubitable that everyone renders instinctive obedience. Victims are necessary in evolution at any time, and women are doomed to be lost generation in pseudo-equilibrium. Since a woman does not alter, and her moral character remains absolutely the same all through her life; since she must play out the part which she has received. Femininity signifies alterity and inferiority. No one would consent to be a woman, but every man wants women to exist. The grown man regards his organ as a symbol of transcendence and power; it pleases his vanity like a voluntary muscle and at the same time like a magical gift. 'Nature is good since she has given women to men.' She is for man a sexual partner, a reproducer, an erotic object – an Other through whom he seeks himself. Woman is the diversion of men, and man vents his turpitude upon her. He incarnates transcendence; woman is absorbed in the continuation of species, she is all inwardness; she is dedicated to immanence. Not only does man play the active role in the sexual life, but he is active also in going beyond it; he is rooted in the sexual world, but he makes his escape from it; woman remains shut up in it. She has to renounce her sexual autonomy and become 'lost sex'. Compared with slaves in the body, women are trained to be spiritual slaves. God not only castrated women's orgasm, but also castrated women's reason, in order to complete the plan of “Trade space for time.” 'Men make the gods; women worship them,' as Frazer has said. The woman who has always looked up to a god in man kneels in ecstasy at the feet of the male who is the earthly substitute for God. For this reason, men create many evil things, such as G-spot and Love in order to keep women as losers in pseudo-equilibrium. These cults put men in the position of benefactor and women in the position of beneficiary resulting in putting P-V model under the guise of win-win game. Any religion is just a placebo or consolation to the victims, which we can regard G-spot and Love as. A little-known feminist of the 17th century, Poulain de la Barre, put it this way: “All that has been written about women by men should be suspect, for the men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit.” It is quite normal that any people who hold power try to legitimate what they do. Domination is equal to power plus legitimacy. For example, men try to legitimate their penetration, so they make G-spot and vaginal orgasms that can put P-V model under the guise of legitimacy. Men need to convert power into domination. That is legitimacy, a claim that what I am doing when I am asking you, is good for you. If you internalize it and you are beginning to think how wonderful. Then it was domination ration than power. Every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance. That every privileged group – people in position of power – are developing a myth of their superiority. They are developing a myth that this is useful for you to obey. The essence of legitimacy, that is has a certain – expects you to believe in the reasons what those in position of power try to justify their power, but also an understanding that this is a myth. You just internalize your own submission to the authority. What makes the ruler legitimate that the ruler is capable to develop mythologies to justify that you better obey the orders, what is given to you. Because you have some self-interest to do so, and you have some level of belief that it is actually not bad for you to do what the ruler wants you to do. After generation of absolute rule and complete indoctrination, there may not be a difference between true belief and true fear. Women have to find out what really is the critical factor that leads to the real orgasm. For unquestionably there must be in the nature of things some definite and fixed pre-requisites to success. To achieve the purpose, we ought first to determine what the essential conditions are. If we solve the problem, it can only be by consulting these and submitting ourselves to them. To suppose that we may, in ignorance or disregard of them, succeed by some hap-hazard speculation, is sheer folly. She was brainwashed to be active to seek transcendence in P-V model. Unfortunately, her aggressive sexuality remains unsatisfied because her initiative failed to achieve any purpose from beginning to end. It would be quite wrong to suppose that she seeks transcendence in mating model; on the contrary, she dooms herself to the most complete slavery. People dare not face a cruel truth that female orgasm and male orgasm are incompatible. The conclusion of these cults presents us, undoubtedly, with a very beautiful and desirable picture that man and woman can orgasm together, but like some of the landscapes drawn from fancy and not imagined with truth. She was fooled by a well-designed fraud. The biggest misfortune of women is that they are born only to be subservient to the pleasures of the other.
Of course, women are not worthy of sympathy because they are half victims, half accomplices, like everyone else. 'What a misfortune to be a woman! And yet the misfortune, when one is a woman, is at bottom not to comprehend that it is one, ' says Kierkegaard. The biggest defect of women is women are lack of discernment and judgment, which can be considered as sign of maturity. She sees a phantom-world, inherited prejudice and strange delusion: the real world was hidden from her, or the vision of it distorted. Women are childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long—a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort—very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. For it is by virtue of his reasoning faculty that man does not live in the present only, like the brute, but looks about him and considers the past and the future; and this is the origin of prudence. She may, in fact, be described as intellectually short-sighted, because, while she has an intuitive understanding of what lies quite close to her, her field of vision is narrow and does not reach to what is remote; so that things which are absent, or past, or to come, have much less effect upon women than upon men. Women are influenced by emotions rather than reason. Augustine declared that woman is a creature neither decisive nor constant. It is right to denounce their lack of logic, their obstinate ignorance, their inability to grasp reality. Men only care what he needs, but women care what she likes. Love has been assigned to woman as her supreme vocation. But male desire is as ephemeral as it is imperious; once allayed, it dies rather quickly, whereas it is most often afterwards that woman becomes love's captive. Byron well said: “Man's love is of man's life a thing apart, it is woman's whole existence.” Women's irrationality has become a public hazard all over the world because the essence of capitalism amplified this irrationality for money. If one truth shines through, it is that people are not consistent or fully rational decision makers. In the long history of human evolution, some humans have to exhibit “bounded rationality” especially in pseudo-equilibrium state. The truth is not important because people only believe what they want to believe. What is rationality? This is not an easy question to answer. Rationality has something to do how conscious you are of what you are doing, and how conscious you are of the consequences of your action. You are irrational when you don't know what the consequences of your action are. It includes three aspects: One depends on your ends which belongs to virtual axis or real axis; another depends on your means whether you act on principle of backward induction; the last one depends on your time horizon which include the discount rate and trade-off before today and tomorrow. The ends, the means and time horizon are all rationally taken into account and weighted. What can I get it and when can I get it at what cost? In this process you maximize utility, and you try to reduce the expenses, and you try to increase the return on what you try to achieve. In my opinion, to make sacrifices for love is very irrational. The victims are reluctant to change their minds and appears to exhibit substantial inertia and tend to interpret evidence to confirm beliefs they already hold. Deception and self-deception are twin brothers in pseudo-equilibrium. Women are half victims and half accomplices in this self-deception. We can regard self-deception as a spiritual victory. Inertia is a very important concept in my system. Nay, it is a very easy prophecy if he has been already seen in a like position; for he will inevitably do the same thing a second time, provided that on the first occasion he had a true and complete knowledge of the facts of the case. Afterwards she recognizes what it is that she ought to have done; and, sincerely repenting of her incorrect behaviour, she thinks to herself, If the opportunity were offered to me again, I should act differently. It is offered once more; the same occasion recurs; and to her great astonishment she does precisely the same thing over again. Understanding their behavior seems easier once we abandon the model of rational man. I hold a negative view in the question of whether the market is effective or not, because the fool are always necessary in pseudo-equilibrium state.
So far, women are lack of class consciousness because they haven't realized that they are sellers of traditional sex-services. In any trade, the interests of the seller and the buyer are mutually incompatible. The sellers want the more expensive the better, and however, buyers want the cheaper the better. The term of “Class Consciousness” comes from Marx. In political theory and particularly Marxism, class consciousness is the set of beliefs that a person holds regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their class interests. According to György Lukács, regarded abstractly and formally, then, class consciousness implies a class-conditioned unconsciousness of ones own socio-historical and economic condition. The hegemony of the authority really does embrace the whole of society; it really does attempt to organize the whole of society in its own interests. To achieve this, it was forced both to develop a coherent theory of economics, politics and society to make victims believe win-win game, harmonious society and orgasm together. The whole of authority thought in the twentieth century made the most strenuous efforts to mask the real relationship between men and women. The chief reason for this is that the rule of these theories can only be the rule of a minority. Its hegemony is exercised not merely by a minority but in the interest of that minority, so the need to deceive the other classes and to ensure that their class consciousness remains amorphous is inescapable for any authority regime. All the preceding authorities that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. But the veil drawn over the nature of contract society is indispensable to the authority itself, for reason is a double-edged sword. To sum up, mind control is indeed conducive to maintaining the stability of contract civilization. Women are destined to have falseness consciousness in short-run. Only when women can discern in the correct understanding and insight of their correct class consciousness can they have the power to fight against tyranny. The fate of the women and with it the fate of mankind will depend on the ideological maturity of the women, i.e. on its class consciousness. It is I who is perfect grave digger cultivated by the bourgeoisie. The truth I revealed is not to aggravate the dispute between two sexes, but coordinate contradictions between two sexes because, at present, the relationship between the two sexes has entered the prisoner's dilemma.
Do I have any good suggestions for these victims? To be honest, I have no good suggestions to recommend but waiting. Human evolution needs victim, and victims are indispensable because rational choices can lead to bad outcomes. The key is to sacrifice who? The bottom line of contract civilization is no violence, but no guarantee no cheating. These swindlers and victims will ignore all obvious contradictions and logic errors. They should reflect on themselves. For example, if vagina orgasm really exists, there is no concept of rape. The cause of this neglect on the part of the advocates for the G-spot is not easily accounted for. I cannot doubt the candor of such men as Beverly Whipple and Barry R. Komisaruk. To my understanding, and probably to that of most others, the difficulty appears insurmountable. Yet these men of acknowledged ability and penetration scarcely deign to notice it, and hold on their course in such speculations with unabated ardor and undiminished confidence. I have certainly no right to say that they purposely shut their eyes to such contradictions and logic errors. Today my theory goes unrecognized by the public as same as the theory that the earth goes around the sun. After the heliocentric theory was put forward by Kopernik, the geocentric theory still ruled mankind for a hundred years. I tried to awaken women and American in 2012, but I found it is like “beating a dead horse.” I am sure all attempts to debunk the mystery of female orgasm before reproductive machines invented are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely. Female orgasm itself has appeared intolerable to those women who have not been accustomed to enjoy it. Thus, pure air is sometimes disagreeable to such as have lived in a fenny country. For this problem, we should adopt strategy that “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” which we can regard as a kind of expediency. In 1993, when President Bill Clinton signed the policy known as “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” into law, it represented a compromise between those who wanted to end the longstanding ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military and those who felt having openly gay troops would hurt morale and cause problems within military ranks. Frankly speaking, all attempts to answer the question of gay before homosexual reproduction technology invented are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore gay problem completely. The reason is simple: Genes will never compromise before there is a way out. I can't agree with you more what Wittgenstein said in his book of Culture and Value: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” I will elaborate on the issue of homosexuality in the next chapter. Whatever fate befalls you, do not give way to great rejoicings or great lamentations; partly because all things are full of change, and your fortune may turn at any moment; partly because men are so apt to be deceived in their judgment as to what is good or bad for them. In the pseudo-equilibrium state, man will ultimately become an ostrich.
By the way, I must admit that I am a pessimist as same as Schopenhauer. Pessimism is a mental attitude in which an undesirable outcome is anticipated from a given situation. Philosophical pessimism is the related idea that views the world in a strictly anti-optimistic fashion. Philosophical pessimists are often existential nihilists believing that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. In my view, pessimism is a kind of foresight, short-sighted people, cannot be pessimistic. Frankly speaking, happiness is really far away from us. The two things determine that human life is suffering: Endless desire and Pseudo-equilibrium state. The former determines that people always get less than they want, while the latter determines that victims and deception are necessary. Only pain and cost can curb the endless desire of an individual, therefore, pain and cost are the main parts of life. It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds everywhere in the world, and originates in needs and necessities inseparable from life itself. Each separate misfortune, as it comes, seems, no doubt, to be something exceptional; but misfortune in general is the rule. The longer you live the more clearly you will feel that, on the whole, life is a disappointment, nay, a cheat. The great majority of men, without any surprise, are beings conceived and born in sin, and living to atone for it. And in any case, after some little time, we learn by experience that happiness and pleasure are a fata morgana, which, visible from afar, vanish as we approach; that, on the other hand, suffering and pain are a reality, which makes its presence felt without any intermediary, and for its effect, stands in no need of illusion or the play of false hope. Hence most people, if they glance back when they come to the end of life, will find that all along they have been living ad interim: they will be surprised to find that the very thing they disregarded and let slip by unenjoyed, was just the life in the expectation of which they passed all their time. The pseudo equilibrium state is extremely short from the long river of evolution, but is not that short from the perspective of individuality so deception and misfortune may cover someone's whole life. No one can escape the fate bestowed by the times, no matter who you are. Of how many a man may it not be said that optimism made a fool of him until he danced into the arms of death! Superficial people, to be sure—and, for very good reasons, commonplace people too—will be of the opposite opinion; for if anything fails them, they will thus be enabled to console themselves by thinking that it is still to come. The feeblest words are tomorrow will be fine. In fact, tomorrow will be worse-off. But most men go an inch in their regard for others' welfare to twenty yards in regard for their own. For what is our civilized world but a big masquerade? But they are not what they pretend to be; they are only masks, and, as a rule, behind the masks you will find moneymakers. The whole of these masks as a rule are merely, as I have said, a disguise for the fact that let the weak be more unfortunate. That is the logic of God. Intellectual incapacity of the great majority of mankind in life so often disgusts me. For where many are invited, it is a rabble—even if they all wear stars. In this samsara, human misery, human depravity and human folly correspond with one another perfectly, and they are of like magnitude. deception is in its very nature the product of injustice, malevolence and villainy. The aim of the State is to produce a fool's paradise, and this is in direct conflict with the interests of victims. Victims are to be deceived by outward show—the hypocrisy that characterizes the world from beginning to end. Fools' paradise as a kind of absurdity, waits to be debunked. In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of this world. This is the falsehood, the hollowness, the hypocrisy of human affairs! So it is with man: in working through the days and hours of his life, he takes little thought of its character as a whole. Most men, says Bias, are bad. Virtue is a stranger in this world. The world is the devil's playground.
Feminism is the result of blind optimism. Feminism seems an instrument of deception instead of an instrument of liberation. Anti-feminist asserts that the emancipated women of today succeed in doing nothing of importance in the world on one hand, and exaggerate the results obtained by professional women on the other hand. To be honest, feminism itself was never an autonomous movement; it was in part an instrument in the hands of politicians, in part an epiphenomenon reflecting a deeper social drama. The two sexes have never shared the world in equality, and even today woman is heavily handicapped, though her situation is beginning to change. At the present time, when women are beginning to take part in the affairs of the world, it is still a world that belongs to men—they have no doubt of it at all and women have scarcely any. At present, the world should be still dominated by men because incompetent women's participation in national leadership-as a result of lowering the threshold-will only make the world more chaotic. Feminism did not let women escape from slavery, instead, put women in the position of free prostitutes, aiming at intending to persuade women to “stay womanly”. Finally, she is really in triple servitude: to job, to genes and to man. What woman essentially lacks today for doing great things is forgetfulness of herself; but to forget oneself it is first of all necessary to be firmly assured that now and for the future one has found oneself. It should be said that the majority of men have the same limitations; it is when we compare the woman of achievement with the few rare male geniuses who deserve to be called “great men” that she seems mediocre. It is a special destiny that limits her: we can readily comprehend why it has not been vouchsafed her—and may not be vouchsafed her for some time—to attain to the loftiest summits. When we abolish the slavery of half of humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that is implies, them the “division” of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form. This is the chief source of the evil which under the name of LOVE, or under the name of the G-spot, has always oppressed the great majority of the human race. Feminism have neither knowledge nor talent to resolve this natural division of labor. Woman needs no capacity, but that of surrendering herself to the will of God.
Human beings can never live forever for the simple reason that human evolution requires both victims and Saviors. It is only the old people who sees life whole and knows its natural course. Men are much more disturbed than women by the loss of the spouse late in life; they gain more from marriage than women do, particularly in old age. For then the universe is concentrated within the limits of the home. When the man has given up his public functions, he becomes entirely useless. She is necessary to her husband; whereas he is merely a nuisance. Ole women note that they have been duped and deceived all their lives; sane and mistrustful, they often develop pragmaticism. But if her experience enables her to unmask deceits and lies, it is not sufficient to show her the truth. In China, young people maybe get into a marriage because of love, but the marriage of the elderly is more pragmatic that old woman sell while old man buy. In age, judgment, penetration and thoroughness predominate. In age the passions cool and leave a woman at rest, and then forthwith her mind takes a contemplative tone; the intellect is set free and attains the upper hand. Too late she discovers the trick that has been played upon her. Like I said before, reason is a double-edged sword. When a lie is pierced, who will breed? Victims are necessary because human evolution need victims. If everyone on earth were rational, nothing would happen. At the same time, death will take the Luddites away. Like I said before, too fast evolution is not a good thing. There is inertia and viscosity in individual behavior and way of thinking, but evolution needs mutation and change. Those vested interests will not be willing to spit out the interests which ought not to have belonged to them, so they would be the Luddites to obstruct the progress of society. Like you can't teach an old dog new tricks, only death can solve this problem. Men now take P-V model for granted, but the truth will deprive them of so-called legitimate rights which ought not to have belonged to him. In the end, these rascals must resort to violent civilization. On the contrary, a fool remains a fool, a dull blockhead, to her last hour, even though she were surrounded by the truth. How to deal with them? Like I said, sometimes waiting is good strategy, because death can solve all problems. From individual aspect, living is always temporary, but death is eternity. The hospital witnessed the reincarnation of life and death that someone is born every day while someone dies every day. Evolution must be accompanied by elimination and death, like the rolls of film replaced by digital camera. All in all, human evolution requires the Savior and the victim, as same as birth and death. Without death, life is meaningless. I should be inclined, therefore, as I have said before, to consider the victims and misfortune as the mighty expediency of God, not for the trial, but for the “Trade space for time.” Since I was over 30 years old, I often suffer from spinal pain. I have to admit, as a survival machine, all my physiological functions are decreasing as I grow older. I agree on one theory that senility represents an accumulation of deleterious copying errors and other kinds of gene damage which occur during the individual's lifetime. All things and people exist to fulfill the will of the Creator. I don't want to create or change the world, because I know that anyone who tries to be against God must end up in failure. I just want to act according to the role God has written to me.
Finally, we explore the invisible hand as self-interest in Economics, which is the most widely known knowledge. Human evolution is like a pendulum swinging between two impulses, two evils in polar opposition, general-will and self-interest. Adam Smith has two faces as well. On one hand, he is an economist, a rational choice economist and advocates self-interest and stands for laissez fair capitalism. Pursue just your self-interest because your self-interest will lead to the common good. On the other hand, in his book of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith advocates sympathy because absolute and perfect rationality leads to degeneration. God guides us to have a proper balance between emotion and rationality, which are complementary to each other, and that is somehow God's will, what we follow. Deception and victims are necessary, and only at the end of the pseudo-equilibrium state, the hand of self-interest starts to work again.
Just like genes are quickly penalized by natural selection, irrational individuals must be penalized by the hand of individual self-interest. When women's life choices were highly constrained, they had little negotiating power. They had to marry or were seen as damaged. Marriage was the destiny traditionally offered to women by society, but now more and more women are becoming rational and rational, and they, as unqualified sellers, choose to exit the sex-service gradually. Fundamentally, economic evolution in woman's situation is in process of upsetting the institution of marriage. Like I said before, pseudo-equilibrium is essential because it is the premise of the next equilibrium state. Men's utility for women has been replaced by social utility already, and then the victims will gradually withdraw from the market, otherwise she will be punished by the hand of self-interest. That is why marriage does not hold any appeal to women now. There is a big tendency for history that women are becoming increasingly rationalized. Victims gradually get rid of inertia, and don't follow the crowd. It is interest rather than reason that awakens them. In social psychology, there is a classic theory called "exchange theory." It is a bit cold-blooded, but it predicts that a person's actions will be based on trying to find a balance of give and get. Each person's resources—of all kinds, including money, looks, background—are traded back and forth for a "good deal." According to investigation, currently, 53% of women over 18 are in the singles column in America, and only 29 percent of divorced adults say they want to remarry, and women are more likely than men to say they don't want another marriage in their future. With the increase of women's opportunity cost, more and more women will refuse to get into marriage in the future. Intelligence is an incredibly attractive quality and something that should make most women an amazing catch. Generally being smart would never be considered a bad thing, and we have found that the more intelligent a woman is, the more likely she is to be single. Compared with the value the man brings to her, she can get more through social transactions. In her interest pattern, men are becoming more and more useless, so some smart and practical women with high opportunity cost are more likely to be single, whose supply curve is becoming more and more elastic. Social values gradually replace womb value and vaginal value. Under monogamy, many women get into marriage for having children, but after the pension, children are not a necessity any more. Winston Churchill said, “Laws just or unjust may govern men's actions. Tyrannies may restrain or regulate their words. The machinery of propaganda may pack their minds with falsehood and deny them truth for many generations of time. But the soul of man thus held in trance or frozen in a long night can be awakened by a spark coming from God knows where and, in a moment, the whole structure of lies and oppression is on trial for its life.” Lies can deceive all people for a while, and some people for a lifetime, but cannot deceive all people for a lifetime. This is how invisible hand works its magic. Women respond to incentives, and the rest is commentary. The key lies in the speed of your response, namely, behavior stickiness. Profit seeking is the only driving force for human evolution. The pseudo equilibrium state is the result of gene profit seeking, and the equilibrium state is the inevitable result of individual profit seeking. It is impossible to reverse the trend of God's will. Whenever you lose yourself in any things, please remember to appeal to your self-interests which is the first rule of evolution.
The victims are gradually awakening, but they still lack the spiritual mentor. The Savior should be on the stage. The true identity of every Savior is the clergy, who is the preacher of God. The mission of the Saviors is to debunk all lies in pseudo equilibrium and tell descendent a naked truth, and then points out where the next equilibrium is for mankind. The Saviors are must be Smithian. The Savior teaches descendent should be acting out of self-interest in order to achieve the common good and do not expect benevolence from each other because good relationships are always based on self-interest. There is also saying if you are seeking self-interest, if you chose it rationally, this will be in the common good. Which is best for you is also the best for society. Self-love and altruism are unified instead of contradictory. I couldn't change that all my genes are located in the environment of the XX chromosome, and as a dioecious creature, I can't change my sex during my life, so I have no choice but to defend my self-interests. I know that my striving for my self-interests is equal to striving for the interests of the other 3 billion women. I must fight to the end because this is my calling. Great minds can quickly perceive the essence of affairs, but little minds are always bewildered by appearances. The two are destined to enjoy different destinies. If there is no savior to point out the direction for mankind, man is like a lost lamb. Most Saviors belong to the eccentric type: The Mavericks are distinguished by the particularity of their fate—the pure and objective contemplation of existence. The world is always changed by a few people. To be honest, the fool, instead of the cheat, are the greatest enemies of the Savior. The 100 years of 20th Century were the triumph of general-will, and the 100 years of the 21th Century must be the triumph of self-interest. I believe in God, so it is time for pendulum to shift to the side of self-interest. Religion may fade away, but God will always exist. It is time to debunk the mystery of female orgasm. Maya civilization has foreseen this change. Mayan hieroglyphs seem to indicate that they believed the next intersection (in 2012) would be some sort of end and a new beginning of a cycle, and some transformative events would occur on or around 21 December 2012. 2012 is not the end of the world, but the end of the old cycle and to receive the new era. This is the beginning of a new world, a new beginning from an end to the old world! It is time to move to a higher level of consciousness, and so begins the 'end of the old world' as we know it! I went to USA for the truth of female orgasm in Nov. 2012, but I failed. Fortunately, I didn't give it up, and I performed my duties by my way. I, as a Heroine from Ancient Oriental Civilization, am going to save this world in distress and awaken female potential self-consciousness and align with the next evolutionary equilibrium stage that the world is about entering into. As a result, humanity will be able to act on transforming and restructuring its philosophy of life and move forward in a new direction. Humankind is going through an evolutionary leap now, and the world is at the point of a change of huge proportions. One side of the pendulum is the lie, while the other is the truth. Victims are on the side of lie, and Saviors are on the side of truth. There is nothing that, in its own space and for the time it lasts, is not a product of necessity. God created victims and Saviors at the same time, but according to different proportions. In next chapter, I will defend elitism, not to break the balance but to restore the balance.
Deceit and
self-deception in pseudo-equilibrium
Finally, we focus on the characteristics of pseudo-equilibrium at the end of this chapter. Speaking objectively, pseudo-equilibrium doesn't have no value at all, because it is the starting point, where the Savior must be born, for evolution to the next equilibrium. The pursuit of individual interests is the only driving force for evolution. Like I said, it becomes more complex in human society, because you can't completely eliminate them but choose compromise, so victims and lies are necessary in pseudo-equilibrium, and it is common phenomenon that people with low IQ are exploited in human evolution. Natural selection favours genes that control their survival machines in such a way that they make the best use of their environment. This includes making the best use of other survival machines, both of the same and of different species. Any confusion is the result of irrational exuberance. The reason why the application of economics in human society is always failed is that people are not always rational. That is true, and we must admit that. Economic theory is populated by a particular species of organism, based on a premise that all members of this species are always rational. As suppliers, they maximize profits. As consumers, they maximize utility (or equivalently, pick the point on the highest indifference curve). Given the constraints they face, they rationally weigh all the costs and benefits and always choose the best possible course of action. Like I said before, orcs attempted to replace violent civilization with contract civilization, but orcs are not human at all, and they will resort to violence when they become losers in the market economy. Although in many ways they resemble the rational, calculating people assumed in economic theory, they are far more complex. They can be forgetful, impulsive, confused, emotional, and shortsighted, because they introduced the virtu axis with different weight into the last payoffs calculation, and even regard pursuing some imaginary payoffs as the ultimate goal, such as love or fame after death, so orcs should be viewed not as rational maximizers but as satisficers. Deviations from rationality are important for understanding bizarre phenomena in human pseudo-equilibrium. People are reluctant to change their minds and tend to interpret evidence or false-evidence to confirm beliefs they already hold. If women were perfectly rational maximizers, they would refuse to provide any free sex-service regardless of marriage or cohabitation. In fact, women's behavior appears to exhibit substantial inertia. Understanding their behavior seems easier once we abandon the model of rational man. Why, you might ask, is economics built on the rationality assumption when psychology and common-sense cast doubt on it? There are two reasons: (1) the imaginary part is not measurable, because different people give different weights to the same imaginary part. For example, his love seems to be valuable to you, but worthless to me; economics can not be formed if we take imaginary parts into account; (2) pseudo-equilibrium takes a short time in the long history of human evolution, but it may take over your whole life. There is an old saying by Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” You can only predict the next real-equilibrium from an economic and game theory point of views. Any real-equilibrium throws away a lot of irrelevant information, all kinds of things from imaginary axis such as love and morality. Looking through the veil of lies you can always find the next real-equilibrium. I stress again victims are necessary in human evolution. If one truth shines through, it is that people are not consistent or fully rational decision makers.
Like I said before, under patriarchy and monogamy, there is no free sex-service in society, but why sex-services market failed after the collapse of patriarchy and monogamy? The main reason is that women are not rational. Now the confusion between the sexes is caused by women, not men, because he is not wrong doing arbitrage in free sex-services market. His behaviour depends on the behaviour of woman's choice. In civilized legal contract society, the relationship between sexes lies in women's choice. Men are not wrong because they just make risk-free profit. In my view, the standard of a good man is he can cheat you but can't rape you. The biggest characteristic of real-equilibrium is there is no arbitrage in the market based on all rational people. Arbitrage means if there are too two things or goods that are identical, they have to sell for the same price-that is no arbitrage. If they sold for a different price there would be an arbitrage. If their people are rational, they are not going to allow for an arbitrage. Apparently, there is arbitrage in going sex-service market. Some women provide free sex-services under the name of love and some provide paid sex-services under the name of prostitution. If their women are rational, they are not going to allow for an arbitrage, because in sex-service game, paid sex-service strictly dominates free sex-service for rational woman. Lesson 1 from Game theory: Do not play a strictly dominated strategy. Nobody else seemed to recognize how important it was, because women were chosen by God as victims and controlled by general will. Habit is a terrible thing as a human bondage. Women have been used to the feeling of being penetrated in P-V model, so they misunderstood that feeling is female orgasm. Any movement is a process of changing the original habits of people, such as snowboard or freeline skate, you have to change the habit of walking style. Every woman must get into a marriage, and this is a secular habit given by secular society. In China, why women eager to enter marriage? It is not because of interest or love, but because of age. There are many female doctors around me with 30+ years old, who have stable jobs and good incomes, but are anxious to find husbands. If I were a man, I must marry her for two reasons: One is she provides free sex-service; the other is I can spend her money. When a woman fails to adhere to an accepted code, one becomes an insurgent. Inversely, a woman who does not wish to appear eccentric will conform to the usual rules, but whereas conformity is quite natural for a man- custom being based on his needs and benefits as an independent and active individual. Her refusal to make any concessions condemned her to long years of dreary celibacy. Such obstinacy is uncommon, the vast majority of women see that the struggle is much too unequal, and in the end, they yield. There are three conditions if you don't want to a free sex slaves: (1) be a selfish woman; you have to focus on your core interests and refuse to do any losing business; Never give up your own interests for others, including your stupid mother; (2) You need to have a strong faith to support you going on; (3) You have good economic situation. To be honest, I am a qualified rebel. The more I advance towards the old age of my youth, the more unconcerned I become. Few things now disturb me and everything used to disturb me. Rational people think at the margin. The main reason why women want to fall in love is because they don't have time costs and opportunity costs. Today's price would then be the discounted expectation of tomorrow's price. Once you have a theory of how costs formed, you can always go backwards. Compared to knowing nothing, you have a huge insight into what's going on in a marriage and how valuable you are going to be tomorrow. We should have done discounting, because tomorrow is not quite as important to you as today. I have huge time costs and opportunity costs, so I would choose to get into a marriage if and only if the benefits I can get today from a marriage is bigger than the discounted values of all my benefits I can get in future from being single.
Why markets fail in sex-service? According to Microeconomics, competitive markets fail for four basic reasons: market power, incomplete information, externalities, and public goods. I will discuss each in turn. (1) Market power. You may recall that a market is competitive if each buyer and seller is small compared to the size of the market and, therefore, has little ability to influence market prices. By contrast, if a firm can influence the market price of the good it sells, it is said to have market power. Apparently, polygamy is the result of competitive sex-service market, and conversely monogamy is a type of cartel. Contrary to typical cartel, monogamy is a group of buyers acting together in the hope of exerting their joint market power. In other words, because of clear hierarchy society, more and more poor guys leftover, who can't afford equilibrium price, united together to threaten the upper men with violence by “cruel bind”, therefore authorities can not completely eliminate them but only compromise with them. In short, with the division of labor and trade, man is more important to government than woman is, so authorities chose to sacrifice women. In monogamy, lots of bottom men reap the benefit at the expanse of all women. Additional rich men still can enjoy the polygamy in underground economy. Normally, explicit agreements among members of a cartel are illegal and the agreement is considered a “conspiracy in restraint of trade,” but under the name of “human rights” and “love”. We have seen that inefficiency arises when consumers have market power. (2) Incomplete information or asymmetric information. In general, we have assumed that consumers and producers have complete information about the economic variables that are relevant for the choices they face. In fact, incomplete information and asymmetric information is quite common. If suppliers do not have accurate information about market prices, the market system will not operate efficiently. For example, women don't have accurate information about female orgasm, so incomplete information may lead women to loss situation. All kinds of lies, all kinds of religions, all kinds of doctrines will be born in the case of incomplete information, and the purpose of them is only to maintain a false-equilibrium. Asymmetric information also can lead to market failure. For example, under patriarchy women must be virgins before marriage, and a man knew that he paid the bride-price to buy a virgin, but after the collapse of patriarchy premarital cohabitation has become popular, and like used cars there is asymmetric information about their quality, the prospective buyer of a used woman will always be suspicious of its quality—and with good reason, because the woman maybe a “lemon”. To be honest, it is very hard for a man to find a woman without abortion, let alone a virgin in China now. In marriage market, low-quality women drive high-quality women out of the market. “Lemon” must lead to two results: One is men don't want to pay high price for lemon; the other is men are more likely to find an affair in order to find balance. (3) Externalities. They can be negative—when the action of one party imposes costs on another party—or positive—when the action of one party benefits another party. Apparently, polygamy has negative externality, because the number of women is certain, and we can conclude that there is zero-sum in sex release game between all men. Monogamy is a way government thought to correct market failure. In this change from polygamy to monogamy, government has never considered women's interests, but only whole men's interests. Externalities and public goods are important sources of market failure and thus raise serious public policy questions. (4) Common Property Resources and public goods. Occasionally externalities arise when resources can be used without payment. Common property resources are those to which anyone has free access. Let's look at some of the inefficiencies that can occur in sex-service when women are common property rather than privately owned. Under patriarchy, the ownership of women transfers from father to husband, but after the collapse of patriarchy, the stupid woman has the right to provide free sex-services, so woman becomes public good everyman can enjoy from a luxury. Under monogamy, as long as keep the proportion of sex ratio being 50:50, there is no rival in sex consumption, therefore theoretically speaking, everyman can have a free receptacle; as long as the stupid woman does not belong to any private man, there is nonexclusive either in sex consumption, therefore theoretically speaking, a woman can provide free sex-services for many guys in her life, because the marginal cost of providing sex-service to an additional man is zero. Most goods are rival in consumption. For example, when you buy furniture, you have ruled out the possibility that someone else can buy it. Goods that are rival must be allocated among individuals. Goods that are nonexclusive can be made available to everyone without affecting any individual's opportunity for consuming them. The fundamental reason the devaluation of women is because women still have the attributes of goods for men's consumption, but lost the price of goods.
Deception is also everywhere in non-human beings. So far, the forms of deception turn out to be very numerous and the principles very few. It occurs at all levels—from gene to cell to individual to group—and it seems, by any and all means, necessary. Even within our genomes, deception flourishes as selfish genetic elements use deceptive molecular techniques to over-reproduce at the expense of other genes. Brought up as we have been on the 'good of the species' view of evolution, we naturally think first of liars and deceivers as belonging to different species: predators, prey, parasites, and so on. However, we must expect lies and deceit, and selfish exploitation of communication to arise whenever the interests of the genes of different individuals diverge. This will include individuals of the same species. As we shall see, we must even expect that children will deceive their parents, that husbands will cheat on wives, and that brother will lie to brother. Deception infects all the fundamental relationships in life: parasite and host, predator and prey, plant and animal, male and female, neighbor and neighbor, parent and offspring, and even the relationship of an organism to itself. Selection has also repeatedly favored deception. Survival machines of different species influence each other in a variety of ways. They may be predators or prey, parasites or hosts, competitors for some scarce resource. They may be exploited in special ways, as for instance when bees are used as pollen carriers by flowers. Orchids, fully one-third of all species are pollinated through deception—that is, the plant offers no actual reward to its pollinators, only the illusion of one. Most species mimic the smell of their pollinators' food without supplying any. A smaller number (about four hundred species) mimics an adult female of the pollinator species in both appearance and smell, so as to induce pseudo-copulation by the aroused male. The plant takes care not to give the male a full copulation with ejaculation, presumably to keep him in a perpetually aroused state, driven to seek out new “female” after new “female,” pollinating the flowers all the way. Males who find pseudo-females do not linger and test nearby flowers as do males in plant species that have just given a nectar reward. Instead they fly immediately to a new patch of flowers, presumably in search of actual rewards. Thus, sexual mimics tend to be more out bred than closely related species that offer a real reward—a side effect of being deceived that may actually benefit the species itself. Survival machines of the same species tend to impinge on each others' lives more directly. This is for many reasons. One is that half the population of one's own species may be potential mates, and potentially hard-working and exploitable parents to one's children. Another reason is that members of the same species, being very similar to each other, being machines for preserving genes in the same kind of place, with the same kind of way of life, are particularly direct competitors for all the resources necessary for life. For example, selection can evolve a male fish that lives its entire adult life pretending to be a female and hooks up with territory-holding males in order to steal paternity of eggs laid in their territories by real females. In another example, in many groups of fireflies, particular species have evolved to prey on others by sexual mimicry. A predatory female of one species responds to the courtship flash of a male of another species by giving not her own flash of interest but that of a female of his species. He turns toward her, expecting to enjoy sex, and is seized and eaten instead. Sex is a very powerful force and especially in males often selects for “indiscriminate eagerness,” which provides fertile ground for deception to parasitize. Deception is the eternal stability strategy in evolution. That makes sense because there is a tremendous premium on novelty that in turn generates an enormous variety of deceptive ploys. Since novel tricks—almost by definition—lack defenses against the tricks, they usually spread quickly. This is the beginning of a so-called co-evolutionary struggle between deceiver and deceived, acted out over evolutionary time. This struggle leads to complexity on both sides—to the evolution of bizarre, intricate, and beautiful examples of deception, such as vaginal orgasm or G-spot. In general, but especially in birds and mammals, this evolutionary struggle also favors intelligence on both sides, but inevitably leads to victims. What about deception in human being? Deception is also everywhere in our human life. It is a very normal phenomenon that the vested interests do everything possible or impossible to deceive the victim both from real axis and imaginary axis. Special phenomenon worth you deeply thinking is self-deception, instead of deceit.
Like I said before, from a macro perspective God chose the strategy of “Trade space for time”, so victims were inevitable in pseudo-equilibrium, but from a micro perspective, victims themselves have an unavoidable responsibility for their misfortune. It is quite appropriate that the cruel truth is written by a calm and honest genius like me. The real thing behind a thing seemed an accident is actually inevitability. Men are thoroughgoing liars to women, but women are thoroughgoing liars to themselves. Trivers believed that in his book of The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life:
Evolutionary
biology provides the foundation for a functional view of the subject—in this
case, we lie to ourselves the better to lie to others—but many other aspects
are involved.... In many situations, an understanding of daily life is more
valuable than findings from the lab, but our understanding of daily life is
easily colored by ignorance and our own deceit and self-deception.... The topic
is a negative one. This book is about untruth, about falsehoods, about lies,
inward and outward.... But once this information arrives in our brains, it is
often distorted and biased to our conscious minds. We deny the truth to
ourselves. We project onto others traits that are in fact true of ourselves—and
then attack them! We repress painful memories, create completely false ones,
rationalize immoral behavior, act repeatedly to boost positive self-opinion,
and show a suite of ego-defense mechanisms.... In our own species, deceit and
self-deception are two sides of the same coin. If by deception we mean only
consciously propagated deception—outright lies—then we miss the much larger
category of unconscious deception, including active self-deception. On the other
hand, if we look at self-deception and fail to see its roots in deceiving
others, we miss its major function. We may be tempted to rationalize
self-deception as being defensive in purpose when actually it is usually
offensive. Here we will treat deceit and self-deception as a unitary subject,
each feeding into the other. Everyone can participate in building a science of
self-deception. We all have something to add. The logic is very simple and most
of the evidence, easy to grasp. The topic is universal and its many subareas
carry us into every corner of human life.
I basically agree with him that we deceive ourselves the better to deceive others. Here I will use the inspiration he gave me to explain why women like self-deception and degrade and destroy the truth. Darwin believed that struggle for life is much more severe between same species than that between different species, because from the view of evolutionary logic, they have more partial overlap in self-interest so they have to compete with each other for many things, like foods, shelter or spouses. There is a proverb like this, “Two of a trade can never agree.” But Darwin ignored the cruel competition between sexes. Due to the existence of breeding cooperation, deceive and self-deception are more likely to happen between them. Within sexes, individuals are often misled by the same purpose of reproduction, easily reinforcing one another, while absence of contrary views is taken as confirming evidence (even silence being misinterpreted as support).
According to some authoritative media reports, women can as least have two types of orgasm: clitoral and vaginal. The phrase 'vaginal orgasm' was found to have been invented by Sigmund Freud. Almost all people adhere to Sigmund Freud's belief who devised the two-orgasm theory. He believed the vaginal orgasm was a feminine and mature sexual response, while the clitoral orgasm was masculine, immature, and inferior. This argument sounds ridiculous in highly specialized organs division in human body. It sounds like I am telling you that my nose has the same auditory function like ears. Someone noticed something surprising that many of the women who reported having an orgasm were not having any of the physical signs of an orgasm: the contractions. Later, someone invented the G-spot theory or female multiple orgasms. Vaginal orgasm has no scientific basis and the term was invented by Freud. These Utopian theories ignore a fact that there is a great deal of anatomic and clinical evidence that most of the interior of the vagina is without nerve. A considerable amount of surgery may be performed inside the vagina without need for anaesthetics. The female orgasm is so mysterious, like a mystic unicorn waiting to be found, but mystery is the pronoun of slaves. The King's College London team believes the G-spot may be a figment of women's imagination, encouraged by magazines and sex therapists. I think Marilyn Monroe is honest girl, because once she told her friend she had never had an orgasm with a man in her entire life. Actually, there is only one type of orgasm a woman can have and that should just be known generally as same as male orgasm with a fixed neural pattern, which is unique to human beings. The theory of Freud is an instrument for making women accept their social role. When a lie can't maintain the pseudo-equilibrium, another lie was invented. When the fact was consistently found that nearly half of women suffer from sexual dysfunctions of some sort, ranging from pain during sex to a consistently low libido, some professional cheats began to say women can get orgasm from the mouth to the ears to the arches of the feet, where the 7,000 nerve endings are or don't expect a woman to orgasm every single time. Orgasming may not be the chief measure of sexual satisfaction for every person. Again, communication is key. The value of an orgasm-and a woman's ability to regularly have one-varies with each individual. In order to maintain the authority of the penis, experts stared to fabricate that many suppose that to make a woman feel pleasure is a matter of time and technique, or women can get orgasm through meditation, or you and your husband can have orgasms together. Oh, my fucking God, I am completely defeated by them. An old saying is too correct that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It seems absurd that such a farce could be entrained by an initial simple lie. Like I said, cheaters are always stable evolution strategy, and the key problem is the existence of suckers. Language certainly greatly expanded the opportunities for deceit and self-deception in our own lineage. It is often said that women fall in love by ears, and women are often attracted by the rhetoric of men and willing to provide free sex-service. Love is a beautiful lie, and the ancient love stories showed on TV every day. This is absurd, because in ancient China bride and groom can't meet each other until wedding night. Any false human narrative can be summarized with a few key facts, their rationalization, and the function of the rationalizations. We continually create false personal narratives. By enhancing love and ignoring conflict, we automatically create biased histories. Penetrative sex means sexual assault, but under the sacred name of LOVE. Few relationships have more potential for deceit and self-deception than those between the sexes. Two genetically unrelated individuals get together to engage in the only act that will generate a new human being. And the value of the rationale? Keep on doing what you are doing which vested interests can get arbitrage from. Not only that, vested interests group tried to instill such love into students' minds in school. One noteworthy fact is that the younger the recipient of the knowledge, the greater the pressure to tell a false story. Fortunately, the young often appear naturally to resist parental and adult nonsense, so there is at least some tendency to resist and upgrade. In short, lies are very important in pseudo-equilibrium, because they are often fiercely defended (and regularly upgraded). That is, people consciously lie to create them, but once created, false historical narratives act as self-deceptions at the group level. Most people are unconscious of the deception that went into constructing the narrative they take to be true.
To be honest, I don't think all women are faking orgasm on purpose, and the key problem is they don't even know what a real orgasm is. To borrow the words from Jacques Monod in his Herbert Spencer lecture after wryly remarking, "Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it," a curious aspect of the theory of female orgasm, said I, is that everyone thinks he/she understands it. After reading all kinds of researches and speculation of female orgasm from America, UK, Australia, Holland, Italy, etc., I did become a fatalist. The word of “Everywoman is different in orgasm” is the biggest obstacle on the road to truth. In other words, the lack of standard of female orgasm causes lies everywhere. Lies always have to be changing, and truths are always unchanging. Human intelligence is indeed limited, and the time has not come to solve the age-old scientific mystery. As long as you come to penetrative sex, including P-V model chosen by God and Finger-Vagina model chosen by lesbians, you can't get real orgasm. World Health Organization said that failure to find a sexual partner is now a disability. Frankly, I don't think any world organization, including United Nations, more foresight, and the only purpose of what they said that is to push women into P-V model. In my view, there is no word called “authority” in the world. Women's bodies are totally overexposed and still seriously misunderstood. Scientists didn't even really know how the orgasm worked so far. In my view, all the lies aimed at maintaining the legitimacy of the P-V model, once the lie is exposed, woman will immediately choose to refuse to mate, but this result is not acceptable to God before he finds another way to reproduce. According to the theory of “Trade space for time”, when a truth must lead to imbalance, God has to choose deceptions. For a classic example: Bullfighting Spain, which is the most traditional of Spanish Fiestas and can be traced back to ancient days. Bullfights have three stages called tercios. During the first stage, horsemen also known as Picadores poke the bulls with long and sharp lances as the bull charges toward their horse (which are heavily padded) to weaken his shoulder muscles. In order to finish the task for the horse, the horse will be blindfolded, which is to prevent the horses from running away in fear. Similarly, in order to fulfill their task for women, God chose to blind them. Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very ripe, said Voltaire. We are doomed to repeat the mistakes again and again.
So, the key to defining self-deception is to explain why the false information is put into the conscious mind. Trivers believed this entire counterintuitive arrangement exists for the benefit of manipulating others. We hide reality from our conscious minds the better to hide it from onlookers. We may or may not store a copy of that information in self, but we certainly act to exclude it from others. In my view, deceit and self-deception must exist at the same time in pseudo-equilibrium, and all of the deceits come from maintenance of vested interests, who want to keep their own status of arbitrage, and all of the self-deceptions come from the ignorance of the victims for the truth or we can do nothing about the cruel truth. False female orgasm belongs to the first reason that women don't know what real orgasm is. The only thing new under the sun is the real orgasm about 5 second shiver women do not know. A hallmark of self-deception is bias. Biased information flow within the woman can facilitate false self-confidence. Our initial biases may have surprisingly strong effects. Women can't believe that God is so unfair to women. The origin of all cults of female orgasm is based on a hypothesis that women must also benefit from P-V model where men can benefit from, because that is chose by God. I don't know where the woman's confidence from. A very disturbing feature of overconfidence is that it often appears to be poorly associated with knowledge—that is, the more ignorant the individual, the more confident he or she maybe. Selection for deception may easily favor self-deception as well, because you have to look for psychological comfort. The more you are ignorant of the truth, the easier it is for you to enter into a state of self-deception, otherwise you don't have a good excuse to convince yourself to do it again. Therefore, human tend to rationalize away one's failures. In the words of one British politician, “I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already reached.” Self-deception is a kind of self-brainwashing to keep pseudo-equilibrium mentally from collapse. This is a recurring theme in self-deception and human disasters: unconsciousness and overconfidence.
There are three main characteristics of deception. The biggest characteristic of all deceptions is the ambiguity of definition. It can be divided into two situations: One is to divide one concept into many different concepts, and for example, orgasm is orgasm which should refer to a specific nerve reflex, regardless man or woman, but lies create many concepts, such as female orgasm, vagina orgasm, and multiple orgasms; the other is to unify different concepts together to confuse the public, and for example, propaganda from dictatorship must unify party, nation, government and dictator himself together, and you opposing him is equal to opposing the whole nation. This ambiguity which can make exchange is private and voluntary rather than compulsory lies in concealing conflicts. The second characteristic of all deceptions is paradox in logic, because all lies tend to describe things as perfect compared with the cruel truth, such as orgasm together, common prosperity and so forth so on. Social theory inevitably embraces a complex set of facts, which may be only partially remembered and poorly organized, the better to construct a consistent, self-serving body of social theory. Contradictions may be far a field and difficult to detect. Everyone knows that during World War II the Japanese government, mostly via the army, ran a vast, forced system of sexual slavery throughout conquered sections of Asia in which local women—Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, and others—were forced, often at the point of a bayonet, to serve the sexual needs of the invading Japanese soldiers (often more than fifty men per day). They were given the euphemism “comfort women.” In 1993, the Japanese government finally acknowledged that it had managed the “comfort stations” but still refused to pay compensation. Apparently comfort women and the cults of vagina orgasm are contradictory, if vaginal orgasm really exists and the reason why women can't get orgasm is just a matter of time and technique, so Japanese government could say that we didn't gang rape women, but to help them to get vaginal orgasms one by one. Once a judge asked the rapist why you rape a woman, the rapist would answer like this “I was not raping her, I just wanted to give her vagina orgasms, and that is a part of my divine mission.” The whole logic destroyed by a single contradiction. There is no way to escape from this logical difficulty. Unfortunately, women do not perceive the contradiction now. Instead of acting the part of a giver he is acting the part of an aggressor or taker. The last characteristic of deception is altruism which violates the first rule of game theory, namely, people only care about their own payoffs and costs. The ultimate purpose of any deception is confounding black and white by pretending to be altruistic in order to transfer a zero-sum game to a win-win game. The fiction is that the man represents the so-called the interests of both; the truth is that he only represents the interests of himself and represents the interests of woman only reluctantly and in response to family's interests. In short, make women believe that P-V model is also favorable for women, and change “Sexual Assault” into “Making Love” successfully. Nothing in the world is perfect, any perfect thing is a fraud waiting to expose. Friedrich Hölderlin once said, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it heaven.” Plato has compared sex to the love of the wolf for the sheep. Is there a win-win game between wolf and sheep? As a result, the irrational victim was thus planted in blind faith. This is true of patriotic, political and P-V model as well as religious blind faith. Blind faith can justify anything. What about self-deception? I think the characteristics of self-deception are nervousness, inconsistency and vague. The reason why they are nervous is that women know they would be embarrassed if the lie was exposed, so women act exaggerated performance of faking orgasm, sometimes overacting. Women always equivocate to hide the truth, when they describe their orgasms. The reason why they are inconsistent is they don't even know what the truth is, so the orgasm of women's description is always mysterious and changing. To be honest, lies always have to be changing, and truths are always unchanging. A lot of the talk about female orgasm was apparently vague and general. Victims would rather believe in fantasy than face reality. It is because the reality is so cruel that woman can do nothing with it, but fantasy can keep women psychological balance. It is not reality that supports fantasy, but fantasy that support reality. Lies are necessary, so is self-deception.
Self-deception does not require that the truth and falsehood regarding something be simultaneously stored. In most case only falsehood alone may be stored in your memory. The earlier the information is shunted aside—or indeed entirely avoided—the less storage of truth occurs and the less need there will be for (potentially costly) suppression later on. At the same time, since less information is stored, there are greater potential costs associated with complete ignorance. It is a very normal thing that suckers are exploited in evolution. Media misleading also plays a very important role in the process of self-deception. One-sided Report mislead people both men and women by hyping the positive and neglecting the negative of sex and blindly encourage women to actively pursue sexual life. All lies are aimed at trying to manipulate the opinions of others. Sometimes people can invent completely fictitious memories. As has been said, “My memory is so good I can remember things that never happened.” Assuming we do attend to incoming information, we can still do so in a biased way. So, called “vagina orgasms” are simple optical illusions. It is surprising that fake orgasm can cheat people through fMRI images. I remember that there is a fMRI image of a female professor's orgasm on the wall in Barry Komisaruk's office in Rutgers University, I don't know how she assert a falsehood, but her lordly manners were quite repulsive, and ask me time and time again “how do you know my orgasm is not real orgasm?” In this case, I know that self-deception may deform the structure of intellectual disciplines. She is such a pompous jackass. The Greatest enemy of truth is not ignorance, it is the illusion of truth. We have seen numerous ways in which self-deception may deform the structure of intellectual disciplines, and deform human cognitive function as well. This seems obvious in both evolutionary biology and the social sciences, where increasing relevance to human social behavior is matched by decreasing rates of progress, in part because such fields induce more self-deception in their practitioners. Besides fMRI, ultrasound is also used in the study of female orgasm, but unfortunately science is also used to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium. Instead of being cheated by science, science is cheated by women. I think women should go to lie-detector tests before fMRI tests. There is now a raft of new lie-detector tests coming out of neurophysiology, I guess they can cheat the lie-detector tests as well. It reminds me of a kind of diseases named Antons blindness which is the most striking form of anosognosia. Patients with this syndrome behave as if they can see despite their obvious lack of sight. These patients insist that they have no problem but only see some unexplained phenomena. For example, one patient reported seeing a new village outside the window, but she couldn't remember when it had been repaired; on another occasion, she saw a little girl in her house who needed food. They say bruises on themselves are caused by clumsiness or distraction instead of by invisibility. In order to rationalize bruises, they make up some contradictory scenarios. In The King Lear William Shakespeare made a famous statement: Tis this times' plague, when madmen lead the blind. The time's plague refers to it being a problem of the time or era. Referring to it as a plague suggests that it spreads widely and quickly. We might even think of it as being contagious. Blind people relied on others for guidance, especially in unfamiliar territory. Madmen are insane and cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. The incompetent and blind woman is the Madman of this age. Such absurd performances of the blind and the mad are particularly popular now especially in vulgar, bigoted West. I agree with Schopenhauer that women have an ineradicable tendency to lie. Facts counter to one's biases have a way of arousing one's biases. This can lead to those with strong biases being both the least informed and the most certain in their ignorance. In one experiment, people were fed neural congenial misinformation and an immediate correction. Most people believed the evidence more strongly after the refutation. Denial is also self-reinforcing-once you make that first denial, you tend to commit to it: you will deny, deny the denial, deny that, and so on. The root cause of all these errors is we know very little about the brain and how brain works, so women don't know how carnal, prurient, lascivious, indecent and vulgar picture the brain has to be in the process of accumulating and breaking through the orgasm threshold. In the past, women also felt that coitus was a shame thing, so in order trick them into P-V model, lies were created to beautify sexual intercourse by set up its justice. Underlying idea is that in human history, saintly people always jerk himself. There is an old saying in China, “you would be brave after feeling ashamed”, now woman is still in the stage of no shame and are unwilling to admit incompetence. This point is often hardest to make, because admitting failure is the first step in making a change. The first thing women need to do is admit fault and cut his losses, instead of continuing to bet. Direction is more important than effort. The key of female orgasm is you get wrong direction. To be honest, world owes woman an Oscar. I can't believe that such absurd theory is quite dominant in the United States until the 21th century. Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), American humorous journalist, ever said that, “The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” The doctrine of the vagina orgasm has been carried to an absurd extreme by some authors. From this experience, I know science is limited too in human evolution, and we can view this so-called science as a kind of political science which is in the service of political stability. Science provides some hope, since it has a built-in series of mechanisms that guard against deceit and self-deception, but it too is vulnerable to the construction of pseudo-sciences (Freud), not to mention outright fraud. Over the long haul, however, falsehood has no chance, which is why over time science tends to outstrip competing enterprises. How to distinguish between female real orgasm and counterfeit orgasm? One way is standardization. Lack of standards must lead to chaos that bad money drives out good, and so called “vaginal orgasm” is definitely counterfeit without any true orgasm standards. The main reason of the proliferation of fake female orgasm is because there is no reliable signal to represent the real orgasm. Logical process is a layer above the scientific process. God will not choose to step back to give people logicality and reason before human get ready.
Here it is useful to distinguish between the long con and the short con. Short con is usually over in a matter of minutes or several days and typically involves lulling the victim into temporary unconsciousness regarding a key variable, but victims will soon wake up and give the best response as counter-strategy, and then con collapsed immediately. A shopkeeper may be fooled once by a short-change game but usually not twice, and the con artist must always be on the move to fresh victims, so the scam has to be constant innovative. The faster the victim awakens; the shorter pseudo-equilibrium will last. Unfortunately, people always get smart too late, but old too soon. Evolution has a price to pay. Conversely, the long con may run for several years or hundreds of years, and the victim is often put into a trance-like state of mind, as one of her weaknesses, often irrationality, is amplified by the con artist. As it looks to the victim: “You're experiencing the ride singing 'yo hoho it' s a pirate' s life for me' but you never see any of the trappings of the ride itself.” The con artist induces an internal ride in the victim that is very satisfying but is hard to view sideways so as to see where, in fact, the ride is taking you. Once we have taken the bait, we stop asking questions, much as people do in the instrumental phase of any activity, that is, when they are carrying out a project. In the memorable phrase of a great con artist of the street, “I plucked his dreams right out of his head and then sold them back to him—and at a good price, too!” The utopian orgasms together the con artist promised can be achieved in principle after many attempts, so there is no upward limit to the victim' s fantasies which the con artist take advantage of to help them overcome contradictions should they arise. Victims in this state are said to “glow” and to be easily spotted by other con artists. Getting the victim into that state is called “putting him under the ether”-presumably into a deep state of self-deception. Frankly speaking, long con is very hard to maintain, because no one is stupid forever, so except con artists we also need professional accomplice in pseudo-equilibrium, who called scholars or professors or experts. These professional accomplices use advanced theory and technology to keep victims losing, although they, lacking a direct economic self-interest, are co-opted by the superior power of con artists and acts as their rationalizing agent. Full-time hoaxes made by academic world played a very important role in maintaining stability in pseudo-equilibrium. In short, the masses are in collective deception, and I don't want to judge them anymore. A tree among trees, they have a harder time seeing the forest. That is God's will, they're just a pawn. I believe that the greater the social content of a discipline, the more slowly it will develop, because it faces, in part, greater forces of deceit and self-deception that impede progress. The main possibility regarding the development of social disciplines is that a prior moral stance regarding a subject may influence the development of theory and knowledge in that subject-so that, in a sense, justice may precede truth (and false justice, untruth). Of course, if your attachment is to pseudo-justice, one may have exactly the opposite effects. The key problem is people take P-V model for granted, and it must be moral and justice because chosen by God, so pseudo-justice may precede untruth. As the saying goes, all the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you cannot completely eliminate them. The study of history seems to be a conflict between a few geniuses trying to gain a true picture of the past and the greater number of mediocrities, who are primarily interested in promoting an uplifting view of the group past-in short, a false historical narrative. If you view the Ponzi scheme made by Madoff as the biggest scam in human history which only has less than one hundred years of history, where you put the G-spot which has more than one hundred years of history? You will see that any research on female orgasm would be a long-running fraud and aim at trying to legitimate P-V model, because God cursed woman for the sake of eternal genes. The people who hold power always try to legitimate what they do. That is legitimacy, a claim that what I am doing when I am asking you, is good for you. That every privileged group-people in position of power-are developing a myth of their superiority. So, one the one hand, man needs to legitimate P-V model, and on the other way woman has bias to rationalize away her failures. G-spot meets the needs of both sides. A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.
According to the theory of “Trade space for time”, the benefits of deceive are obvious, aimed at maintaining the stability in pseudo-equilibrium when human have not enough ability to achieve next real-equilibrium. Pseudo-equilibrium cannot be maintained unless by self-deception. Vagina orgasm or G-spot is totally a giant scam. There are no such things as "vaginal orgasms", the G-spot nothing more than a "scientific fraud", but we can't debunk this scam right now. Why is that? Evolution needs victims and lies in pseudo-equilibrium. One of the oldest deceives in China is that a woman, who has not been a mother, is incomplete. Under P-V model, the subtext is that a woman, who has not been penetrated by a man, is incomplete. The subtlety of this deceive is using production to trap women in the position of sex slaves. Then, what are the benefits of self-deception? I think it has two advantages: one is called induced self-deception, in which the self-deceived person acts not for the benefit of self but for someone who is inducing the self-deception; and the other is called defensive self-deception, as a kind of self-hypnosis or self-consolation. Consider an individual being tortured. The pain can be so great that something called disassociation occurs—the pain is separated from other mental systems, presumably to reduce its intensity. It is as if the psyche or nervous system protects itself from severe pain by objectifying it, distancing it, and splitting it off from the rest of the system. (1) The former self-deception evolves in the service of deception—the better to fool others. Woman lies to herself the better to lie to man. Women fake orgasms to massage the male ego because what a man wants from a woman is not only orgasm shiver but also the sense of conquest and worship. There is a demand; there is a supply, right? As professional prostitutes, women have an incentive to satisfy their vanity to earn more money. This is a just play that women play the role of the conquered who desire to be penetrated, and men play the role of the conqueror, or God, or a Savior, who grant women vagina orgasms by penetration. To be honest, women don't have “Penis envy”, but men have, so in order to please men, women pretend to have. (2) The latter self-deception helps to build a psychological balance. Nothing can help us endure dark times better than self-deception. Do you wonder why there is no problem of female orgasm or marital rape under patriarchy? The fundamental relationship between sexes is the relationship of economic interests. Under patriarchy, men and women both take the P-V model as granted, because men have to give up necessaries to get sex-service, and women have to give up sex to get necessaries. Marriage is a balanced deal from real axis, but after women's economic independence, the original balanced deal is broken from real axis, and marriage become a deal that is good only for men. Women can't get balance from her real axis, so she has to resort to imaginary axis, such as love or vaginal orgasm. Woman convincing themselves that she also can get orgasm pleasure from P-V model is to get balance from imaginary axis, and reduce psychological distortion. Self-deception occurs because women all want to feel balanced, and it can help us do so. To be honest, people who live in utopian dreams are happy because the truth is cruel with which they can do nothing. Placebos are not only positive like G-spot, but also negative like that men sometimes fake orgasm too. It is hard to say self-deception is good or bad for marriage, because unjust behavior requires cover-up and rationalization. We can view the self-deception as a passive counter-strategy of deceive before life find another way out, after all, reproduction is the most important goal of life, and all so-called “human rights” have to compromise for it. The more a person commits to a position, the more she needs to rationalize the commitment, and greater rationalization apparently produces greater positive effects. Even that cliché of working out—no pain, no gain—has a built-in self-consolation. A striking feature of self-consolation is that they are highly variable across a population, because it belongs to the imaginary axis quadrant and everyone can give different weights. The aphorism that you should go into marriage with both eyes open and, once in it, keep one eye shut captures part of the reality. When you are deciding whether to commit, weigh costs and benefits equally; when you have committed, try to be positive and not dwell on every little negative detail. Although there is no evidence that women are better at self-deception, but I guess that is true, because self-deception is the best and only response to losing situation where you have fell into. In short, we actively avoid learning negative information about ourselves, especially when it can't lead to any useful counteraction and when we feel otherwise insecure about ourselves.
What are the disadvantages of self-deception? The fatal flaw is: A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Paul Joseph Goebbels who was a German Nazipolitician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 ever said, “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.” In general, self-deception often ends badly, and it is often experienced as a series of minor benefits followed by a major cost. People will be overly self-confident, project that image, and enjoy some of the illusions, only to suffer later on a sharp reversal, based in part on the blindness induced by this overconfidence. Women may deny counter evidence to a happy relationship that is, in fact, deteriorating badly, each minor compromise with reality boosting mood temporarily while postponing the reckoning that may arrive with savage force. We may enjoy a temporary benefit of deceiving others and self, but we suffer a long-term cost. In my view, there are three disadvantages of self-deception: (1) Lying to ourselves has costs, and someone else is driving your fantasy, it may carry you far from your true interests; victims suffered losses from real axis, because self-deception from imaginary axis is not involved in the real-equilibrium; under self-deception, women have to be free prostitutes; apparently free prostitutes are dominated by paid prostitutes for women, and there is arbitrage opportunity in the market; actually now marriage is a war of attrition for women, and the sooner you quit, the less you lose, when a long-term relationship is hopeless, the best strategy may be to cut the relationship in half, discard the other person, and minimize interactions, but irrational woman indulged herself in sunk costs, instead, “cut your losses, cut your losses, cut your losses.” You would find a very common phenomenon those older women, who have an enough pension, are not going to find a man after widowed or divorced, but choose to live alone, because after spending a lifetime in a marriage as a cost they finally understand marriage is a losing game for woman now. (2) The general cost of self-deception is the misapprehension of reality, especially social, and an inefficient, fragmented mental system. Women's mental system is in the pseudo-balance, so they often become hysterical in marriage life. The psychological and immune systems are deeply intertwined, cause and effect go in either direction, and it is hardly possible for one system to react without affecting the other. Self-deception distorts all of them, when the victim suppresses anger at a provocation, only to respond after an accumulation of slights, the perpetrator sees only the final, precipitating event and easily views the victim's angry response as an unwarranted overreaction. Because women are not eunuchs, they have normal sexual desire, but no way out. Women gradually become frigidity, because P-V model is vicious circle for all women. If you should happen to do something that is followed by one of the nasty things, don't do it again, but on the other hand repeat anything that is followed by one of the nice things. I think I will be hysterical as well if I can't achieve sex release everyday. Self-deception planted the seeds of hatred. (3) Men typically are relatively more prejudiced against. I know what men have to think during his sex behavior, because the biggest organ in sex is brain, and there is no any respect in sex release. Now women, as ideal erotic object, provide free sex-services, and men, as arbitrager, look down on women further. I look down on women too, because they are stupid and ignorant. The ignorant woman disturbed the normal market order. I don't want to align with fools, because I am not fool. Socially, a potential cost of self-deception is greater manipulation (and deception) by others. If you are unconscious of your actions and others are conscious, they may manipulate your behavior without your being aware of it. When women fall into self-deception, men could have robbed her, killed her—she no longer had any control over her destiny. This is a terrible danger in self-deception that she has entered into fantasy land, and believed the fantasy made by cheaters. These must be very general and important costs of self-deception. You are trying to deceive others socially by being unconscious of a critical part of social reality. What if others are conscious of that very part while you are not? Your entire environment may be oriented against you, all with superior knowledge, while you peer out, ignorant and hobbled by self-deception. In the fantasy of vaginal orgasms, it was her sense of superiority that served as a resource mined by those surrounding her. The smooth and seamless takeoff, the intoxicating heights, the occasional doubts easily brushed aside, followed by reality itself and an appreciation of the growing costs: no longer just the monetary losses but also an inability to deal with moment-to-moment reality. The upside is temporary and psychological, while the downside is real and enduring. More terrible thing is women continue to predict high future performance despite learning about past failure. What makes me sad is that obstacles come not only from the exploiters, but also from the exploited because cruel facts prove that they are nothing and they have nothing. I still remember at Newark in 2012 a female professor asked me in a disdainful tone: why do you say that? I was speechless except for silence because Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn. The only thing new under the sun is the real orgasm about 5 seconds shiver women do not know.
How do you find yourself in pseudo-equilibrium? To be honest, it is very hard to wake up them. There is an old saying, “Standers-by see more than gamesters.” In my view, there are two steps to examine if you are in pseudo-equilibrium or not. (1) Examine your accounting profits in doing one thing. Before making any decision, figure out what exactly you want from this game. You can't get what you want till you know what you want. In any deal, if you are supplier, remember to ask some money back when you provide some goods or services to others; if you are demander, remember to ask some goods or services useful for you when you pay some money out. (2) Examine your economic profit. From the perspective of interests, examine whether there is another dominant strategy in the market. For example, apparently if vagina orgasm doesn't exist, the strategy of providing free sex is dominated by the strategy of providing paid sex for women; if vagina orgasm really exists, the strategy of providing free sex is also dominated by the strategy of providing paid sex for women because now women are in a win-win position where women, on one hand, can get orgasm, and on the other hand, can get money at the same time. Anyway, providing free sex is strictly dominated strategy for women. Lesson 1 from game theory: Do not play a strictly dominated strategy. OK? (3) Using backward induction. Not only do you know what you want, but you have to know what your opponent wants in this game, assuming he cares and only cares about his own interests as same as you. You have to admit that some utopian results are not available using backward induction. If women really want to learn from experience, please take other's experience into your account. A smart person would always get a lesson from other's tears and blood; avoid making the same mistake again. There is a famous saying, “those who do not know history are destined to repeat it. In going marriage, women have only costs but no benefit, and men have only benefit but no cost, so there is a saying that marriage tends to increase life span in men, but at the expense of the women, therefore rational women should quit the free sex-service market. It maybe that a rational approach to the world is nuanced and gray, capable of accommodating contradictions, all of which leads to hesitancy and a lack of certainty, as is indeed true. An easy shortcut is to combine ignorance with straight-out endorsement of ignorance—no signs of rational inquiry but, more important, no signs of self-doubt or contradiction.
The dynamics of deception and its detection is a kind of Co-evolution. Deceiver and deceived are trapped in a co-evolutionary struggle that continually improves adaptations on both sides. One such adaptation is intelligence itself. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that both the detection of deception and often its propagation have been major forces favoring the evolution of intelligence. It is perhaps ironic that dishonesty has often been the file against which intellectual tools for truth have been sharpened. There is an endless loop between the co-evolutionary struggle in nature and struggles in human life over deception in which (over a period of months or years) each move by a deceiver is matched by a countermove from the deceived and vice versa. The advantage lies with the deceiver, who usually has the first move. This is true even of situations in which the very best minds are enlisted in fighting the deception; therefore, genius would always be born in pseudo-equilibrium, and any genius could not be real genius if born in real-equilibrium. Consider a classic example in China: Network blockade against anti-blockade. In the purpose of maintaining stability, Chinese government chose Network blockade, named the Great Wall blockade. When it first became a problem, computer software engineers leaped in on the side of counter-blockade, devising means of breaking it, named free gate, but the problem would not be solved completely. Later, these defenses could quickly be bypassed at little cost and that newer forms of blockade would easily be invented. The point is that each move is matched by a countermove and a new move is always possible, so deceiver leads and deceived responds with costs potentially mounting by the year on both sides with no net gain. Intellectual powers among programmers increasingly will be required on both sides. If you are born in west, you couldn't understand the Network blockade very well, here I give you another example: Doping and Anti Doping. They both co-evolved too, and anti doping testing always lags behind doping. Deception within species is expected in almost all relationships, and deception possesses special powers. It always takes the lead in life, while detection of deception plays catch-up. As has been said regarding rumors, the lie is halfway around the world before the truth puts its boots on. When a new deception shows up in nature, it starts rare in a world that often lacks a proper defense. As it increases infrequency, it selects for such defenses in the victim, so that eventually its spread will be halted by the appearance and spread of countermoves, but new defenses can always be bypassed and new tricks invented. Humans have evolved from one equilibrium to the next equilibrium. In short, Hysteresis (time lag) is inevitable in evolution, or we can say pseudo-equilibrium is inevitable, so victims never be eliminated. In pseudo-equilibrium, since the interests of the two are almost always contrary—what one gains by perpetrating a falsehood, the other loses by believing it. Note that no role is exclusive to some and not others—all of us are both deceiver and deceived, depending on context. It was famously said the field advanced one funeral at a time—only death could get people to change their minds. Strong people welcome new ideas and make them their own. Weak people run from new ideas, or so it seems, and then are driven into bizarre mind states.
What determines the speed of human evolution? Because of the emergence of any new deception with strong interest motivation, innovation in deception is almost instantaneous. Every new deception starts rare and thereby gains an initial advantage. The key of human evolution is depending on suckers. Deception spawns the mental ability to detect it. The faster the suckers awaken, the faster the evolution of human is. It is like free style swimming that sweet point is equilibrium, and you would swim fast if you change fast from one sweet point to next sweet point. These improved intellectual abilities select for more subtle means of deception, which, in turn, select for greater abilities to detect the deception. In short, deception continually selects for mental ability in the deceived. Since the target of apprehension is a moving target—that is, evolves away from your ability to detect it—ever-new discriminations proliferate. The ability to see through a deception requires special talents unnecessary for discriminating a target that has no ability or interest in hiding. Thus, deception has probably been a major factor favoring intelligence, certainly in highly social species. Thus, deception selects for intelligence on both deceiver and deceived, and the promotion of the latter is more significant. In short, without lies, there would be no genius. In sum, each move is met by a new countermove, resulting in principle in an evolutionary struggle that may last millions and millions of years. All evolutions are driven by internal contradictions-the powers of deception and awakening. An egg is a food if broke from external, and a life if broke from inside. Some people can beat the market for short periods of time, and then they totally collapse. In the view from long-run, human evolution tends to be equilibrium.
What drives human evolution forward? In other way, what is the first principle in human evolution? Apparently, the answer is Self-love which was put forward by Adam smith wrote that in The wealth of Nations. My mission in this life is to awaken women's self-love. If we don't abide by the principle of self-love, the human species could no longer continue evolving forward in existence. I want to say everything you do is ultimately determined by maximizing payoffs and minimizing the costs. That is also the core idea of utilitarianism. You are just deluded, if you think people are motivated by altruism. Only self-love can lead women out of the pseudo-equilibrium, and finally end in the real-equilibrium. People are self-interested and behave self-interestedly in any real-equilibrium. I am a radical utilitarian as same as Bentham. In my view, everything else can be quantified, including love, because the cost of something is what you give up getting it. We must rank-order all our preferences, and let the best choice win. Each people's love has different value, depending on his/her opportunity. Your love is worthless, if you don't have any opportunity to give up. Essentially, love is an equal exchange as well. The reason why human fall into chaos is people tries to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Little progress has been made towards deciding the controversy concerning the criterion of right and wrong. The problem of right or wrong has always been regarded as the main problem in the field of speculation. Our thinking on this important issue is still very backward. Today influenced by human rights spread with zero threshold from West, ignorant masses pursuit the goodness much more than the truth. In my view, all goodness is pseudo-goodness; all morality is pseudo morality if without the truth. I'm going to follow Socrates against the popular morality of the so-called 'sophist' by the theory of utilitarianism, because the theory of pure self-love is the universal first principle in evolution including human evolution, which drives us forward and other detailed doctrines should be deduced from including my theory of “Trade space for time”. In my view, morality is almost grotesquely and absurd, because law is capricious, but morality is much more capricious than law as time goes by. The only function of morality is to deceive suckers and maintain stability in false-equilibrium. I know such a theory of life arouses utter dislike in many minds, including two kinds of people: cheaters and suckers with the different purpose of deceit and self-deception. The mission of my life is to awaken the self-love of women, and end the pseudo-equilibrium, and lead the human beings to the next equilibrium. “The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.” —Jean de la Bruyère. Here I am going to tell you a story in The Selfish Gene:
A Skinner box is an apparatus in which an animal learns to feed itself by pressing a lever, food then being automatically delivered down a chute. Experimental psychologists are accustomed to putting pigeons or rats in small Skinner boxes, where they soon learn to press delicate little levers for a food reward.... Baldwin and G. B. Meese trained pigs in a Skinner sty, but there is an added twist to the tale. The snout-lever was at one end of the sty; the food dispenser at the other. So the pig had to press the lever, then race up to the other end of the sty to get the food, then rush back to the lever, and so on. This sounds all very well, but Baldwin and Meese put pairs of pigs into the apparatus. It now became possible for one pig to exploit the other. The 'slave' pig rushed back and forth pressing the bar. The 'master' pig sat by the food chute and ate the food as it was dispensed. Pairs of pigs did indeed settle down into a stable 'master/slave' pattern of this kind, one working and running, the other doing most of the eating.... Now for the paradox. The labels 'master' and 'slave' turned out to be all topsy-turvy. Whenever a pair of pigs settled down to a stable pattern, the pig that ended up playing the 'master' or 'exploiting' role was the pig that, in all other ways, was subordinate. The so-called 'slave' pig, the one that did all the work, was the pig that was usually dominant. Anybody knowing the pigs would have predicted that, on the contrary, the dominant pig would have been the master, doing most of the eating; the subordinate pig should have been the hard-working and scarcely-eating slave.... How could this paradoxical reversal arise? It is easy to understand, once you start thinking in terms of stable strategies. The strategy 'If dominant, sit by the food trough; if subordinate, work the lever' sounds sensible, but would not be stable. The subordinate pig, having pressed the lever, would come sprinting over, only to find the dominant pig with its front feet firmly in the trough and impossible to dislodge. The subordinate pig would soon give up pressing the lever, for the habit would never be rewarded. But now consider the reverse strategy: 'If dominant, work the lever; if subordinate, sit by the food trough.' This would be stable, even though it has the paradoxical result that the subordinate pig gets most of the food. All that is necessary is that there should be some food left for the dominant pig when he charges up from the other end of the sty. As soon as he arrives, he has no difficulty in tossing the subordinate pig out of the trough. As long as there is a crumb left to reward him, his habit of working the lever, and thereby inadvertently stuffing the subordinate pig, will persist. And the subordinate pig's habit of reclining idly by the trough is rewarded too. So the whole 'strategy', 'If dominant behave as a "slave", if subordinate behave as a "master"', is rewarded and therefore stable.
Frankly speaking, this story gives me a lot of inspiration that many women are not as clever as a pig. Women become slave, as subordinate pig, because they would not give up P-V model although they would never be rewarded. Conversely, men become master, as dominant pig, because they just do arbitrage. Who's fault? Should we blame the man? Definitely not. Men would continue to practice arbitrage as long as women keep providing free sex-services. In short, the key of any pseudo-equilibrium is suckers, and with the sucker's waking, the confusion will disappear. All the confusion is due to human irrationality, and self-love is the only driving force for social evolution, because when you pursue your own interests, actually you pursue the public interests for the human beings. In my view, there is no contradiction between justice and utility, because human intelligence is always limited and has no real idea of “justice”, and in human history countless behaviors were done under the guise of “Justice”. At any time, we have to use the first principle of evolution to test each behavior, and we must appeal to the first principle when there are some conflicts between secondary principles. In other word, we have to abandon secondary principles and go back to the first principle in order to void misguided, when we find the secondary principles are inconsistent with the first principle. In any pseudo-equilibrium, do not expect arbitragers to give up their interests because any vested interest groups would choose to try all ways to maintain their risk-free interest. In the course of human evolution, only the first principle is unchangeable, unerasable, unmistakable, self-evident and reliable.
There is no doubt that deceit and self-deception-if it does nothing else-provides us with an unending extravaganza of nonsense, comedic and tragic, large and small. No human group has a monopoly on the disease, nor is anyone immune. In any case, the level of human ignorance regarding fundamental facts is astonishing. One nice feature of the study of deceit and self-deception is that we will never run out of examples. Quite the contrary, they are being generated more rapidly than we can deconstruct them. At least we can enjoy the never-ending extravaganza while trying to deepen our consciousness. Everybody can join in, not just academics or scientists. The logic for understanding self-deception is simple and the phenomenon universal. Truth-or, at least, truth detection-has been pushed back steadily over time by the propagation of deception. It always amazes me to hear some economists say that the costs of deceptive excesses in our economy (including white-collar crime) will naturally be checked by market forces. Why should the human species be immune to the general rule that where natural selection for deception is strong, deception can be selected that extracts a substantial net cost every generation? Certainly, there is no collective force against this deception, and human beings always need the Savior. Consciousness and ability to change are two different variables. The saviors are the people who can keep consciousness but no ability to change the pseudo-equilibrium, and conversely the masses don't have the either consciousness or ability. Regarding deceit and self-deception, lack of consciousness of such tendencies in others may victimize us. We may be too likely to believe them, especially when they are in positions of authority. We may believe what is printed in newspapers. We may believe con artists. And we may easily embrace false historical narratives. To be conscious is to be aware of possibilities, including those arising in a world saturated with deceit and self-deception. I am destined to be a savior and known for my propensity to think everything through for myself and hence relatively immune to conventional wisdom. Like the failure of communism, monogamy must fail when the truth of female orgasm comes out because authorities tried to run the sex-services market with one hand tied behind their backs-the invisible hand of the marketplace. More ambitiously, the savior determines when a short-term bubble will collapse, and there is no thing called “human rights” because human cognitive ability is limited by God's budget forever. The Savior is not to break the balance, but to restore the balance. It is a spiral of one thing affecting the other. Economic evolution in woman's situation is in process of upsetting the institution of marriage. Finally, two sexes relationship must converge to an equilibrium stage: prostitution, and we are a little close to the collapse now. If you think the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 1980s may be the great victory of the “self-interests” in the world during the past half century, you might also have a little faith in another victory of the same idea in battle of the sexes during this century.
