tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71515101348817571582024-03-13T14:03:19.559-07:00Break the mystery of female orgasmMy waste bookbealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-6757828797599029032023-03-22T07:42:00.003-07:002023-03-22T07:42:45.618-07:00Lonely Warrior<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">都是勇敢的</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">你额头的伤口你的不同你犯的错</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">都不必隐藏</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">你破旧的玩偶你的面具你的自我</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">他们说要带着光驯服每一头怪兽</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">他们说要缝好你的伤没有人爱小丑</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">为何孤独不可光荣</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">人只有不完美值得歌颂</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">谁说污泥满身的不算英雄</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你孤身走暗巷</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你不跪的模样</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你对峙过绝望</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">不肯哭一场</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你破烂的衣裳</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">却敢堵命运的枪</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你和我那么像</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">缺口都一样</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">去吗 配吗 这褴褛的披风</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">战吗 战啊 以最卑微的梦</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">致那黑夜中的呜咽与怒吼</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">谁说站在光里的才算英雄</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">他们说要戒了你的狂</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">就像擦掉了污垢</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">他们说要顺台阶而上而代价是低头</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">那就让我不可乘风</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">你一样骄傲着那种孤勇</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">谁说对弈平凡的不算英雄</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你孤身走暗巷</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你不跪的模样</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你对峙过绝望</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">不肯哭一场</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你破烂的衣裳</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">却敢堵命运的枪</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你和我那么像</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">缺口都一样</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">去吗 配吗 这褴褛的披风</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">战吗 战啊 以最卑微的梦</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">致那黑夜中的呜咽与怒吼</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">谁说站在光里的才算英雄</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">你的斑驳与众不同</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">你的沉默震耳欲聋</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你孤身走暗巷</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你不跪的模样</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你对峙过绝望</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">不肯哭一场 (You Are The Hero)</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">爱你来自于蛮荒</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">一生不借谁的光</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">你将造你的城邦</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">在废墟之上</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">去吗 去啊 以最卑微的梦</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">战吗 战啊 以最孤高的梦</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; text-align: justify;">致那黑夜中的呜咽与怒吼</span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box !important; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Helvetica Neue", "PingFang SC", "Hiragino Sans GB", "Microsoft YaHei UI", "Microsoft YaHei", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; letter-spacing: 0.544px; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; min-height: 1em; outline: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word !important; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">谁说站在光里的才算英雄</p>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-39433863782097760142021-03-19T21:27:00.003-07:002021-03-19T21:27:38.416-07:00Breaking news<p> Sorry, I have to stop for a few years because I have to deal with my PhD papers. </p><p>I haven't finished this book yet. To be continued....</p>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-63848755629008513652021-03-12T07:00:00.003-08:002021-03-19T21:28:11.510-07:00Chapter 8: Savior VS Women<p> <span lang="EN-US">I finally get to the last chapter. About
Savior, we can't avoid Schopenhauer's view on this issue. Before I explain,
let's see what Schopenhauer says about genius. <i>On Genius</i>, he wrote: </span></p><p><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">No
difference of rank, position, or birth, is so great as the gulf that separates
the countless millions who use their head only in the service of their belly,
in other words, look upon it as an instrument of the will, and those very few
and rare persons who have the courage to say: No! it is too good for that; my
head shall be active only in its own service; it shall try to comprehend the
wondrous and varied spectacle of this world, and then reproduce it in some
form‥‥ Of course, I am here referring to those who have not only the courage,
but also the call, and therefore the right, to order the head to quit the
service of the will; with a result that proves the sacrifice to have been worth
the making‥‥ But even though their talent be small, so long as it is real,
there will always be a sharp line of demarcation between them and the
millions‥‥ A genius has a double intellect, one for himself and the service of
his will; the other for the world, of which he becomes the mirror, in virtue of
his purely objective attitude towards it‥‥ The normal man, on the other hand,
has only a single intellect, which may be called subjective by contrast with
the objective intellect of genius. However acute this subjective intellect may
be</span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">—<span lang="EN-US">and it exists in very
various degrees of perfection</span>—<span lang="EN-US">it is never on the same
level with the double intellect of genius‥‥ At the same time it is obvious that
a double intellect like this must, as a rule, obstruct the service of the will;
and this explains the poor capacity often shown by genius in the conduct of
life. And what specially characterizes genius is that it has none of that
sobriety of temper which is always to be found in the ordinary simple
intellect, be it acute or dull‥‥ He devotes himself to the constant increase,
rectification and extension, not of mere learning, but of real systematic
knowledge and insight; and remains untouched by the fate that overtakes him
personally, so long as it does not disturb him in his work. It is thus a life
which raises a man and sets him above fate and its changes. Always thinking,
learning, experimenting, practicing his knowledge, the man soon comes to look
upon this second life as the chief mode of existence, and his merely personal
life as something subordinate, serving only to advance ends higher than
itself‥‥ This is an example which we, the salt of the earth, should endeavor to
follow, by never letting anything disturb us in the pursuit of our intellectual
life, however much the storm of the world may invade and agitate our personal
environment; always remembering that we are the sons, not of the bondwoman, but
of the free‥‥ This intellectual life, like some gift from heaven, hovers over
the stir and movement of the world‥‥ The difference between the genius and the
ordinary man is, no doubt, a quantitative one, in so far as it is a difference
of degree; but I am tempted to regard it also as qualitative, in view of the
fact that ordinary minds, notwithstanding individual variation, have a certain
tendency to think alike. Thus on similar occasions their thoughts at once all
take a similar direction, and run on the same lines; and this explains why
their judgments constantly agree</span>—<span lang="EN-US">not, however, because
they are based on truth. To such lengths does this go that certain fundamental
views obtain amongst mankind at all times, and are always being repeated and
brought forward anew, whilst the great minds of all ages are in open or secret
opposition to them‥‥ A genius is a man in whose mind the world is presented as
an object is presented in a mirror, but with a degree more of clearness and a
greater distinction of outline than is attained by ordinary people. It is from
him that humanity may look for most instruction; for the deepest insight into
the most important matters is to be acquired, not by an observant attention to
detail, but by a close study of things as a whole. And if his mind reaches
maturity, the instruction he gives will be conveyed now in one form, now in
another. Thus genius may be defined as an eminently clear consciousness of
things in general, and therefore, also of that which is opposed to them,
namely, one's own self‥‥ The world looks up to a man thus endowed, and expects
to learn something about life and its real nature. But several highly favorable
circumstances must combine to produce genius, and this is a very rare event. It
happens only now and then, let us say once in a century, that a man is born
whose intellect so perceptibly surpasses the normal measure as to amount to
that second faculty which seems to be accidental, as it is out of all relation
to the will. He may remain a long time without being recognized or appreciated,
stupidity preventing the one and envy the other. But should this once come to
pass, mankind will crowd round him and his works, in the hope that he may be
able to enlighten some of the darkness of their existence or inform them about
it. His message is, to some extent, a revelation, and he himself a higher
being, even though he may be but little above the ordinary standard‥‥ In order
to have original, uncommon, and perhaps even immortal thoughts, it is enough to
estrange oneself so fully from the world of things for a few moments‥‥ By
itself, genius can produce original thoughts just as little as a woman by
herself can bear children. Outward circumstances must come to fructify genius,
and be, as it were, a father to its progeny‥‥ The mind of genius is among other
minds what the carbuncle is among precious stones: it sends forth light of its
own, while the others reflect only that which they have received. The relation
of the genius to the ordinary mind may also be described as that of an
idio-electrical body to one which merely is a conductor of electricity‥‥ Great
minds, of which there is scarcely one in a hundred millions, are thus the
lighthouses of humanity; and without them mankind would lose itself in the
boundless sea of monstrous error and bewilderment‥‥ He who wishes to experience
gratitude from his contemporaries, must adjust his pace to theirs. But great
things are never produced in this way. And he who wants to do great things must
direct his gaze to posterity, and in firm confidence elaborate his work for
coming generations. No doubt, the result may be that he will remain quite
unknown to his contemporaries, and comparable to a man who, compelled to spend
his life upon a lonely island, with great effort sets up a monument there, to
transmit to future sea-farers the knowledge of his existence. If he thinks it a
hard fate, let him console himself with the reflection that the ordinary man
who lives for practical aims only, often suffers a like fate, without having
any compensation to hope for; inasmuch as he may, under favorable conditions,
spend a life of material production, earning, buying, building, fertilizing,
laying out, founding, establishing, beautifying with daily effort and
unflagging zeal, and all the time think that he is working for himself; and yet
in the end it is his descendants who reap the benefit of it all, and sometimes
not even his descendants. It is the same with the man of genius; he, too, hopes
for his reward and for honor at least; and at last finds that he has worked for
posterity alone. Both, to be sure, have inherited a great deal from their
ancestors‥‥ The compensation I have mentioned as the privilege of genius lies,
not in what it is to others, but in what it is to itself. What man has in any
real sense lived more than he whose moments of thought make their echoes heard
through the tumult of centuries? Perhaps, after all, it would be the best thing
for a genius to attain undisturbed possession of himself, by spending his life
in enjoying the pleasure of his own thoughts, his own works, and by admitting
the world only as the heir of his ample existence. Then the world would find
the mark of his existence only after his death, as it finds that of the
Ichnolith‥‥ If a great product of genius is recommended to the ordinary, simple
mind, it will take as much pleasure in it as the victim of gout receives in
being invited to a ball‥‥ For La Bruy</span>è<span lang="EN-US">re was quite
right when he said: All the wit in the world is lost upon him who has none‥‥
All this is part of the reward of genius, and compensates him for a lonely
existence in a world with which he has nothing in common and no sympathies‥‥
However great, then, however admirable or instructive, a long posterity may
think the author of immortal works, during his lifetime he will appear to his
contemporaries small, wretched, and insipid in proportion‥‥ Let us, then, not
be surprised if we find men of genius generally unsociable and repellent. It is
not their want of sociability that is to blame. Their path through the world is
like that of a man who goes for a walk on a bright summer morning. He gazes
with delight on the beauty and freshness of nature, but he has to rely wholly
on that for entertainment; for he can find no society but the peasants as they
bend over the earth and cultivate the soil. It is often the case that a great
mind prefers soliloquy to the dialogue he may have in this world. If he
condescends to it now and then, the hollowness of it may possibly drive him
back to his soliloquy; for in forgetfulness of his interlocutor, or caring
little whether he understands or not, he talks to him as a child talks to a
doll‥‥ Modesty in a great mind would, no doubt, be pleasing to the world; but,
unluckily, it is a contradictio in adjecto. It would compel a genius to give
the thoughts and opinions, nay, even the method and style, of the million
preference over his own; to set a higher value upon them; and, wide apart as
they are, to bring his views into harmony with theirs, or even suppress them
altogether, so as to let the others hold the field. In that case, however, he
would either produce nothing at all, or else his achievements would be just
upon a level with theirs. Great, genuine and extraordinary work can be done
only in so far as its author disregards the method, the thoughts, the opinions
of his contemporaries, and quietly works on, in spite of their criticism, on
his side despising what they praise. No one becomes great without arrogance of
this sort. Should his life and work fall upon a time which cannot recognize and
appreciate him, he is at any rate true to himself; like some noble traveler
forced to pass the night in a miserable inn; when morning comes, he contentedly
goes his way‥‥ A poet or philosopher should have no fault to find with his age
if it only permits him to do his work undisturbed in his own corner; nor with
his fate if the corner granted him allows of his following his vocation without
having to think about other people‥‥ Countless times, in indignation at their
incapacity, their total lack of discernment, their bestiality, I have been
forced to echo the old complaint that folly is the mother and the nurse of the
human race‥‥ But at other times I have been astounded that from such a race
there could have gone forth so many arts and sciences, abounding in so much use
and beauty, even though it has always been the few that produce them‥‥ Those
who emerge from the multitude, those who are called men of genius, are merely
the lucida intervalla of the whole human race. They achieve that which others
could not possibly achieve. Their originality is so great that not only is
their divergence from others obvious, but their individuality is expressed with
such force, that all the men of genius who have ever existed show, every one of
them, peculiarities of character and mind; so that the gift of his works is one
which he alone of all men could ever have presented to the world. This is what
makes that simile of Ariosto's so true and so justly celebrated: Natura lo fece
e poi ruppe lo stampo. After Nature stamps a man of genius, she breaks the
die‥‥ Now, mankind is fond of venerating something; but its veneration is
generally directed to the wrong object, and it remains so directed until
posterity comes to set it right. But the educated public is no sooner set right
in this, than the honor which is due to genius degenerates; just as the honor
which the faithful pay to their saints easily passes into a frivolous worship
of relics‥‥ Because a great man has opened up to them the treasures of his
inmost being, and, by a supreme effort of his faculties, produced works which
not only redound to their elevation and enlightenment, but will also benefit
their posterity to the tenth and twentieth generation; because he has presented
mankind with a matchless gift, these varlets think themselves justified in
sitting in judgment upon his personal morality, and trying if they cannot
discover here or there some spot in him which will soothe the pain they feel at
the sight of so great a mind, compared with the overwhelming feeling of their
own nothingness‥‥ It is rather a peculiar kind of instinct, which drives the
man of genius to give permanent form to what he sees and feels, without being
conscious of any further motive. It works, in the main, by a necessity similar
to that which makes a tree bear its fruit; and no external condition is needed
but the ground upon which it is to thrive‥‥ On a closer examination, it seems
as though, in the case of a genius, the will to live, which is the spirit of
the human species, were conscious of having, by some rare chance, and for a
brief period, attained a greater clearness of vision, and were now trying to
secure it, or at least the outcome of it, for the whole species, to which the
individual genius in his inmost being belongs; so that the light which he sheds
about him may pierce the darkness and dullness of ordinary human consciousness
and there produce some good effect‥‥ Arising in some such way, this instinct
drives the genius to carry his work to completion, without thinking of reward
or applause or sympathy; to leave all care for his own personal welfare; to
make his life one of industrious solitude, and to strain his faculties to the
utmost. He thus comes to think more about posterity than about contemporaries;
because, while the latter can only lead him astray, posterity forms the
majority of the species, and time will gradually bring the discerning few who
can appreciate him‥‥ His work is, as it were, a sacred object and the true
fruit of his life, and his aim in storing it away for a more discerning
posterity will be to make it the property of mankind. An aim like this far
surpasses all others, and for it he wears the crown of thorns which is one day
to bloom into a wreath of laurel. All his powers are concentrated in the effort
to complete and secure his work. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">To be honest, Schopenhauer has written very
well and I couldn't agree with him more. I'm sure I have no better gorgeous
language than him, but I'd like to elaborate from my point of view in my poor
language. Like I said in previously chapters, we human beings never have the
power over God who could force everyone to do something for him and who would
use his magic to control the fate of all people including the ordinary, victims
and even the Saviors. Everyone is set to work following God's built-in programs,
no exceptions. In the middle and late stages of every pseudo-equilibrium, God would
send a Savior to bring mankind to next equilibrium state. </span>“<span lang="EN-US">History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme,</span>” <span lang="EN-US">said Mark Twain. This cycle is the rhyme of God. What should we
reflect on this cycle? Churchill said, “Those who fail to learn from history are
doomed to repeat It!” The Savior was sent by God to save mankind so he/she is fortunate
and unfortunate both. Fortunately, unlike the ordinary, he/she is the only
sober person in his/her time; unfortunately, he/she has to suffer the sober
pain the folks don't have. Ignorance has the advantage of ignorance, while soberness
has the cost of soberness. Like the ordinary, the Savior's life is also firmly
controlled by three hands: the hand of self-love, the hand of God and the hand
of Jupiter.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The hand of
self-love</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Seen from genes as a fundamental unit, what is predominant quality of
a successful gene? Apparently, in a highly competitive world, a predominant
quality to be expected in a successful survival machines</span>,<span lang="EN-US">is ruthless selfishness, because anything that has evolved by
natural selection should be selfish, otherwise it has long been eliminated. Why
do the genes always selfish or ruthless? It is because each gene is competing
particularly with its own alleles—rivals for the same chromosomal slot and it
faces only two choices: Hunt or be hunted. Universal love and the welfare of
the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.
This gene selfishness must give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. At
the level of gene, pure altruism never existed in evolution, and sometimes in special
circumstances, in order to achieve its own selfish goals best, a gene can
foster a limited form of altruism at the level of individual. In general, an
apparently altruistic act is one that looks, superficially, as if it must tend
to make the altruist more likely (however slightly) to die, and the recipient
more likely to survive. It often turns out on closer inspection that acts of
apparent altruism are really selfishness in disguise. All in all, any altruistic
behavior at the individual level is manipulated by selfish genes, and the first
principle in evolution is self-love. No doubt Saviors as successful individuals
are selfish and driven by self-love of course, because each Savior is competing
particularly with some fallacy for a certain field, and similarly, he/she faces
only two choices: Hunt or be hunted. I need to completely eliminate the cult of
G-spot. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Only selfish rebel can make the
world better and better because men pursuing their own self-interest will
generate benefits for society as a whole. This is the major contribution of
Adam Smith who believes if you are seeking self-interest, if you choose it
rationally, this will be in the common good. Which is best for you is also the
best for society. Government should not repress self</span>‐<span lang="EN-US">interested
people, for self</span>‐<span lang="EN-US">interest is a rich natural resource.
People would be fools and nations would be impoverished if they depended on
charity and altruism. Some people are destined to change history. The key
question is who? Each Savior must be from the loser side. For example, God is
destined to make a woman debunk the deception of vagina orgasm because the
truth accords with her interests as well. As Schopenhauer said, I have a double
intellect, one for myself and the service of my will; the other for the world. Why
should I try to expose the truth to save women? It is because I have common
interests with women. In other way, the fool makes 'cruel bind' on the Savior. If
I were a man, I would not serve the interests of women because our interests
are conflicting. I may lie when it's good for me, but I won't tell a lie when
it is bad for me. Everything is doomed. Identity decides fate, and then fate
decides character. My thoughts form my idea, and I only act out of my
instincts. Those who can change the world will never act against their own
interests. I have to fight for the right to my orgasm. Any Savior should be
acting out of self-interest in order to achieve the common good. In my view, a
true Savior is the one who fight for himself/her instead of others. Those
people who claims that they fight for the benefit of others or the public are
not real Saviors. As Adam Smith put it: “By pursuing his own interest he
frequently promotes that of the society more effectively than when he really
intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those affected to
trade for the public good.” Any slogan for the sake of others is just for </span>“<span lang="EN-US">profiteering</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> at the expense of the public in
disguise. Only the strategy of “Tit for tat” can regulate the conflict of the
self-interested actors on the marketplace back to the equilibrium. 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. Only the selfish motives of men are transmuted by
interaction to yield the most unexpected of results: social harmony. For
example, after monogamy, the father opted to withdraw from his daughter's
rearing. Again, self-interest will step in to right the balance, and woman's
price will again rise up to normal. The complex irrational world is thus
reduced to a kind of rational scheme where human particles are magnetized in a
simple polarity toward profit and away from loss. Yet no one has issued a
dictum, and no planning authority has established schedules of output. Self-interest
and competition, acting one against the other, have accomplished the
transition. If profits in one line of business are unduly large, there will be
a rush of other businessmen into that field until competition has lowered
surpluses. Conversely, if profits or wages are too low in one trade area, there
will be an exodus of capital and labor until the supply is better adjusted to
the demand. Like in market system, self-love also provides self-regulating system
for the orderly evolution of society. Note </span>“<span lang="EN-US">self-regulating.</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> The beautiful consequence of the society is that it is its own
guardian. If any unbalance strays away from social equilibrium, forces are set
into motion to bring them back to the fold. The Saviors must be selfish because
they face not only shameless liars but also ignorant fools, and only self-love
can strike a new balance. No doubt, self-love is deep-seated first law in human
evolution. Human evolved because there was a concealed dynamic beneath the
surface of things which powered the social whole like an enormous engine. I
agree with Bernard Mandeville who said, “Private immorality may redound to the
public welfare, whereas private uprightness may be a social burden.” Indeed, I
have no morals because I don't want to be exploited for free, and I am a
realist people. Not only am I selfish, but I also awaken the self-love of the
victims. Obviously, I need the assistance of others. I am a Smithian, I don't
want friends, I don't want anybody who does not see an advantage in interacting
with me. I need people acting out of self-interest. Good relationships are
always based on self-interest. In short, I need smart allies with a common
interest. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, who has common interests with
me? Apparently, I share the interests of all women, but they are so foolish and
naive that they are useless to me. After 2012, my unrealistic fantasies about
women were completely shattered. Any others besides women? I think I should make
alliances with all men, both sellers and buyers. Let me explain one by one.
First, for sellers, I need to make alliances with girls' fathers, especially those
fathers who have power and money both and love daughters very much, who will also
be the beneficiaries of the truth because their sons are also qualified clients
and the truth can benefit their daughters as well. Such as, Donald Trump, Bill
Clinton, Obama, President Xi, David Beckham, Kobe Bryant, Tom Cruise, Sylvester
Stallone, Edison Chen, Mark Zuckerberg and so on. I don't need you to do any
for me, I just need you to do something for your daughter. Even in violent
civilization, rational fathers can make their daughters no longer the losers of
violent civilization by injecting their daughters with androgens. Look at the
sports game, projects that rely on speed and strength are gradually eliminating
the inferior estrogen, and more and more people with XX chromosomes begin to
arbitrage in women's competitions by injecting male hormones. As a
counter-strategy, the IAAF introduced new regulation for female athletes with
“difference of sexual development” (DSD) that athlete must use medication to
reduce their blood testosterone level to below 5nmol/L for a continuous period
of at least six months. To be honest, the IAAF level of 5nmol/L is still high
for female levels, which normally range from 0.1 - 1.8nmol/L. Because in muscle
civilization the female gene is doomed to be a strictly dominated gene, it is
doomed to be eliminated, based on the lesson 1, Do not play a strictly
dominated strategy. In just concluded 2019 FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup, the
head coach of the China women's national volleyball team named Lang Ping often
said during time out, “Be a little fiercer.” Obviously, female characteristics,
such as gentleness and submissiveness, were first eliminated by successful
female athletes. As long as they want to win, they must be fierce as men. To be
frank, female mammals are really second sex. I speculate that with the
popularity of male hormones, women's competitions will disappear one day. Let's
arbitrage crazily! Second, for buyers, I need to make alliances with all men
who would like to pay for standard sexual services as same as Thai Massage. Like
the fundamental purpose of the abolition of slavery at that year was to make slaves
cheaper, now the truth between sexes is also going to make women cheaper. Lies
between sexes, including love and female orgasm, can benefit men in the 20th
century, but now in this century, the truth can make men spend less money to sleep
with more women because love is more expensive than prostitution for men now. You
find that the people who eat the 10$ rice are all men, while the people who
line up to drink the 20 $ milky tea are all women. Why? When love is tied to
luxury goods, men have become losers in love, while businesses and women have
become winners. Recently, there is a paper published in the journal Social
Psychological and Personality Science, named <i>Foodie Calls: When Women Date
Men for a Free Meal (Rather Than a Relationship)</i> which told us a cruel and
conservative truth that a foodie call occurs when a person, despite a lack of
romantic attraction to a suitor, chooses to go on a date to receive a free meal,
and they found 23–33% of women surveyed had engaged in a foodie call. In my
view, the one-third figure is much more conservative, and the real number is
far greater than 33%. As a woman, I've had some blind dates too. To be honest, I
didn't resist these dates until I realized my identity because I wouldn't lose
anything in this dating but I can get a free meal at least. After I started
reading and writing, I resisted this kind of dating because I had a high time
cost. Apparently, under love patten, men started to be exploited by women. Of
course, this deception is not limited to food, including bags, necklaces,
clothes and other luxury goods. To put it another way, more and more women
start to take advantage of love by measuring men's love with money. Under the
shield of love, women ask men to give and compromise unconditionally. The law can
protect property but not love. Men are always faced with the dilemma that sunk
costs cannot be recovered. Not only that, women also cheat in marriage in the
name of pursuing love. In the past, men cheated women, but now, men unite with
women to cheat men who want to get married. In the 20<sup>th</sup> century, men
were the exploiting class and women were the exploited class, but in the 21<sup>st</sup>
century, men become exploited class and women become exploited class. To put it
another way, the pursuit of love becomes a man's dominated strategy nowadays,
so rational men choose to abandon this dominated strategy as soon as possible. Natural
selection would severely penalize such act of pursuing love in males and indeed
would favour males who paid directly for sex-services in Pattaya. As a
counter-strategy, men don't want to pursue girls anymore because there is too
much uncertainty in the process of pursuing and they can't see the schedule. Moreover,
a special marriage fraud group has evolved. I can often see such news that Vietnamese
brides fled in mass after 10 days of marriage. Bride-price and female freedom
of divorce are incompatible. In brief, nowadays, men spend too much and get little
in return. The low marriage rate shows that the relationship between the two
sexes has been in a dilemma, and one side who invests sunk costs falls into
passivity. In next equilibrium, whoring must be standardized and legalized. In
women's eyes, perfect love and one-woman kinda man do not exist at
all. There are only two men in the world: Cheating men who are found and cheating
men who are not found. That is the human nature that men can't win because
cheating can make men better off. Like I said before, love and sex are totally
two different things. In my view, South Korean "N-room" incident is a
very normal thing in the male dominated world, and orgasm is the only result of
a form of sexual bullying and abuse, including humiliation and disrespect, which
is the essence of sex. Love is restraint, giving, sacrificing and
communism, but sex is release, taking, getting. Communism is always unstable, but
selfish capitalism is stable. There is only one kind of man who does not cheat:
whose opportunity cost of his cheating is higher than the profit of his
cheating. After the truth was revealed, rich men can get rid of the shackles of
morality and the bad name of the scumbags, while poor men can also obtain
sexual satisfaction by trading with women who charges less because she has a
lower opportunity cost, without fear of extortion by cops. In short, love, as a
kind of deception, is no longer useful to men, and on the contrary, the truth
is useful to men now. Love has become a man's negative equity which must choose
to abandon it. I do believe that men will give in for their own benefit just as
slave owners did for themselves at that time. Do not expect any benevolence
from evolution. In essence, prostitution is a kind of sharing economy as same
as car sharing and bicycle sharing, which is the best strategy to solve the
problem of poor people's consumption. What we should concern is that lack of
government oversight will lead to serious abuses of both buyers and sellers in
the sharing economy. By the way, this phenomenon of cheat is more serious in
lesbians, because many lesbians don't have male ability to ejaculate but have
the heart for whoring. Frankly speaking, there is no balance in the
relationship between lesbians so far because there is no real product or
service transaction between them. I will discuss the issue of homosexuality in
the following chapters. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Saviors and dictators are two very
important pieces in God's plan, and then what are similarities and differences
between them? About similarities, both of them act in their own interests and try
to prevent the impact of disordered society on orderly society. About
differences, first of all, dictators are used to maintain a pseudo-equilibrium
against degeneration before human beings have the ability to get a superior
equilibrium, while Saviors are used to guide people to a superior equilibrium
after our human beings have the ability to get it. Secondly, strategically
speaking, dictators generally resort to lies like altruism to maintain a
pseudo-equilibrium, while Saviors resort to the truth like self-love to break
the pseudo-equilibrium. Thirdly, one of the most striking psychological
characteristics is, for dictator he wants to live forever because he is a
beneficiary of pseudo-equilibrium, but for Savior he wants to die from his
heart because he knows the truth will only be accepted by the public after his
death. The dictator was sprayed on the altar while he was alive, and the Savior
was put on the altar after his death. In short, in the evolution of
step-by-step human beings, the dictators act in the opposite direction, while
the Savior acts in the positive direction. Human evolution needs well-balanced
backward and forward. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Savior was born to challenge so-called
authority. This authority in Pseudo-equilibrium includes legal-rational
authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority. Legal-rational
authority is a system in which people believe that some acts are legitimate and
taken for granted, viewed as sacred and inviolable. For example, before
Copernicus, people took it for granted that the earth was the center; before Newton,
people took it for granted that the apple fell to the ground; so far people still
believe P-V model as sacred and inviolable because God chose it. Folks take
everything for granted. In fact, nothing is sacred in evolution. The key
question is what legal-rational authority is and who can judge what is the
authority. 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. No doubt, no questions, only silence. Traditional
authority is a system that people's behavior has some viscidity. For example, so
far women are still required to enter marriage by their parents because marriage
is still viewed as the traditional destination of women. Charismatic authority is
the most complex, and it refers to a person who has some extraordinary and unusual
characters, who is actually viewed as superhuman. In theological definition, charisma
refers to the quality of an individual that is superhuman. The term charisma
will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of
which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural,
superhuman, or at least exceptional powers or qualities. In general, someone is
regarded as semi-god, or the embodiment of God, or an exemplary being who has
some exceptional abilities, exceptional qualities who have some very personal
and exclusive relationship to God, can talk to God, and they can interpret God's
will to the people. Charisma refers rather to the great founders of great world
religions. Charming leaders must create miracles. No doubt that dictators and
saviors both have charismatic authorities. That is how in communism charismatic
leaders like Lenin or Mao or Castro emerged. These were all societies in deep
trouble, after humiliations after wars, in big need for some major structural
change, and they were looking for a savior, who will solve their irresolvable problems
and will lead out to paradise. To be frank, dictators who are not ordinary
people are good at making up such Utopian lies to cater to the masses. The
so-called charm is created by followers. Those who follow the charismatic
leaders are usually seen as followers or disciples, who have some extraordinary
commitment to this leader, and this leader creates excitement in them. The
dictator's mission determines that the dictator must create some general-will to
maintain the pseudo-equilibrium, which determines that his followers are the
contemporary public. In other words, dictators are regarded as charismatic
leaders when they are alive. On the contrary, the Savior have no such luck
because they are destined to save future generations. In other words, the
Saviors are regarded as charismatic leaders only after his death. In short,
Saviors are people who use their charismatic authorities to help society to transition
from outdated traditional authority or legal authority to new one. The big
change must occur from this transition, and in order to complete it, we need
charismatic leaders. In short, human being always need a savior at any time. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Saviors are such people with strong self-consciousness,
questioning the legal-rational authority and violating the traditional
authority, so they are doomed not to be controlled by the general-will in which
the Savior cannot be born. God created them for the purpose of spanning a new dimension,
and the Saviors is never going to cater to the public, so they can never be
born from general elections. For example, I am acting out of my self-conscience
instead of an outdated traditional authority. Even my mother pressed me with
her life, I would not compromise on marriage. I don't want to lose her, but I
can lose her. I admit I have a coldness of rationalism, so do other Saviors. I
know I should not be led by sentiments and I have to proceed without passion
and without prejudices. We are often regarded as people with heart of stone by
their contemporaries. I don't like people, but I know they don't like me. In
the eyes of the public, the Saviors are different, uncooperative, numb,
cold-blooded, and selfish beings who only care about their own interests, but
in fact that is the only way we will ever distinguish ourselves. In the process
of communicating with the public, I often don't get a pleasant result, and I
need to work hard or hide my ideas in order to communicate normally with others,
but I have a tendency to expedite information flow by being direct. In fact, the
public has a serious misunderstanding of the Saviors who are with hard heads
and soft hearts. They are not indifferent and unloved people, nor am I, but we
just oppose the goodness of low IQ because selfish-love only can lead to the
next equilibrium. I am a very realistic idealist so I choose to warm the world
with cool reason. I know it's time to debunk myth of female orgasm and
demonstrate that a new age of human beings has begun. It's not easy being a
Savior. It is ironic that the Saviors themselves receive so much virulent
criticism in their own time. Altruists accuse them of being too selfish, and many
critics vilify modern them for assuming only selfish motives, for caring only
about self-love, and for ignoring man's more noble side. The Savior is, they
declare, a moral dwarf. Poor Malthus was the best abused man of his age because
he was a man who defended small-pox, slavery, and child-murder. Malthus's
position was not so much a hardhearted as a supremely logical one. But logic
does not always win popularity, and someone who points out the gloomy end of
society can hardly expect to gain popular esteem. Similarly, I am going to be
the best abused man of my age because I am the one who defend female
infanticide, birth control and anti-equal rights. My theory is not so much a
hardhearted as a supremely logical one. It is not surprising that I will be
regarded as beyond the pale of decent-thinking people. The Saviors are often
criticized for giving the cruel truth to the public. Short sighted charity can
indeed save a girl, but it also puts the girl in a more miserable situation, so
such charity is actually more cruel and stupid in disguise. To dictators,
Saviors are party poopers who will debunk some Utopian scam and won't let them
promise prosperity without sacrifice. A measure of intellect far surpassing the
ordinary, is as unnatural as it is abnormal in the ordinary's eyes. I suppose
that my philosophy is comfortless because I speak the truth, and people prefer
to be assured that everything the Lord has made is good, fair and prefect. For
example, because P-V mode is chosen by God, women instinctively believe that
this mode of reproduction will bring women the same benefits as men. In the
eyes of crows, swans are guilty. Saviors feel wrongly accused, however, for
they are usually not the cause of bad news but simply the messengers. And the
message is simple: Human beings must make difficult choices. We are no longer
in Eden, orgasm together, like Communism, will never come, at any time people
must face trade-offs. We find it difficult to recognize the “good times” even
when we have them. Unfortunately, the world does not admire the Saviors for
their truth because the truth is always cruel. Compared with the cruel and powerless
reality, the public prefers to live in a utopian dream. Utopian theory gives us
a model too perfect unrealistic and romantic for the real world, and the
task of the Saviors is to shatter human dreams one by one and bring people down
to earth by every revelation. Social sciences evolve, just like natural
sciences, by getting rid of prejudices and dogmas, to moving beyond dogmas, and
substitute them with the study of facts. Don't start with big words, start with
actual analysis and find theory when you already have a scientific idea. In
order to rationalize the world, you have to get rid of authority. The world
becomes rationalized. You have to believe in me, because I am with God, offering
you hope in a hopeless situation. Leonardo da Vinci (1452</span>–<span lang="EN-US">1519) said, “If you find from your own experience that something is
a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must
abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.” Those very
few and rare persons who have the courage to say: No! it is too good for that;
my head shall be active only in its own service; it shall try to comprehend the
wondrous and varied spectacle of this world, and then reproduce it in some form.
There will always be a sharp line of demarcation between them and the millions.
Like Schopenhauer said, a Savior has a double intellect, one for
himself/herself and the service of his/her interest; the other for the world
and future generations. The normal man has only a single intellect, which may
be called subjective by contrast with the objective intellect of Saviors. However
acute this subjective intellect may be—and it exists in very various degrees of
perfection—it is never on the same level with the double intellect of Saviors. </span><span lang="EN-US">At the s</span><span lang="EN-US">ame time, it is obvious that a double intellect like this must, as a
rule, obstruct the service of the general-will. And what specially
characterizes Saviors is that it has a kind of cold objectivity which never can
be found in the ordinary simple intellect. As a Taurus, I am a typical
realistic, practical and down-to-earth person. A man endowed with great mental
gifts leads, apart from the individual life common to all, a second life,
purely of the intellect. The Saviors devote their self to the constant
increase, rectification and extension, not of mere learning, but of real
systematic knowledge and insight; and remains untouched by the stupid masses. It
is thus a life which raises a man and sets him above fate and its changes.
Always thinking, learning, experimenting, practicing his knowledge, the man
soon comes to look upon this second life as the chief mode of existence, and
his merely personal life as something subordinate, serving only to advance ends
higher than itself. Never let anything disturb me in the pursuit of our
intellectual life, however much the storm of the world may invade and agitate
our personal environment. The Saviors have purely intellectual life of the
individual, which transcends their whole era. This intellectual life, like some
gift from heaven, hovers over the stir and movement of the world. It is from
them that humanity may look for most instruction; for the deepest insight into
the most important matters is to be acquired, not by an observant attention to
detail, but by a close study of things as a whole. Thus, Saviors may be defined
as an eminently clear consciousness of things in general, and therefore, also
of that which is opposed to them, namely, one's own self. Only when the Savior
dabbles in all aspects of knowledge can he grasp accurately on the things as a
whole because everything is interrelated. In the process of innovation, I need
to use a variety of knowledge and functions. To borrow the words from </span><span lang="EN-US">Keynes:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">The study of
economics does not seem to require any specialized gifts of an unusually high
order. Is it not . . . a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of
philosophy or pure science? An easy subject, at which very few excel! The
paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must
possess a rare combination of gifts. He must be mathematician, historian,
statesman, philosopher</span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">—<span lang="EN-US">in
some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate
the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the
same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for
the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must
lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a
simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as
near the earth as a politician. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Similarly, the Saviors must be generalists.
In their lives, they always keep thinking, learning, experimenting, practicing
knowledge. In general, a</span><span lang="EN-US">
Savior must be economist, mathematician, chemist, biologist, historian,
statesman, philosopher, evolutionist</span>—<span lang="EN-US">in some degree. When Saviors are trying to explain
how to trade, they are economists, and like all economists, they study the
supply and demand curve and how to change; when they are trying to explain how society
leap step by step, they are chemists, and like all chemists, they study the electronic
transition problem; when they are trying to explain the importance of threshold,
they are biologist, and like all chemists, they study the protective role of
thresholds in nerve conduction; when they are trying to explain the inevitability
of history, they are historian, and like all historians, they study why history
does not permit vacuum; when they are trying to explain the fate, they are
philosophers, and like all philosophers, they study the fatalism; when they are
trying to explain how human society evolves, they are evolutionist, like all
evolutionists, they study the game between strategy and counter-strategy. I
will apply all thinking to my daily life. I have to say that in the course of
the growth of the Savior, the study of economics can teach you a systematic,
disciplined way of thinking that will serve you well, which is the most
important for Saviors who are doomed to find the next equilibrium for our human
beings. Systematic study of Economics is an indispensable tool if the
distraction of everyday life is to be pierced and its underlying mechanism
understood. Any Savior should be the greater mind of the breadth and the depth,
he should be a rare combination of gifts. He must study the present in the
light of the past for the purposes of the future. They have to stand on the shoulders
of my predecessors. In short, the Saviors are those people who have clear
consciousness of things in general and search for totality and periodicity by
the unity of subject and object, macro and micro. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Because
the Saviors are not understood by their contemporaries, they are lonely almost
all their lives. Like Schopenhauer said, “Be lonely or be vulgar.” Obviously,
the Saviors choose the former. What is the essence of a person's life? The
essence of life is the collection or aggregation or set of all time. To be
frank, no more things than time treat everyone equal. Everyone has only 24
hours a day whatever you are a genius or a fool. Apparently, life for any
individual is limited, that is, time is limited too. Everyone has only one
lifetime, and there is no going back for anyone. Like the limitations of money,
the greatest attribute of time is exclusiveness and irreversibility. For any
limited scarce resources, we must face constraints and make trade-offs between
working and leisure, or working now (and earning an immediate income) and
continued education (and the hope of earning a higher future income), or raising
children and promoting yourself. How you need to think about what something or
someone is worth, whether you should invest your money (time and energy). Basically,
a rational being manages his time according to the Four Quadrants of Time
Management: Everything I do in life can be classified by its urgency (Urgent or
Not Urgent) and by its importance (Important or Not Important). Additionally, the
urgency and importance can change from time to time. For example, at the
beginning of the game of Plants vs. Zombies, the sunflower is always in
the quadrant of important and urgent, but over time, it becomes less important
and less urgent, and peashooter becomes more and more important and urgent, and
I will replace sunflowers with peashooters totally when the sun is enough. Form
the list of pluses and minuses, and a rational person is always weighing the
pros and cons based on the principle of marking to the market. Probably no
trade-off is more obvious or more important in a person</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s life than the trade-off between
work and leisure. The more hours you spend working, the fewer hours you have leisure.
For anyone, the time and energy are about same, but it is very different in how
to allocate them for each individual. You can spend all of them studying, or
working, or playing games, or in love with someone, or divide them among many
fields. When they choose to spend one minute on one thing, they have one less
minute to spend on some other thing because of the limitation of your life
time. Apparently, the Saviors and the crowed have the opposite choices. What
make them make the opposite choices? Different opportunity costs let them to
make different choices. Another of the Ten Principles of Economics is that the
cost of something is what you give up to get it. What do you give up to get an
hour of leisure? You give up an hour of work, which in turn means an hour of
wages. Thus, if your wage is $15 per hour, the opportunity cost of an hour of
leisure is $15. And when you get a raise to $20 per hour, the opportunity cost
of enjoying leisure goes up. Animals face the same trade-offs, and the cost of
wasting time may be paramount. Frankly speaking, money, time and energy are all
limited for any person so we must face trade-offs rationally and everyone
should make rational choices according to his/her opportunity cost. Similarly, the
theory of opportunity cost also applies to individual animals. Why do some
animals choose to live alone and some choose to live in groups? The only answer
is self-interest. When the net profit of staying in a group is greater than
that of alone, the animal must choose staying in a group; when the net profit
of staying in a group is less than that of being alone, the animal must choose
being alone. Did you find an interesting phenomenon that the strong like to live
alone and the weak like to live in groups? It is so obvious that Tyson was
reluctant to align with me in a violent civilization because I am useless to
him. The opportunity cost is the only reason why smart people like to be alone
in contract civilization. Schopenhauer said men of genius are generally
unsociable and repellent. Here I want to defend the Saviors for a little bit. I
am not unwilling to communicate with others, but unable to communicate with
others. Different identities determine that we live in different dimensions and
have opposite cognition of the world, which determines that I cannot
communicate with ordinary people. I am not a social person and not gifted with
a silver tongue. I also like to be alone because I find the society is so
unsatisfactory and the world is immersed in evil: Barbarians kill each other
and civilized people deceive each other. On one hand, I can</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t wake up
the suckers; on the other hand, I can't be a cheater because of initial
endowment, so solitude is my best strategy. Loneliness is actually a person's
best value-added period, and almost all great theories and ideas are the
product of the Saviors' solitude because solitude is a crucial ingredient often
to creativity. From ancient times, loneliness and greatness are twin sisters. Solitude is a process of inner integration, which can
make oneself see the world soberly, which can also make him/her see
himself/herself rationally. </span><span lang="EN-US">They know that the source
of true values is not in external things but in human hearts. </span><span lang="EN-US">This is the transcendent power of solitude, those seekers who are going off by
themselves </span><span lang="EN-US">alone to the wilderness where they
then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the
rest of the community. So, no wilderness, no revelations. Great men are like
eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude. This forlornness is the
high point of freedom. </span><span lang="EN-US">The
same calling sent me off to lonely mountain tops. Only ordinary people fear solitude, and for the Saviors, solitude is the
best friend because they need to keep a distance between the unreasonable
people around them in order to keep rational. The Saviors have few friends
because they are ahead of their time for a hundred years and no contemporary
can read them. In the eyes of the public, there is no difference between Saviors
and madmen because </span><span lang="EN-US">their isolated personality
was impenetrable and no one knew what they thought about anything. </span><span lang="EN-US">Their thoughts get better and
better over time, and of course, in this process, their ideas can</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t be
mature without books, meditation, reflection, and accumulation. If you want to
fly, give up everything that weights you down, so I am a minimalist. I know I
have to walk alone in my life, and this is not loneliness but choice. Loneliness
is carnival to one while carnival is loneliness to all. It is loneliness that
makes me different, not gregariousness. </span><span lang="EN-US">The detachment
seems to have been with me always. </span><span lang="EN-US">There are no pockets in a shroud. My time, energy and money are all
limited, so I must optimize the allocation of resources. I refuse to sell my
time and energy at a price less than the cost, and I am using my time and
energy for another purpose. Writing was the
primary activity in my life. Arthur Schopenhauer ever said, “Ordinary people
merely think how they shall spend their time; a man of talent tries to use it.”
Any time spent in doing other things than attempting to span next dimension may
be regarded as time wasted from the Savior</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s point of view. As Steve Jobs
said, “Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.
Don't be trapped by dogma</span>—<span lang="EN-US">which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't
let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most
important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow
already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” You
need a strong heart to live a different life from others. Most Saviors refused
to enter into marriage because it occupied a large proportion of his time,
attention and energy, but they had other more important things to do. Like I
said before, the public</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s love is worthless because they have little
opportunity cost. So is the reproduction. Those people who have lower
opportunity cost choose to enter the reproductive market. Love which belongs virtual
axis and reproduction function which belongs to attenuation function(F(x)=1/2<sup>x</sup><sub>,
</sub>and F(x+2)</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">equivalent to F(x) when x goes to infinity)
cannot last forever, but the Saviors are not interested in what cannot be
eternal. Short-sighted people only take the short-run interests into account,
and far-sighted people will strike a balance between short-run interests and
long-term interests. Unlike them either, the Saviors is going to take the interests
after death into his/her account because he/she has but they don</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t have. I
know my life has not only helpless at present, but also poetry and praise after
my death. The Saviors also have no altruism but strong selves, and reason tells
them what to do and when to do. As an absolutely rational individual, what I
pursue is to maximize my profit instead of my incomes. They discount future
benefits after death to the present and then make a trade-off. For example, in billiards
like world snooker, ordinary players like me only consider how to pot a red
ball, and master players like professional players consider not only how to pot
a red ball but also how to control the cueball to right position for next color
ball, and genius like Ronnie O'Sullivan maybe consider the last hit and how to
get 147. Why don't I consider 147? The only reason is that I probably couldn't
even hit the first red ball. Identity and calling determine that the Saviors
need to walk alone without any friend or understanding. For the Saviors, to consider
the decision to fulfill the calling that God has given to them is the first
priority. They have two roles: One is to develop and test theories to explain
the world around them; the other is to use their theories to help change the world
for the better. The main benefits are the immortal reputation after death. I
know I can engrave my name on the pillar of honor in history, and instead, some
people's names and doctrines will also be removed from the honor pillar. To be
honest, I am sure not too many people can remember who put forward the
geocentric theory now. But what are the costs? It is the Saviors must suffer
the pain that they can</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t get the public</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s understanding in the whole life.
This is the trade-off the Saviors face, and I know I can</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t get
them both in my life. This is the trade between the Savior and the Creator. He
expends his whole life's time and energy to bring human beings into the next equilibrium
state in exchange for an eternal reputation. For saviors, in order to fulfill
the calling, they have to give up the secular life, namely, secular happiness. The
mission of these great minds is to guide mankind over the sea of error to the
haven of truth — to draw it forth from the dark abysses of a barbarous
vulgarity up into the light of culture and refinement. Identity determines
fate, and destiny determines character, not on the contrary. And their only
problem will be to shape a destiny worthy of them in a mediocre world. Moreover,
the public don't like them, and, what's more, they don't like the public
either. They walked through life as if they had descended from another world,
and the goings-on that appeared so natural to the eyes of his contemporaries
appeared to him as piquant, exotic, and curious as the rituals of a savage
community to the eye of an anthropologist. In the bustling, boosting,
gregarious community in which they lived, they stood apart: uninvolved,
unentangled, remote, aloof, disinterested, a stranger. Because they were
strangers, they were nonconformists, but not radical. The world was
uncomfortable and forbidding; they adapted to it as missionary might to a land
of primitives, refusing to go native, but preserving his integrity at the cost
of frightful solitude. My examination of society is merciless. But its biting
quality comes not so much from a wish to disparage as from the peculiar
coldness with which people's fondest notions are appraised. Genius has three
characteristics: 1. Brilliant brain, 2. Ruthless soul, 3. Strong endurance.
Greatness comes from tolerance. In my general life, I like to smile and silence
because smile can solve many problems and silence can avoid many problems. I
know I can</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t be happy in my life, and as a rational egoist, I am willing to make
later generations happier through my lifelong struggle. If women in a hundred
years won</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t be a sex slaves, my soul will be comforted in heaven. Schopenhauer was
lucky because he found consolation in the words of Petrarch, “If anyone who
wanders all day arrives towards evening, it is enough.” If I also can arrive at
last, and will have the satisfaction at the end of my life of seeing the
beginning of my influence, it is with the hope that, according to an old rule,
it will last the longer in proportion to the lateness of its beginning. I have
seen my end in Schopenhauer's words: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">This lamentable
death of the critical faculty is not less obvious in the case of science, as is
shown by the tenacious life of false and disproved theories. If they are once
accepted, they may go on bidding defiance to truth for fifty or even a hundred
years and more, as stable as an iron pier in the midst of the waves. The
Ptolemaic system was still held a century after Copernicus had promulgated his
theory. Bacon, Descartes and Locke made their way extremely slowly and only
after a long time; as the reader may see by d'Alembert's celebrated Preface to
the Encyclopedia. Newton was not more successful; and this is sufficiently
proved by the bitterness and contempt with which Leibnitz attacked his theory
of gravitation in the controversy with Clarke. Although Newton lived for almost
forty years after the appearance of the Principia, his teaching was, when he
died, only to some extent accepted in his own country, whilst outside England
he counted scarcely twenty adherents; if we may believe the introductory note
to Voltaire's exposition of his theory. It was, indeed, chiefly owing to this
treatise of Voltaire's that the system became known in France nearly twenty years
after Newton's death. Until then a firm, resolute, and patriotic stand was made
by the Cartesian Vortices; whilst only forty years previously, this same
Cartesian philosophy had been forbidden in the French schools; and now in turn
d'Agnesseau, the Chancellor, refused Voltaire the Imprimatur for his treatise
on the Newtonian doctrine. On the other hand, in our day Newton's absurd theory
of color still completely holds the field, forty years after the publication of
Goethe's. Hume, too, was disregarded up to his fiftieth year, though he began
very early and wrote in a thoroughly popular style. And Kant, in spite of
having written and talked all his life long, did not become a famous man until
he was sixty…. Artists and poets have, to be sure, more chance than thinkers,
because their public is at least a hundred times as large. Still, what was
thought of Beethoven and Mozart during their lives? what of Dante? what even of
Shakespeare? If the latter's contemporaries had in any way recognized his
worth, at least one good and accredited portrait of him would have come down to
us from an age when the art of painting flourished; whereas we possess only
some very doubtful pictures, a bad copperplate, and a still worse bust on his
tomb. And in like manner, if he had been duly honored, specimens of his
handwriting would have been preserved to us by the hundred, instead of being
confined, as is the case, to the signatures to a few legal documents. The
Portuguese are still proud of their only poet Camoens. He lived, however, on
alms collected every evening in the street by a black slave whom he had brought
with him from the Indies. In time, no doubt, justice will be done everyone;
tempo e galant uomo; but it is as late and slow in arriving as in a court of
law, and the secret condition of it is that the recipient shall be no longer
alive. The precept of Jesus the son of Sirach is faithfully followed: Judge
none blessed before his death. He, then, who has produced immortal works, must
find comfort by applying to them the words of the Indian myth, that the minutes
of life amongst the immortals seem like years of earthly existence; and so,
too, that years upon earth are only as the minutes of the immortals…. This lack
of critical insight is also shown by the fact that, while in every century the
excellent work of earlier time is held in honor, that of its own is
misunderstood, and the attention which is its due is given to bad work, such as
every decade carries with it only to be the sport of the next. That men are
slow to recognize genuine merit when it appears in their own age, also proves
that they do not understand or enjoy or really value the long-acknowledged
works of genius, which they honor only on the score of authority. The crucial
test is the fact that bad work Fichte's philosophy, for example if it wins
any reputation, also maintains it for one or two generations; and only when its
public is very large does its fall follow sooner…. Now, just as the sun cannot
shed its light but to the eye that sees it, nor music sound but to the hearing
ear, so the value of all masterly work in art and science is conditioned by the
kinship and capacity of the mind to which it speaks. It is only such a mind as
this that possesses the magic word to stir and call forth the spirits that lie
hidden in great work. To the ordinary mind a masterpiece is a sealed cabinet of
mystery, an unfamiliar musical instrument from which the player, however much
he may flatter himself, can draw none but confused tones. How different a
painting looks when seen in a good light, as compared with some dark corner!
Just in the same way, the impression made by a masterpiece varies with the
capacity of the mind to understand it. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">After
look at these ancestors in human history, I have nothing to ask for in my life because
I have seen my whole life. Apart from Copernicus, Bacon, Descartes, Locke and Newton,
here I need to add another great guy named Gregor Mendel, who established many
of the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance
and remains the acknowledged father of genetics. Here I don't want to explain his
theories in detail which belong to the basic knowledge of biology in high
school, and instead of this, I'd like to give a brief account of the injustice
he suffered in his life as a supplement, and he was not mentioned by
Schopenhauer because he was born after Schopenhauer. He did not see the
brilliance he had created either, and his findings were rejected during his
time and it was several decades after his death that he was credited for his
revolutionary discovery. His work was rejected again and again and didn't bring
him any fame or success (Breaking news: I just got two rejections from </span><span lang="EN-US">SocArXiv and preprints.org in February, 2021</span><span lang="EN-US">). Mendel first presented his findings at two
meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia in early 1865. His
paper on the subject, which was titled Experiments on Plant Hybridization, was
published in the society's journal the following year. At the time his work was
rejected by the scientific community. Mendel ordered 40 reprints of his paper
to send to famous European scientists, including von Marilaun, Kerner,
Beijerinck, Boveri, Schleiden, and the Swiss botanist Karl Wilhelm von Nageli.
It is said that Mendel had sent his paper to Darwin. Whether Darwin had
received Mendel's paper or not is impossible to prove, but the only thing to be
sure is that he didn't receive any positive response from so-called authority
at his time. The vast significance of Mendel's work was not realized till 1900
when his findings were rediscovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, after
Mendel's death and 35 years after the publication of his paper. I feel that my
life is a copy of him. I have sent my papers to many famous world-class
scientists, but I have not received any positive response either. The
experience of these predecessors has given me a little enlightenment: Success
needs friends, and, however, great success needs enemies. The universal
character of the Savior is that he was rejected by his time because his theory
surpasses the cognition of his contemporaries. All truth passes through three
stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is
accepted as being self-evident. The theory of the Savior is subversive, aiming at
overturning the old authority, which is bound to damage the interests of the
old authority. So-called great expert scholars and experts are only apologists
for the existing order. I've realized very clearly that I can't get any
positive response from my time. Johannes Kepler said, “I give myself up to
divine ecstasy .... My book is written. It will be read either by my
contemporaries or by posterity — I care not which. It may well wait a hundred
years for a reader, as God has waited 6,000 years for someone to understand His
work.” </span><span lang="EN-US">No wonder, then, that his book took hold slowly.
</span><span lang="EN-US">The Saviors affect
the human society with a long lag. Why did God arrange this? Maybe, God is
worried that the Saviors are probably corrupted by fame. Several centuries ago,
astronomers debated whether the earth or the sun was at the center of the solar
system. It is a simple concept which human takes a long time to grasp, and the
Savior is here to end that division. Has it reverted to its mistaken behavior
in the 1500s? Evolution is a constant repetition in different time and space. Saviors
cannot count on people immediately believing them when they announce a truth. </span><span lang="EN-US">Now it is not surprising that people can disagree about the direction
in which truth lies for the same reason neurology is a very young science, and
there is still much to be learned. </span><span lang="EN-US">Although the problem of female orgasm has generated much intellectual
turmoil over the past century, I want to see that in my life elites can reach a
consensus about female orgasm. If all women were laid end to end, they would
not reach a conclusion. Drawing on these predecessors, I know I can't see the
brilliance I created either because I am a person ahead of my time. I believe
myself to be writing a book on human evolutionary theory which will largely
revolutionize—not, I suppose at once, but in the course of the next hundred
years—the way the world thinks about human evolutionary problems.... I can't
expect contemporaries to believe this at the present stage. The work of genius
is a sort of gamble, either a masterpiece or rubbish. There is no middle
ground. The Savior is both lucky and unlucky. Fortunately, they were chosen by
God as preachers. Unfortunately, they are just no more than a piece of God, a
very important piece at most. Saviors must be practical. I am no knave. I knew
work have to be done and the secular life have to continue. I feel like I need
to use a subjunctive mood here, and I guess I'm destined to keep a low profile
for the rest of my life, but I am sure I will own a class on the course of </span><i><span lang="EN-US">Foundation of Modern Social Thought</span></i><span lang="EN-US"> in </span><span lang="EN-US">Yale university, and at that time,
the teacher is not going to say, “I am afraid they are all fathers, no mothers
among them.” Anyway, like the words inscribed in Stendhal's tombstone, “Il a
vécu, il a écrit, il a aimé,” my tombstone will be engraved, “She read, she thought,
she wrote, she researched.” If I were alive at 70, I should start writing my
autobiography. I want to leave good scripts for the BBC. I like three episodes
of Miniseries made by BBC very much. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The hand of God</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The emergence of genius is inevitable, but
also accidental. Like I said before, in human evolution, the cycle matters a
lot. In fact, the emergence of the Savior is inevitable because at the end of
each cycle, namely at the end of pseudo equilibrium, God will always send a
savior to show the way for the future development of mankind. After the system
loses its balance, there must be someone to stand up. We were touching on a
period big with the most important changes, changes that would in some measure
be decisive of the future fate of mankind. Saviors are the products of their
times, a combination of genes and the environment together. Let me put it
another way, the Savior is inevitable, who is the Savior is accidental. In my
opinion, the explanation for anything in the world is cycle plus probability. Probability
is the likelihood that a given outcome will occur. Our interpretation of
probability can depend on the nature of the uncertain event, on the beliefs of
the people involved, or both. The birth of the Savior also conforms to this
Law: The Savior is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration,</span><span lang="EN-US"> but sometimes,
one-percent inspiration is more important than ninety-nine percent perspiration.
The efforts of the Saviors are based on talents that others don't have, but it's
also important not to give up. I'll bet I'm not the first woman to get five
seconds of shivering, but I'm the first one not to give it up. I agree with
what Schopenhauer said that several highly favorable circumstances must combine
to produce genius, and this is a very rare event. In my opinion, the birth of
the Savior is like the process of winning the lottery, full of uncertainty. For
example, there is a lottery in China called Double Color Ball: Players pick six
red numbers from 1 to 33 and a single blue ball from a pool of 1 to 16. To win
the top prize, a player must match the entire winning line drawn. Let's
calculate the winning probability=1/C<sub>33</sub><sup>6</sup>*C<sub>16</sub><sup>1</sup></span><span lang="EN-US">= 1/17721088. I just make an example, and in fact, the probability
of the Savior is far lower than this number. Maybe only the blue ball is the
Savior's gene, and the other six red balls are other harsh external conditions.
So, the same logic can be applied to the Saviors, like there must be winning
numbers in every lottery, but who wins is uncertain, there must be a Savior in every
cycle, but who is the one is uncertain. For another example: There must be
three basic conditions for combustion: (1) combustibles, such as wood, natural
gas, oil, etc.; (2) combustion-supporting gas, such as <span style="color: #333333;">oxygen</span>
etc.<span style="color: #333333;">; (3) ignition source. When these three
elements interact at the same time, combustion will occur. When so many c</span>oincidences
come together at same time in one person, it is not coincidence but Providence.
The Saviors cannot be replicated because they are the results of a combination
of internal genes and external harsh environments under their ages. You could
find that good education can only make the elite appear, not the genius, because
the Savior is a masterpiece of God, not a masterpiece of education.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And, then, in addition to the periodicity
and contingency of the birth of the Savior, what other rules can be followed? What
kind of nation or country will the Savior be born in? let me put it another
way, what are the preferences for the birth of the Savior? The Savior, as a
mutation, must have something to do with quantity. The most obvious factor is
population: Simply put, countries with more people will, other things equal, have
more the Saviors in history. According to this point, I am optimistic about
China and India. The advantage of population is obvious, but this is not the
full story. The Savior will not be born in a very poor or very rich family. It
is because </span><span lang="EN-US">poverty</span><span lang="EN-US"> would </span><span lang="EN-US">stop
your ability to think and wealth would</span><span lang="EN-US"> stop your
insight of the nature of society. Like Schopenhauer said, Needy surroundings and poverty produce pain;
while, if a man is more than well off, he is bored; accordingly, while the
lower classes are engaged in a ceaseless struggle with need, in other words,
with pain, the upper carry on a constant and often desperate battle with
boredom. Let me explain them one by one. Poor people are so busy living that
they have no time to read, think, travel around the world to open</span><span lang="EN-US"> mind and write. </span><span lang="EN-US">Undisturbed leisure is a necessary factor for the birth of the
Savior. </span><span lang="EN-US">For ordinary
people, leisure has no value, and, as Seneca says illiterate leisure is a form
of death, a living tomb. But leisure is essential to the creation of the Saviors</span><span lang="EN-US"> who need undisturbed leisure for reading, observing, studying,
meditating, practicing. The greatest minds of all ages have set the highest
value upon undisturbed leisure, as worth exactly as much as the man himself. If
these two unnatural circumstances, external, and internal, undisturbed leisure
and great intellect, happen to coincide in the same person, it is not only coincidence
but destiny. Never let anything disturb them in the pursuit of their
intellectual life is what they believe in all their lives. After looking at
myself, I have nothing to complain about because not only my age permits me to fulfill
my vocation without too much distraction in my own small corner, but I can
travel around the world as well although I don't make much money. I have to
embrace the times and circumstances I live in because I can't change them, and
I shouldn't feel lost and sad because this is my destiny and yours as well. Wealth
can give people leisure, but also can make them lose themselves and the insight of human
nature. There is an old saying in China, “The poor produce treacherous and the
rich develop conscience.” The rich, especially the second or third generation
of the rich, whose wealth comes from inheritance (initial endowment), know
nothing about the difficulty of making money whose essence is to understand,
grasp and manipulate human nature. There is another saying in China, “Wealth
does not pass three generation,” which is true in most instances, because the
third-generation of rich have already lost the understanding, grasp and
manipulation of human nature, thinking of the world and the poor too well. Not
only that, but there is a survival segregation between the poor and the rich by
living in different spaces, although they live in the same times. Like different
electrons should stay in different orbits, people with different opportunity
costs and different utility trade-offs should stay in different areas. There is
also a Western proverb to describe, “Birds of a feather flock together.” You
could easily find that in any country, rich neighborhood and poor neighborhood are
always segregated, which is rational and stable strategy because segregation is
always a stable and conservative strategy, rational choices only leading to suboptimal
result. Just because of this segregation, the third-generation of rich, who grew
up surrounded by love, don't know the living and psychological state of the poor
at all, and do think that love can solve everything. In fact, there is no love
in the world of the poor, but business only. The world of the poor is more
realistic because money is more important to the poor. Their purpose of giving
birth is not from love, but from the instinct of genes and the need of
individual against age. In short, the poor have no leisure to think, while the
rich have leisure but have lost the ability to think. Of course, there are many
other conditions: for some examples, the first female Savior couldn't be born
in the West because the beds there are too soft (embarrassing); in addition to
thanking my mother for my growth, I also thank the Chinese one-child policy
because as a girl born in the city, I am the beneficiary of the one-child
policy at the expense of those girls born in rural area. In the generation of
single children, parents pay too much attention and money to education and
training because my mother had no other reproductive channel but me and she
pinned all her hopes on me. Poor education prevents many gifted girls from
reaching their potential. In addition, the growth environment also plays a very
important role. Why were so many Saviors born in the 17th and 18th centuries in
UK history? Because that times is the barbaric growth initial period of
capitalism. Growing up in this cruel age full of blood and lies, you had to use
your brain to do anything, which helped the Savior grew and matured from the
outside. Now, because of mediocrity and high welfare, the Savior has refused to
be born in the West. I am destined to be born in China that is in the most
brutal period of initial barbaric growth of capitalism. I find another
phenomenon that many saviors were raised by single mothers, which increased the
Savior's insight into this cruel society, I think. Everything is fate, doomed. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Savior is like a new mutant rebel, suddenly appearing at
the end of the pseudo-equilibrium where the ordinary people don't think about
the essence of things yet and take everything for granted. In short, the
ordinary people don't have transcendent. Unlike the ordinary people, the most
remarkable characteristic of the Savior is transcendence both physically and
mentally. That is why there is no female Savior before me because a person who cannot
achieve physical transcendence is not qualified to talk about mental transcendence
at all. Women can have outstanding talents, but they are not Saviors, because
women don't have transcendence. So far, woman is one of the ordinary people. Like
I said before, a person who even can't achieve Physiological needs in first
level can't achieve Self-actualization in top level. It is hardly surprising
that ordinary people have still not achieved grand Saviors status. All of them
subject to the inertia that is pretty deep and real in pseudo-equilibrium, but
only Saviors can reject this general-will or group thinking because of
extremely lucidity of their minds. They show very deep thoughts which are far more
than that of their contemporaries. Witty and even learned people, they are. If
we want to evolve, we need the Saviors forever, who are going to reshape and rebuild
men's minds because they have unique understandings, extraordinary insight and completely
radical revolutionary idea. Each emergence of the Savior in human history means
subverting some old rules because their mission is to reset the game according
to their own theory. Saviors are destined to turn upside down prevailing
thought on externalities that the ordinary people know in a certain field. Those
ideas generally recognized to be true by the society may also be lies. Even some
ideas that everyone agrees with and often says frequently also can be wrong, for
all use arguments that presuppose its truth. The cool thing about the truth is
that these incredibly beyond the comprehension of the ordinary's minds. The
ordinary people's comprehension is trapped in the original dimension where all
the fallacies are linearly dependent. What is linearly dependence? What is
linearly independence? What is original dimension? What is new dimension? For
example, we can represent a two-dimensional plane with two linearly independent
vectors. These two independent vectors span a plane, and any vector in this
plane can be represented by a linear combination of these two vectors. If this
vector is on that plane, it can be represented as a linear combination of these
two vectors. The span of these two vectors equals all the vectors in R<sup>2</sup>.
As long as any two vectors are not collinear, they are going to define a kind
of two-dimensional space. Even though we have two vectors, but they are
essentially collinear, which means they are multiples of each other, we can't
span R<sup>2</sup> with these two vectors. When we have two collinear vectors
in R<sup>2</sup>, essentially their span just reduces to a line that there is
no way to kind of break out of. We call these two vectors linearly dependent.
Linearly dependent just means that one of the vectors in the set can be
represented by some combination of the other vectors in the set. Similarly, in
order to define R<sup>3</sup>, a third vector can't be coplanar with those two.
If this third vector is coplanar with these two, it is not adding any more
directionality, or it is not giving us any new dimension. So, this set of three
vectors will also be linearly dependent. At least, one of vectors is not going
to add anything to the span of our set of vectors. In order to span R<sup>3</sup>,
the third vector will have to break out of the plane. If a vector is breaking
out of that plane, that means it is a vector that cannot be represented
anywhere on that plane, so it is outside of the span of those two vectors.
Where it is outside, it can't be represented by a linear combination of these
two vectors, and then we can think of these three vectors as linearly
independent. As I said, everything is interlinked and united, and then how to
apply this theory of linear algebra to my theory? Before the Savior appeared,
human beings are in the original dimension(R<sup>2</sup>) where all theories
are linearly dependent. For example, at present, all theories and all ideas
about female orgasm are linearly dependent. I downloaded a lot of papers written
from famous western professors in Springerlink, and I found all of them can reduce
to one concept that P-V model is good for women as well. One theory can be
represented by a sum of the other ones. In short, human is trapped in the
original dimension no matter how many papers they write, and no one's theory
can span a new dimension by breaking out of the original dimension. To put it
another way, their theories and research results are not transcendent. But,
there is a big but here, my theory cannot be represented by a linear
combination of their any theory because my theory is adding new directionality.
My calling is to add a new dimension to human evolutionary history. In summary,
before Saviors, the works of the ordinary are just simple repetitions without
transcendence by scaling and adding in the original dimension at most, but only
the Saviors can span a new dimension. In addition to the theory of linear
algebra, I can also use spectroscopy theory to describe this transcendence. According
to Wikipedia, the electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies (the
spectrum) of electromagnetic radiation and their respective wavelengths and
photon energies. The electromagnetic spectrum covers electromagnetic waves with
frequencies ranging from below one hertz to above 10<sup>25</sup> hertz,
corresponding to wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of
the size of an atomic nucleus. This frequency range is divided into separate
bands, and the electromagnetic waves within each frequency band are called by
different names; beginning at the low frequency (long wavelength) end of the
spectrum these are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light,
ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays at the high-frequency (short wavelength)
end. The visible spectrum is a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum
that is visible to the human eyes, for atypical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 380 to 740 nanometers.
The vision of the ordinary is always limited, and the mission of the Savior is
to constantly expand the vision of human beings to the macro or micro level. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The acid test of science is its ability to
predict the future, in particular, hitherto unknown facts. Like Prometheus, the
Savior is a prophet of human beings, who is a person with the ability to
predict the future, real predictions instead of post-dictions. The prediction
of the future includes two aspects: What will happen? And when will it happen? The
mission of the Savior is to solve these two problems. The masses have no
ability to predict. Lack of understanding of the past and the present, all
speculation and prediction are groundless subjective fantasy. I've explained in
detail the pattern of human evolution in previous chapters: There is a loop
between equilibrium and pseudo equilibrium. Like I said before, any Saviors
must be born in a pseudo equilibrium because equilibrium means truth where
Saviors are not going to show up. Mainstream western economics is based on
equilibrium theory, and every man is an Economic Man. What is an Economic Man? Economic
man refers to an idealized human being who acts rationally and with complete
knowledge, who seeks to maximize personal utility or satisfaction. Economic man
is an assumption of many economic models, and is also known as homo economicus.
Economics does not involve irrational person and pseudo equilibrium too much,
which is not hard to understand because you can't predict what absurd things an
irrational person will do. </span><span lang="EN-US">Using economy to describe the real world is applicable only to
equilibrium state, not pseudo equilibrium state. Equilibrium did not hold in pseudo
equilibrium state. </span><span lang="EN-US">So, there's a branch of economics
called discrimination economics. Equilibrium corresponds to efficient market
where t</span><span lang="EN-US">here is no arbitrage space and profits exceeding normal returns cannot be
realized; pseudo equilibrium state corresponds to weak-form market efficiency
or semi-strong-form market efficiency where there is arbitrage space and profits
exceeding normal returns can be realized. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The first problem is how to predict what
will happen. To be honest, it is n</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">ot too hard to answer. In my opinion, all pseudo
equilibria are based on two points: 1. Irrational participants; 2. Asymmetric
information. The former needs time to become more and more pragmatic, while the
latter is the task of the Savior to provide the truth (common knowledge) to the
public. The future that the Savior predicts is no more than the next
equilibrium based on the truth. In the pseudo equilibrium state, the market is
irrational. Precisely speaking, there are irrational participants in the
market. It is these irrational people who create irrational exuberance and prevent
equilibrium achieving. </span><span lang="EN-US">For example, in the number game
in Yale</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s open course of Game Theory, 1 would have been the winning answer,
but not actually, because not everyone is rational. As long as one participant
is irrational, 1, this equilibrium, cannot be achieved because any irrational
decision will also interfere with the formation of the final equilibrium price
which is determined by all market participants. In fact, it is asking a lot to
get to 1 here. As long as all participants are pretty sophisticated game players
and they share the same common knowledge, there is one and only one answer, 1,
left in this game. At the beginning of the pseudo-equilibrium state, the choice
of 1 is difficult to win because the Savior is the only one who knows the
equilibrium of this game is 1. When all people are rational, this game has only
one solution. Irrational people are sentimental. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">People with certain kinds of brain damage may
make better investment decisions. That is the conclusion of a new study
offering some compelling evidence that mixing emotion with investing can lead
to bad outcomes. The study suggests the participants</span><span lang="EN-US">' </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">lack of emotional responsiveness
actually gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game. Some
neuroscientists believe good investors may be exceptionally skilled at suppressing
emotional reactions. The more irrational people are, the more they are the
favorite of capitalists. This is also the fundamental reason why women are
liberated. Why don't people always act in their own self-interest when they
make decisions? Maybe it is because animal spirits or behavioral inertia. In
other words, not all people adjust instantly to changing conditions outside.
Some people lag behind. Habit is the second instinct of human beings.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"> </span><span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">“<span lang="EN-US">All knowledge and habit, once acquired,</span>”<span lang="EN-US">writes Schumpeter,</span>“<span lang="EN-US">becomes as firmly rooted
in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">Look
though the veil, and don</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">'t get all mixed up by the fact that there is illusion. It is the real
thing that you want to concentrate on as much as you can. Apply economic
thinking to your daily life. The world may never look the same again. Direction
is more important than effort. Doing the right things is more important than right
doing things. Benjamin Franklin ever said, “you would persuade, you must appeal
to interest rather than intellect.” Only interest can break habits. Mainstream
economics need not assume that everyone is rational all of the time—instead it
assumes that economic forces will, over time, push people and institutions
toward more rational behavior. Rational participants looking for a bargain will
correct the irrational historical trend, but it needs to take time. If I appeal
to interest rather than intellect, I can't persuade them either, and it must be
fate or destiny. Their intellect and interest are inconsistent with God's
interest, and God concealed their rationality. To put it another way, individual
will and genetic will rule human beings alternately. I said it many times that human
evolution needs victims because God face the short-run trade-off between
victims and degeneration. Under a pseudo-equilibrium state which is full of
lies, due to lack of common knowledge and some irrational participants,
equilibrium cannot be achieved. The real antagonist in my intellectual life was
not cheats but suckers, and i<span style="mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">t is not a
realistic goal to eliminate all victims and all lies at same time given the
limits of human knowledge and the inherent defects of human evolution. In
short, victims are necessary in human evolutionary road. "A truth's
initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over
generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving
lunatic,” said Dresden James. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The second problem is when it will happen. This
question is more difficult to answer than the first one. For example, Soros had
predicted that the bull market in US stocks would end in the Reagan term. It
turned out that he was right, but a little late. The bear market happened
during Reagan's second term. Equilibrium is not hard to predict if you're a
rational person. The most difficult thing to predict is the process and time
(where it can deviate and when it can reach equilibrium) because every
irrational person's participation will change this schedule. Reflexivity in
economics is the theory that investors don't base their decisions on reality,
but rather on their perceptions of reality instead. The actions that result
from these perceptions have an impact on reality, or fundamentals, which then
affects investors' perceptions and thus prices. The process is self-reinforcing
and tends toward disequilibrium, causing prices to become increasingly detached
from reality. The theory of reflexivity has its roots in sociology, but in the
world of economics and finance, its primary proponent is George Soros. The idea
is centered around there being two realities; objective realities and
subjective realities. Objective realities are true regardless of what
participants think about them. Subjective realities on the other hand are
affected by what participants think about them. Our collective thinking is what
moves markets and produces winners and losers. This means that what we think
about reality affects reality itself. And that reality in turn affects our
thinking once again. Soros argued that financial markets, far from accurately
reflecting all the available knowledge, always provide a distorted view of
reality, and the degree of distortion may vary from time to time. Sometimes it's
quite insignificant, at other times it is quite pronounced. What Soros is
saying is that markets are in a constant state of divergence from reality —
meaning, prices are always wrong. Soros believes that reflexivity challenges
the idea of economic equilibrium because it means prices might deviate from the
equilibrium values by a significant amount persistently over time. As evidence
for his theory, Soros points to the boom-bust cycle and various episodes of
price bubbles followed by price crashes, when it is widely believed that prices
deviate strongly from the equilibrium values implied by economic fundamentals. I
basically agree with his theory because the participation of irrational people indeed
interfere with the market equilibrium striking. Today, under the rampant liberalism,
the right of these irrational people to trade freely has been magnified
infinitely, which is, of course, a capitalist conspiracy. I have to admit that
in the pseudo equilibrium, some people's excessive profits are at the expense
of others' excessive loses, but Soros also failed to clarify the specific
timetable for the return. In the trading civilization, making money becomes a
game that caters to irrational people, not to the rational people. In the
number game, it's hard to win in an irrational group. Newton lost a lot of
money in stocks as well. In the pseudo equilibrium state, in order to obtain
continuous arbitrage and excess returns, vested interest groups must try every
means to brainwash the victims. Fooled education or enslavement education is
always the dominant strategy under any system. Human exploration of any problem
will certainly converge to its truth, but the process is rather bumpy. Human
beings are condemned to a perpetual oscillation between truth and lies. Soros
ever said, “Economic history is a never-ending series of episodes based on
falsehoods and lies, not truths. It represents the path to big money. The
object is to recognize the trend whose premise is false, ride that trend, and
step off before it is discredited.” Drawing on the words from Soros, human history
is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. My
time expresses it incisive that barbarians kill each other and civilized people
deceive each other. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">What will be, will be, but there are some
prerequisites. There is an old saying called, “Man Plans, and God Laughs.” God
is really making concessions in its planned way. </span><span lang="EN-US">This may sound crazy, but there is reason to
believe that it won</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t </span><span lang="EN-US">lead you too far
astray. God chose the strategy of “Trading space for time.” To put it another
way, God uses flexibility to wait for alternatives. So, victims and lies have
to exist simultaneously in the pseudo-equilibrium lest human beings should
encounter degeneration. Human evolution always has to sacrifice some people,
and the key question is to sacrifice who. The absurd very possible each
contains an element of truth. During pseudo-equilibrium, people are confused
about any imaginary axis. Imaginary axis is a veil, but when the veil flutters,
real output sputters. Before we're ready, the veil is the only fig leaf that
can't be lifted. Economic equilibrium is a misleading guide to current social
affairs. The transition from the short-run pseudo-equilibrium to the long-run
equilibrium, human need to prepare a lot in material civilization and spiritual
civilization, and people's awakening will work with a long lag. We can regard
pseudo-equilibrium as short-run fluctuations in human social evolution. How to
judge whether it is long-term or short-term depends on the time horizon. From
the perspective of human evolution, pseudo-equilibrium</span><span lang="EN-US"> is temporary instea</span><span lang="EN-US">d of permanent, but for the individual, it is truly permanent. Keynes
said, “the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs because in the
long run we are all dead.” Thus, if human want to get a virtuous circle, it
must endure a period of confusion. Timing matters a lot. The coming boom, and
the coming collapse. We can find God's instructions in the Bible. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">His disciples wanted to know when God's
Kingdom would come, and they asked Jesus: “When will these things be, and what
will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of
things?” (</span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/24/#v40024003" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;">Matthew 24:3</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">)
Jesus did not give them the exact date, but he told them what would happen just
before the end of this world. What Jesus said would happen is happening right
now…. In this chapter we will discuss evidence that we are living in the time
just before the end of the world. First, we need to learn about a war that
took place in heaven so that we can understand why things are so bad here
on earth…. The Bible says that it would be a time of trouble for mankind.
Why? Because the Devil is very angry, “knowing that he has a short period of
time.” The Devil is causing as much trouble as he can on earth. He's furious
because he has a short time left before God removes him. Let us examine what
Jesus said would happen during the last days…. The prophet Daniel wrote about
the last days. He said: “The true knowledge will become abundant.” (</span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/daniel/12/#v27012004" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;">Daniel 12:4</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">)
God would give his people the ability to understand the Bible more clearly than
ever before. Jehovah has done this especially since 1914…. Do you believe that
we are living in the last days? Many Bible prophecies about the last days are
coming true. Soon Jehovah will decide to stop the preaching of the good news
and “the end” will come. (</span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/24/#v40024014" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;">Matthew 24:14</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">)
What is the end? It is Armageddon, when God will remove all wickedness. Jehovah
will use Jesus and his powerful angels to destroy anyone who refuses to obey
Him and his Son. (</span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/2-thessalonians/1/#v53001006-v53001009" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;">2 Thessalonians 1:6-9</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">) After that, Satan and his demons will not mislead people. And
all those who want to obey God and accept his Kingdom will see every promise of
God come true.</span><span style="font-family: "MS Mincho"; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "MS Mincho";"></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/revelation/20/#v66020001-v66020003" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;">Revelation 20:1-3;</span></a><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/revelation/21/#v66021003-v66021005" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;"> 21:3-5</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">….
This world ruled by Satan will soon come to its end…. The apostle Paul
explained that the destruction of the wicked will come when most people don't
expect it, “as a thief in the night.” (</span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-thessalonians/5/#v52005002" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9pt; text-decoration-line: none;">1 Thessalonians 5:2</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">) Jesus prophesied that many would choose to ignore the evidence
that we're living in the last days. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Savior is transcendent, but not
omnipotent. Like everyone should be constrained by their budget line in
Economics, time and space also constrain human cognitive ability in evolution,
including all Saviors. I also have to be constrained by time and space because my
mission is to span the next dimension, not all behind. For example, let's say humans
are in the 23<sup>rd</sup> dimension, and I am only responsible for the 24<sup>th</sup>
dimension but not for the 25th. Human evolution would be step by step because humankind
cannot bear very much reality at one moment. The theory of the greatest Savior
is 90 percent right but not 100 percent right. Like the prices at different
time points are not comparable in Economics so there is a concept named discount
rate, people's cognitive ability is not comparable in different periods. John
D. Rockefeller was the richest Americans of all time, but he couldn't watch
television, play video games, surf the Internet, send e-mail, enjoy air
conditioning or travel by plane. No matter how rich you are, you would be
constrained by your times. Because of tremendous technological advances, the
average American today is arguably “richer” than the richest American a century
ago. Similarly, no matter how smart you are, you would be constrained by your
dimension. Because of the progress of the dimension, the ordinary people today see
“more” than the Savior a century ago. Are these ordinary people smarter than
the Savior a hundred years ago? Of course not. God don't become more generous,
and people are just going to accumulate and develop on the existing dimension spanned
by predecessors. You're ignorant if you don't respect Saviors because their
theories were flawed. This kind of evaluation is unfair and superficial. </span><span lang="EN-US">The primary reason that living
standards are higher today than they were a century ago is that technological
knowledge has advanced. We are in different dim</span><span lang="EN-US">ensions,
but the ordinary people today are as stupid as they were five hundred years ago
because this is God's script, and by the way our human beings will always need Saviors. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">John
Stuart Mill writes, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” in his
book <i>Utilitarianism</i>. The meaning of this quote varies based on what
makes an individual satisfied or dissatisfied. A fool can be satisfied but he
will not see all the aspects that Socrates will see. Thus, making him ignorant
to the reasons for Socrates dissatisfaction. Although Socrates claims to be
ignorant himself, he is one of most respected and studied philosophers in history.
This shows that he was clearly onto something with his ideals. I understand
what Mill means, but, unfortunately, pigs don't think so. In pigs' eyes, Socrates
is an alien, while Socrates doesn't understand the meaning of pig's life. In
real lives, the gap between people is even larger than that between people and
animals. What makes them different? Like I said before, identity decides fate,
and then fate decides thinking,
not the other way around. It derives from the
different division of labor. To put it another way, God gives the Saviors and
the public different identities to achieve his different purposes. Human
evolution is a process of continuous division of labor. God does have a
division of labor. </span><span lang="EN">God faces many decisions. It must decide which one plays
which part, and what jobs will be done and who will do them, and what each
member gets in return. In short, the God must allocate its scarce resources
among all members at any given time, taking into account everyone</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN">s abilities, efforts and
desires. </span><span lang="EN-US">Natural
ability is important for workers in all occupations. Because of heredity and
upbringing, people differ in their physical and mental attributes. Some people
are born strong, others born weak. Some people are born smart, others less so.
Some people are born outgoing, others awkward in social situations. Some people
are born with the physical attributes of a movie star; other people are not. People
differ in many ways. One difference is in what mission they have. God is also
looking for his economies of scale. higher production levels allow
specialization among workers, which permits each worker to become better at a
specific task. </span>“<span lang="EN-US">Jack of all trades, master of none.</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> This
well-known adage helps explain why firms sometimes experience economies of
scale. A person who tries to do everything usually ends up doing nothing very
well. If a firm wants its workers to be as productive as they can be, it is
often best to give each worker a limited task that he or she can master. Indeed,
the use of specialization to achieve social of scale is one reason modern
societies are as prosperous as they are. Each of us is a piece of God, assigned
different roles. Just play your part. The real generosity to the future is to
give everything to the present. Each of us just needs to play our part
according to God's script. The real generosity to the future is to give
everything to the present. This is incidentally good for the group as a whole
if each individual learns her place' relative to each other individual. Like
Dawkins said in his book, the new soup is the soup of human culture, called meme.
We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times
by independent 'mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it
replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and
great art. Why does it have such high survival value? The survival value of the
god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It
provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about
existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the
next. As same as a useful mutation gene, memes are working purposefully for
their own survival. We can apply the words like 'selfish' and 'ruthless' of
genes to memes. Memes must indulge in a kind of competition with each other. If
a meme is to dominate the attention of a human brain, it must do so at the
expense of 'rival' memes. Apparently, my rival memes are G-spot, vaginal
orgasm, orgasm together and utopianism. In the eyes of Saviors, any time spent
in doing other things than attempting to create the meme may be regarded as
time wasted. Unfortunately, the Savior is responsible for creating memes not
for broadcasting memes. The Savior has no interest in things that cannot last
forever. This is also the main reason why the Savior is far away from
reproduction. Reproduction can't not last forever. Dawkins wrote: “When we die
there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We were built as
gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be
forgotten in three generations. But as each generation passes, the contribution
of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions.
Our genes may be immortal but the collection<i> </i>of genes that is any one of
us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the
Conqueror. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old
king's genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction. But if you
contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune,
invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your
genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or
two alive in the world today, as G. C. Williams has remarked, but who cares?
The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going
strong.” Don't follow the crowed, let the crowed follow you. The inheritance of
genes from generation to generation is the bounden duty of the public. The
history of human thought evolution is a relay race of saviors in different
times. Now, it's my turn to run. The process of human evolution is a process of
constantly fighting against the old traditions, and these Saviors are born
innovators, rebels and dreamers. They do deem that they can change the
originally reversed world and reset it according to their own rules. The world
never lacks truth, and for example, the earth always revolves around the sun,
whether Copernicus appears or not, and, however, the world lacks the brain to
discover the truth. Dissatisfied Socrates with a mission was born under this
circumstance. What about a satisfied fool? Their deep-rooted bad habit lies in
that they take everything for granted. Level determines consciousness. Innumerable
things fall down before and may hit the head of many, but no other than Newton
wondered why the apple do not fly upwards? P-V model is chosen by God which is
definitely normal so they have never questioned this model. Similarly, I'm
definitely not the first woman who can use the dorsal root nerve, but so far, no
other than me want to figure it out. People are always used to something that
we shouldn't be used to, and persist in something that we shouldn't persist in.
</span><span lang="EN-US">The peculiar
characteristic of the philistine is a dull, dry kind of gravity, akin to that
of animals. </span><span lang="EN-US">If
everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen. The reason why the
public can't see the truth is that the truth is often complex and cruel. Even I
present the cruel truth to the public, the public can't catch it, if a person
doesn't have enough courage and wisdom. The truth is heavy, therefore few care
to carry it because humankind cannot bear very much reality at the same time. There
is an old idiom like this: In order not to let the road of truth be
overcrowded, fate makes most people lose their way. God's plan is to let only a
few people in the world see the truth because reason leads to bad results. God
has written about the fate of their foolish lives. Cognitive gap is the biggest
gap between the ordinary and Saviors. No longer can people at the different cognitive
level communicate, which is the only reason why genius and his contemporaries
can't communicate. There is no common measure between them. Never argue with
people of different levels. It's a useless loss to yourself. It is impossible to
defeat an ignorant man in argument, said William G. McAdoo who was an American
lawyer and statesman, U.S. secretary of the treasury (1913–18), a founder and
chairman (1914) of the Federal Reserve Board. We cannot be too sharp in
condemning the absurd notion that geniuses can be born from general elections.
The revulsion of the masses for every outstanding genius is positively
instinctive. Hitler wrote this in his Mein Kampf,</span>“<span lang="EN-US">It must never be forgotten that nothing really great
in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such
achievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual. Successes
achieved through coalitions (united fronts), owing to the very nature of their
source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them from the very start;
so much so that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place
in human thought, and have veritably transformed the aspect of the world, would
have been inconceivable & impossible to carry out except through titanic
struggles waged between individual natures, but never as the enterprises of
coalitions.” Those people who can see through the nature of things in three
seconds must be doomed to have different fates with those who can't see that in
their whole lives. The strongest will be destined to fulfil the great mission. How
to deal with the contradiction between the Savior and the public? Segregation
is the best strategy for both sides. Each side does its own thing, and neither
side needs to cater to each other. Can two walk together, except they be
agreed? Genius can't be friends with the ordinary because friends need to be
well-matched in level. Accordingly, the difference between a genius and an
ordinary man is a total diversity of world and existence. The Savior is
responsible for transcendence, and the public is responsible for balance. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></p><br /><p></p><p></p><p></p>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-85760916751473846572021-02-08T08:11:00.001-08:002021-03-19T19:57:53.628-07:00Feb.08 2021<p>My first time to submit a paper on preprint, but unfortunately I got two rejections. </p><p><br /></p>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-67062842478663317202020-02-03T07:08:00.002-08:002020-02-03T07:08:51.599-08:00Keep Mamba spirit aliveNever never give up!!!bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-40900851531717532812019-02-18T01:34:00.001-08:002021-03-12T06:45:05.471-08:00Chapter 7: The trade-offs of God<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Trade-offs between
violence and contract civilizations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span>“<span lang="EN-US">It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker that we expect our dinner,</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> says Smith, </span>“<span lang="EN-US">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.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">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</span>‐<span lang="EN-US">interested people, for self</span>‐<span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">the invisible hand,</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> as he called it,
whereby </span>“<span lang="EN-US">the private interests and passions of men</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> are led in the direction </span>“<span lang="EN-US">which is most
agreeable to the interest of the whole society.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">In
short, the selfish motives of men are transmuted by mutual restraint to yield
the most unexpected of results: social harmony. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US"> Ricardo saw a
bitter conflict in trade civilization. Li</span><span lang="EN-US">ke 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. </span>“<span lang="EN-US">The interest of the landlords
is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community,</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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.” </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Karl Marx was right, and
he told us that capital came into the world </span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">“<span lang="EN-US">dripping from head to foot, from every
pore, with blood and dirt.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">Capitalism only magnifies
this inequality. </span></span><span lang="EN-US">The free market is not a pain</span>‐<span lang="EN-US">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. H</span><span lang="EN-US">istory
is a pageant of ceaseless struggle between classes to partition</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">social
wealth. For as long as the technics of society change, no existing division of
wealth is immune</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">from attack. In my words, there
are only two things in human history: </span><span lang="EN-US">(1) how to divide profits; (2) how to share costs. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">Ned Ludd had passed.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">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: </span>“<span lang="EN-US">bread and blood</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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</span>—<span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">laws of motion</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> that described how
capitalism proceeded slowly, unwillingly, but ineluctably to its doom. The
Manifesto opened with ominous words: </span>“<span lang="EN-US">A spectre is
haunting Europe</span>—<span lang="EN-US">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</span>—<span lang="EN-US">for a brief moment</span>—<span lang="EN-US">it looked as if the old
order might break down. </span>“<span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'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” (</span><span style="font-family: "Batang","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Batang; mso-no-proof: yes;">기생충</span><span style="font-family: "Batang","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-no-proof: yes;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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?</span><span lang="EN-US"> At least
her legacy should be used for human beings instead of a dog. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.
</span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">As Teddy Roosevelt
put it, you could carve men with stronger backbones from bananas. No one is
safe when Congress is in session</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">—</span><span lang="EN-US">including
congressmen. Olson and Stigler portray special interest groups swinishly
struggling to stick their snouts in the public trough. Why does </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span>‐<span lang="EN-US">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? </span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">cruel bind</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> to the authorities. Apparently, those people who can pass
the cost on to the authorities have more market power in under imperfect market
economy. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Economic
freedom is a highly desirable state</span>—<span lang="EN-US">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: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Just stand there! Deregulate something!</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> But in reality, I have to act like Keynes: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Don't just stand there! Do something!</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">socialization</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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: </span>“<span lang="EN-US">In the long run we are all dead.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">short run</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> capitalism would indeed trace a long climbing trajectory, adding
that </span>“<span lang="EN-US">in these things, a century is a </span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">short
run.</span><span lang="EN-US"> '</span>”
<span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">not to do things which
individuals are doing already . . . but to do those things which are at present
not done at all,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">dilution</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">of</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">everyone</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">everyone</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">an oral contract is not worth the paper it's printed on.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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</span><span style="font-family: 宋体; mso-bidi-font-family: 宋体;">‐</span><span lang="EN-US">income American.
Giving all the Mexicans suitcases packed with pesos would not help. Merriment
does not necessarily follow more. M</span><span lang="EN-US">any of
the major economic fluctuations in history, including the Great Depression of
the 1930s, can be traced to destabilizing policy actions. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Full employment</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">economic growth</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">common prosperity</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">lowering the threshold</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">These aren't people. These are animals.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">if you eat a</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">pile of poo, I'll
give you a million dollars,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> and then Jack got a million
dollars after his eating shit. Another day, seeing another pile of poo, Jack
said to John that, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">if you eat a</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">pile
of poo, I'll give you a million dollars as well.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Everything has a cost</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US">, 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, </span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">Yellow Vests</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">
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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">€</span><span lang="EN-US">170 to </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">€</span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Trade space for time.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> Any trade-off problem follows this logic, even including
the trade-off between truths and lies. The so-called bullshit </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">human rights</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> are built at the expense of
others. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US">benefit from high union wages. </span><span lang="EN-US">In other words, workers in
unions reap the benefit of collective bargaining, while workers not in unions
bear some of the cost. That</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s
welfare. Monogamy also creates beneficiaries and losers in short run. </span><span lang="EN-US">These are all inequitable because some people benefit at
the expense of others. </span><span lang="EN-US">By the way, prohibition of transactions is equal to setting
a price ceiling of zero. As you know, prostitution as the world</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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 e</span><span lang="EN-US">verything 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 <i>big</i>
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. </span><span lang="EN-US">Ironically, this indoctrination
even begins with children. For example, in <i>The Lion King II: Simba's Pride</i>,
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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Having only one kidney can make
my better than two kidneys</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US">. The public may be </span><span lang="EN-US">misled into believing these fallacies. </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s
use of the common resource reduces other people</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">The middle class and the poor
will not be able to pay these fees and the rich will.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s
see how the Republicans and Democrats play the trade-offs together in recent
years. In the book of Microeconomics, Mankiw wrote: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">.... </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">.... </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s largest pirate site for academic papers, opened her email
to a message from the world</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s largest publisher: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">YOU HAVE BEEN SUED?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> Apparently, Sci-hub
posed a direct threat to the academic publisher</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s mode, the magazines don't charge the authors, but readers whoever
download the article pay, while in perfect Elbakyan</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s go back to the problem of piracy. As a smart government,
how to trade-offs between monopoly and infringement? Elsevier posted profit margins</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">of</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">more</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">than</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s clitoris, are useless for an individual in gene</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">gross indecency</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Human rights</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US">, neither is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Freedom</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US">. 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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Order matters a lot in
evolution.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">penis,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">the</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">pussy, the</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">baby?</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">All the shops are being robbed
by people and tourists and locals are taking food.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t think so. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">God</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s
strategy is the trade-off among conflicting objectives because the truth
conflicts with stability. Anyway, before getting ready for substitutes which
must</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">take</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">a</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">long</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">time to get prepared, the victims and deception are required
because </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Trade space for time</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s strategy is to
castrate people</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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:
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">subhumans</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US">). 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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">said, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">There is no God, but don</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">t
tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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.
</span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">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,</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s often referred to as </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">‘</span><span lang="EN-US">The Land of Buddhism</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US"> and many people travel here from all over the world to
study its teachings.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">’</span><span lang="EN-US">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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">You never know who</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s
swimming naked until the tide goes out.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> Women are swimming naked but they just don</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Truth is never
absent, but it is often late.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> You can</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">future</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">dangers</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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 <i>Let The Bullets Fly</i> 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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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 r</span><span lang="EN-US">aising
sons as insurance against old age in Chinese, which is just a unilateral
contract with unborn people. </span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Political Cycle</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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 </span><span lang="EN-US">take actions in their own interes</span><span lang="EN-US">ts. 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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">
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</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Conflict between genetic interests and individual interests<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Now
let</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">s take a look back at Dawkins's
point of view in the book of <i>The Selfish Gene</i>:</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">—</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">family,
nation, race, species, or all living things</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">—</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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? </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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: </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">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</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">....</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> In
the human sense they do not live as individuals at all; their individuality is
subjugated, apparently to the welfare of the community</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">…</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">. The sterile workers are the analogy
of our liver, muscle, and nerve cells</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">....</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">
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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Defect,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> 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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Last
is the personal self-consciousness. </span><span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">modern man.</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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</span>—<span lang="EN-US">even a useful </span>—<span lang="EN-US">goal in life would have appeared as nothing short of a doctrine of
the devil. In the book of <i>The Worldly Philosophers</i>, Robert L.Heilbroner carefully
describes people's behavior patterns before the idea of gain:</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">The absence
of the idea of gain as a normal guide for daily life</span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">—<span lang="EN-US">in fact the positive disrepute in
which the idea was held by the Church</span>—<span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">making a living</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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</span>—<span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">the
market</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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</span>—<span lang="EN-US">estates, manors, and principalities</span>—<span lang="EN-US">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</span></span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">s estate; he baked
at the lord</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">s oven and ground at the lord</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">s mill, tilled the lord</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">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 </span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;">“<span lang="EN-US">labor</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> of a freely contracting agent. </span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">labor</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> 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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span>“<span lang="EN-US">From the
hour of their birth,</span>”<span lang="EN-US"> wrote Aristotle, </span>“<span lang="EN-US">some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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:</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">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. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;"></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">An invisible hand
in human evolution<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span>?<span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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: </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">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</span><span lang="EN-US">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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</span>,<span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">“<span lang="EN-US">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 <i>Dailymail</i>, 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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 <i>Culture and Value: </i>“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. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;">Deceit and
self-deception in pseudo-equilibrium<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 <i>The Folly of Fools: The
Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life:</i></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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). </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 </span>“<span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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 <i>The
wealth of Nations</i>. 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 <i>The
Selfish Gene:</i> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></p><p class="Default">
</p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p></div>
bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-38807514633406181992019-02-15T03:56:00.001-08:002023-05-03T00:12:53.912-07:00Chapter 6: Human evolutionary models<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">People have been trying to uncover the
mystery of human evolution. Adam Smith, Darwin and Dawkins and other fathers
provided some solution. I will try to explain my theories in more general way.
In the previous chapter we discussed social evolution between sellers and
buyers from the micro perspective, and in this chapter, we discuss the
relationship between evolution and time from a macro perspective. I do believe
that the basic idea of human evolution is a superposition of countless cycles
that “Original equilibrium</span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">—<span lang="EN-US">Break equilibrium</span>—<span lang="EN-US">Maintain pseudo equilibrium</span>—<span lang="EN-US">Return to new
equilibrium”. We can call this “An Evolutionary Cycle.” Any product must go
through a life cycle stage: Introduction</span>—<span lang="EN-US">Growth</span>—<span lang="EN-US">Maturity</span>—<span lang="EN-US">Decline, and time is also a cycle:
There are four seasons in a year: Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter and there are
24 hours in a day, and every life has a cycle from birth to death. Similarly, Human
evolution also has periodicity. You will find an interesting conclusion here:</span></span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">History may not repeat itself but it does
rhyme. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The theory of “Human evolution platform”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The Following Figure 6.1 illustrates human
evolution platform from the perspective of time. Black solid lines represent
real equilibriums where both parties in the game have no incentive to deviate:
It is doing the best it can to maximize profit, given what its competitor is
doing. For example, under system of patriarchy and polygamy, women provided
sexual-services to men while men</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">feed women, and woman did not
have the incentive to work outside because she knew she had to be sex slave in
any case, and at the same time men did not have the incentive to not support
women materially because he would lose the sex-service if he chooses to not
feed women. The essence of marriage is prostitution, and the only difference
between prostitution and marriage is in the price and the length of time the
contract runs. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">For
both the sexual act is a service; the one is hired for life by one man; the
other has several clients who pay her by per time or per night. The essence of
both is the transaction of money and sexual service. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Marriage
or prostitution becomes a matter of mutual benefit under patriarchy and
polygamy. Symbiotic relationships of mutual benefit are the characteristic of
real equilibriums. Neither partner could be better off without the other. The
evolution of associations of mutual benefit is theoretically easy to imagine if
the favors are given and received simultaneously. In general, associations of
mutual benefit are steady states if each partner can get more out than he puts
in. The biggest mistake is that people misunderstand real equilibrium as a
result of the idea of “reciprocal altruism”, and in fact as a result of the
idea of “self-interest”. Each buyer and seller in a market is concerned only
about his or her own welfare; they are together led by an “invisible hand” to
an equilibrium that maximizes the total benefits to buyers and sellers. This
shows self-love and general welfares are not contradictory under equilibrium
state because trade can make everyone better off, so the problem became how to
split the surplus between the seller and buyer. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xZ8e0j-vZJg/XGaLSx45k_I/AAAAAAAACkI/foV5MkF6EBcd1gpKvlkmjA-6pn0lPGbpACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E5%258F%25B0%25E8%25BF%259B%25E5%258C%2596%25E7%2590%2586%25E8%25AE%25BA6.1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1256" data-original-width="1600" height="251" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xZ8e0j-vZJg/XGaLSx45k_I/AAAAAAAACkI/foV5MkF6EBcd1gpKvlkmjA-6pn0lPGbpACLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E5%258F%25B0%25E8%25BF%259B%25E5%258C%2596%25E7%2590%2586%25E8%25AE%25BA6.1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;">The equilibrium would generally last for a
long time, until a mutation breaks the equilibrium. It may be a natural
disaster or a sudden change in productivity. In fact, fluctuations are
irregular, and they are almost impossible to predict with much accuracy in
short-run. The authorities have manipulated the rules of the game to create new
winners and new losers for their own interests. The authorities choose a compromise
for their own interests because of the idea of “cruel bind”. All the
concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you can not completely
eliminate them because letting them live is the result of trade-off of the
authorities. It is simple to understand if you get the benefit of others, you
must pay part of it, especially the survival necessities. The interests of the
original pattern were broken, not yet formed a new pattern of interests, the
interests of creating a diverse variety of social conflict. Now we enter the
pseudo-equilibrium, and red solid lines represent the pseudo-equilibrium. In
order to gain more time for preparation for next real equilibrium, all kind of
absurd lies and cults emerge trying to keep going pseudo-equilibrium, such as
religion, love, morality, G-spot and vagina orgasms and so on. At the telophase of
pseudo-equilibrium, God will send a savior to end this chaotic situation. The
mission of Savior is to get preparation for human from spiritual aspect, and
break the pseudo-equilibrium and points out the next real-equilibrium. It is
hard to say how long pseudo-equilibrium will last (T2-T1), depending on a
number of factors because vested interests will do everything possible or
impossible to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium. By the way, pseudo-equilibrium
only belongs to our human evolution, and there is no pseudo-equilibrium in
non-human animals</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">' evolution, because
natural selection can completely eliminate the losers by death. If we watched a
population for many generations, we would see a series of occasional flips from
one stable state to the other. There is no mystery about this. It had to happen
by definition that the essence of natural selection was simply a selection of
stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones. The losers are quickly penalized
to extinction by natural selection, if they don't have effective
counter-strategies. As a result, occasionally mutant gene does succeed in
invading the set: it succeeds in spreading through the gene pool. There is no
religion, no love, no morality, but only life or death, so all animals are not
an inextricable chaos because they have a clear test: Survival of the
fittest. Another thing different from animals' world is the existence of
threshold, represented by magenta dotted lines. The only function of the
threshold is to absorb any deviations less than the value of threshold, as same
as in nerve conduction that a stimulus must reach the threshold to cause a
response in nerve conduction, or nerve conduction will fall into chaos if any
tiny stimulus would cause a response. We have known that gene mutation in
animals is not directional, and most of gene mutations are harmful while
only a few of them are favorable, but there is no need
having any threshold in animals' world because natural selection must penalize
the harmful gene mutations by completely eliminating them, because animals face
the rule of life and death that the losers must be penalized to be dead. We
must admit that the vast majority of social mutations are harmful and very few
of them are favorable, but the same logic doesn't work in human world, because
we face the rule of contract transaction that you can't completely eliminate
the losers who are crowded out by the economy market. In fact, a certain
proportion of reasonable people is beneficial to social stability, once a
population reaches this zone, it will be sucked inevitably towards the sensible
stable point, but trouble comes when the unreasonable people, including sellers
and buyers, reaches a certain proportion, so women are half victims, half
accomplices. More and more failed individuals join together to form a group,
and they resort to violence to create hard troubles for the winners from market
economy. They are short-sighted and aim at breaking the going equilibrium, but
they don't have the abilities to bring human into the next real equilibrium.
What about the threshold in pseudo-equilibrium? Free speech but no free
behavior. Prohibition of Sex-selective abortion is also a barrier to deter free
exit, aiming at keeping enough receptacles for men. In short, creating a
threshold is necessary in any human societies. There is a transitional period
of instability (T2-T3), represented by solid blue lines, terminating in a new
evolutionarily stable set. The transitional period lasts a very short time,
because the motive power of the process of natural selection completely
eliminates the losers immediately. In short in animals' world, a new useful
gene mutation spreads through the gene pool immediately, and losers and fools
must be punished by nature. In the end of human pseudo-equilibrium, we are
ready both in material and spiritual aspects, therefore we humans also quickly
into the next real-equilibrium. The only difference from animal's world is some
people would enter the new real-equilibrium and some people would go back to
previous real-equilibrium, because they have the so-called “human rights”.
Frankly speaking, I don't think the P-V model will disappear when the truth of
female orgasm comes out because the barbarians would resort to rape as same as they
resorted to violence.</span><span style="font-family: 等线;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The theory of “Matching principle”<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Next, I'm going to
elaborate on another theory from another point of view. Apparently, human being
as the most advanced life on the earth is not the only animal, because </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Darwin's
'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of
survival of the stable. The universe is populated by stable things. In other
words, all living creatures now are in stable state, and there is more than one
alternative stable point on the world. Similarly, the United States as the most
advanced civilization system on the earth is not the only system, because
Middle Eastern, East Asian and even African civilizations are not dead yet. In
other words, these civilizations are in stable state, and there must be more
than one alternative stable point in human evolution. Why? Dawkins gave two examples
in <i>The Selfish Gene</i> to clarify the
importance of matching: </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">One oarsman on his own cannot win the
Oxford and Cambridge boat race. He needs eight colleagues. Each one is a
specialist who always sits in a particular part of the boat—bow or stroke or
cox etc. Rowing the boat is a cooperative venture, but some men are
nevertheless better at it than others. Suppose a coach has to choose his ideal
crew from a pool of candidates, some specializing in the bow position, others
specializing as cox, and so on…. One of the qualities of a good oarsman is
teamwork, the ability to fit in and cooperate with the rest of a crew. This may
be just as important as strong muscles…. Suppose it is important in a really
successful crew that the rowers should coordinate their activities by means of
speech. Suppose further that, in the pool of oarsmen at the coach's disposal,
some speak only English and some speak only German. The English are not
consistently better or worse rowers than the Germans. But because of the
importance of communication, a mixed crew will tend to win fewer races than
either a pure English crew or a pure German crew…. The coach does not realize
this. All he does is shuffle his men around, giving credit points to
individuals in winning boats, marking down individuals in losing boats. Now if
the pool available to him just happens to be dominated by Englishmen it follows
that any German who gets into a boat is likely to cause it to lose, because
communications break down. Conversely, if the pool happened to be dominated by
Germans, an Englishman would tend to cause any boat in which he found himself
to lose. What will emerge as the overall best crew will be one of the two
stable states—pure English or pure German, but not mixed. Superficially it
looks as though the coach is selecting whole language groups as units. This is
not what he is doing. He is selecting individual oarsmen for their apparent
ability to win races. It so happens that the tendency for an individual to win
races depends on which other individuals are present in the pool of candidates.
Minority candidates are automatically penalized, not because they are bad
rowers, but simply because they are minority candidates. </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">
</span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">For example, a number of attributes are
desirable in an efficient carnivore's body, among them sharp cutting teeth, the
right kind of intestine for digesting meat, and many other things. An efficient
herbivore, on the other hand, needs flat grinding teeth, and a much longer
intestine with a different kind of digestive chemistry. In a herbivore gene
pool, any new gene that conferred on its possessors sharp meat-eating teeth
would not be very successful. This is not because meat-eating is universally a
bad idea, but because you cannot efficiently eat meat unless you also have the
right sort of intestine, and all the other attributes of a meat-eating way of
life. Genes for sharp, meat-eating teeth are not inherently bad genes. They are
only bad genes in a gene-pool that is dominated by genes for herbivorous qualities. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">In the above
two examples, we can conclude that there is no such gene called “good” or
“bad”, but only “match” or not. They exhibit the mutual dependence of the vital
actions, and points out how these are maintained in due balance. Everything
must be good or bad, right or wrong, depending on its accordance or discordance
with its organic environment. This is a subtle, complicated idea. It is
complicated because the 'environment' of a gene consists largely of other
genes, each of which is itself being selected for its ability to cooperate with
its environment of other genes. Apparently, it is important for the rowers to
cooperate with each other in boat race, and similarly sharp cutting teeth and
the right kind of intestine for digesting meat match each other very well in
carnivore's body, while flat grinding teeth and a much longer intestine match
each other very well in herbivore's body. More than that, I love to see the
show of animal worlds, and I find a universal law that the researchers wear
masks when they get into forest because some viruses which get along well with
human may cause death on animals. Vice versa. Isolation is always a
conservative stability strategy. Following the same logic, aside from the
questions of human rights and dictatorship, we must recognize that these
so-called backward civilizations are independent and in different stable
states. I admit that the Western civilization is advanced, but does not match
the underdeveloped nations. Progressive civilization may be not so much a
steady upward climb as a series of discrete steps from stable plateau to stable
plateau as same as energy transition in quantum mechanics. The following Figure
6.2 is my matching principle in evolution of human civilization. I admit that I
am not a progressive person because I am going to defend patriarchy, slavery,
polygamy, inequality, dictator, middle east civilization and colonization and
so on. </span></p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yIs0kzol1sM/XGaMIgAAneI/AAAAAAAACkQ/Md2qFtQOYFswjqETi8V4WkLao3S_RkWVACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E5%258F%25B0-%25E8%2583%25BD%25E9%2587%258F%25E7%2590%2586%25E8%25AE%25BA6.2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="890" data-original-width="1600" height="177" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yIs0kzol1sM/XGaMIgAAneI/AAAAAAAACkQ/Md2qFtQOYFswjqETi8V4WkLao3S_RkWVACLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E5%258F%25B0-%25E8%2583%25BD%25E9%2587%258F%25E7%2590%2586%25E8%25AE%25BA6.2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">All
things are unified and try to look for the inner connection between two things
seemingly nothing on the surface. Next, I try to use quantum mechanics to
explain the differences between civilizations in the world. Firstly, look at
the black thick lines in above figure which represent the different levels of
human civilization. We can regard E0 as the ground state of the barbarous
civilization where non-human animals take the “Survival of the fittest” as the
only rule; we can regard the E1, E2, E3 and all the way down to En as excited
states with different civilization level. All states are bound to the theory of
“self-love”, and we can view the potential civilization level (En) is set to
real freedom at infinite distance from E0, so people can't have absolute
freedom at each civilization level wherever you are, and all levels with
different civilization are all in stable states if without any outside
influence. Of course, ground state is in absolutely stable state, and other
excited states are in relatively stable states, because any excited state tends
to spontaneously drop from one excited state to a lower civilization level or
by a series of transitions to successively lower levels, ending at the ground
state. Generally speaking, when a society drops from a higher level to a lower
level it gains more stability by giving up some certain civilizations;
conversely when a society evolves from a lower level to a higher level it
enters less stability by having some certain civilizations. In order to move
from one civilization level to another, the society must gain or lose an amount
of civilization exactly equal to the civilization difference between the two
levels. Civilization transition is like discontinuous “jumps” from one quantum
state to another. For example, if a society wants to jump from E0 to E1, it
must only absorb certain quantum civilization exactly matched to the difference
(E1-E0) between E0 and E1. Additional, there are some smaller ladders, named
V0-1, V0-2, V0-3 and V0-4, between E0 and E1 which present by blue solid lines
called sub-states, maybe some an industry innovation such as agricultural
technology mutation or computer technology, and furthermore there are some much
smaller ladders, named R0-1, R0-2, R0-3 and R0-4, between E0 and V0-1 which
present by grey solid lines called sub-sub-states, maybe some innovation within
an industry such as CPU mutation, memory bank mutation or motherboard mutation.
Apparently, society must absorb so big change civilizations of E1-E0 if it
wants to jump from E0 to E1. The larger the civilizations of the states between
which the society jumps, the bigger the social transforms, so the ideal social
evolution is a small step by small step. In my view, different civilizations
developed independently at different levels, and the fact that each
civilization is not extinct yet illustrates all elements match each other very
well in its independent stable state. Material civilization and spiritual
civilization should be co-evolution. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">So
why is the world so chaotic now? The answer is simple:</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Mismatch problem. There are basically
four civilizations which evolved independently: The most advanced Western
Civilization, East Asian Civilization, Middle Eastern civilization and
Primitive civilization of Africa. After the segregation was broken by Western
dominated capitalism, the spread of material civilization from the high level
to low level is much faster than the spread of spiritual
civilization. This time lag leads to the chaos of the world. For example,
western civilization is in E1 state where Americans can have guns because they
don't abuse the guns, and they can have dogs because they don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t let dogs interfere with others, and they
can drive cars because they obey the traffic rules, and so on. Guns and dogs
are no problem and innocent, and the problem is who owns them and whether they
have the ability to control them? In short, the material civilization and
spiritual civilization are perfect matched in western nations. Because of the
global trade, material civilization quickly spread around the world, and
Chinese, African and even terrorist in Middle East quickly used advanced
weapons, cars and so on, and then they started to abuse these advanced things
if they are free to use them. Without advanced weapons, the terrorists don't
have any threat armed with sticks because maybe they are in V0-1 state where
sticks and their spiritual civilization are matched very well. The most
troublesome thing is mismatching problem that terrorists have advanced weapons
instead of sticks, because they have already accepted the western material
civilization but no matched western spiritual civilization, and then trouble
comes. For example, without the modern weapons brought by the western
colonists, there would be no Rwandan Genocide, because the sticks are not
powerful enough to kill one million people during less than two months. Of
course, there is other reason for Rwandan Genocide, and I am going to talk
about it later. Similarly, sticks can't destroy all humans, but nuclear weapons
can. The more high-tech, such as viruses and nukes, the higher civilization
holders are needed. The invention of electricity must require people to use it,
or else it must be electrocuted. Marx also expounded the concept of matching,
and if I am looking at a mode of production, we can characterize them by the
correspondence of the forces and relations of production; a certain level of
forces of production requires a certain type of relations of production, a
certain type of relationship between individuals. To be honest, Chinese don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t have automobile culture because
maybe they are in V0-2 state where bicycles and quality of Chinese people are
matched very well. The main contradiction of Chinese Society is that while the
buildings and technology are modernized, but the behavior and the general
qualities of the typical Chinese are still the same as before. In other words,
the modernized material civilization and decadent Chinese don't match each
other, so in order to keep maintain stability the government has to intervene.
If the government does not choose regulation, society will inevitably fall into
chaos, so dictatorship is inevitable. In other words, when in a system where
spiritual civilization and material civilization would lead to imbalance, there
is a need to have a strong authority to compensate the gap. The bigger gap
would be between spiritual civilization and material civilization, the
more they need control. Dictatorship is like a compensation mechanism arranged
by God in mismatching system. What would happen if the lack of regulatory
compensation? There is a very terrible result: Civilization degeneration.
Magenta arrows represent this degeneration in the above figure. Without
powerful regulation when spiritual civilization and material civilization don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t match, it means the whole society enters
a virtual state should built on lies, and faces three scenarios after the burst
of lies: </span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">①<span lang="EN-US">Rayleigh degeneration which returns to the starting state (V0-2); </span>②<span lang="EN-US">Stokes degeneration which returns to more advanced state (V0-4); </span>③<span lang="EN-US">Antistokes degeneration which returns to the more backward state
(E0). Apparently, the last one is the worst. For example, dictatorship,
spiritual civilization and material civilization in China now are matched in
V0-2 where people began to have a sense of private ownership and property
rights, but suddenly China takes the election system, and like I said before
the essence of the election is the tyranny of the majority to the minority,
election must lead to civilization degeneration maybe back to barbaric civilization
(E0), like proletarian violent revolution again, because China has a triangle
social structure now instead of a strong middle class. That is why democracy
doesn</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t work in China now. China
had a bitter lesson: One hundred years ago, the Chinese bourgeoisie overthrew
the Qing dynasty (V0-1), and try to establish bourgeois regime (Vv), but at
that time, the national quality is not enough to maintain Vv, so society soon
came back to E0 which is lower civilization than V0-1. Proletarian violent
revolution is definitely a typical throwback opposed the contract civilization
in human evolution by giving up some existing civilization. As long as the vast
majority of people find themselves able to benefit from the contract society,
they will be willing to abide by the spirit of contract, otherwise they would
choose using advanced weapons to return to the violence state because they can
benefit from violence. Keep in mind that violent civilization belongs to ground
state and all other civilization which created by human beings are in excited
states. To be honest, compared with violent civilization, contract civilization
is very fragile so victims must be required in human evolution. As a destiny
taker, the best strategy for any given individual was to follow suit. Evolution
is very difficult and slow, but the degradation of civilization is very lethal
and fast, and The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China was an
example. Don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t be too haste in human
evolution, because you would be a prophet if you take one step ahead, a
pioneer if you take two steps ahead, a martyr if you take three steps
ahead. There is an old saying in China, “More haste, less speed.” Direction is
more important than effort. When Chiang Kai-shek lost the mainland and
retreated to Taiwan, he summarized one lesson of his failure in his memoirs, “Forcing
democracy before reaching democracy.” We need to step by step in this gradual
transformation from barbaric civilization into contract civilization. The West
thinks it can bring civilization to the Middle East people, but the result is
to sink themselves in because something that suits West very well doesn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t suit Middle East. I happened to coincide
with Montesquieu on this point. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Environmental determinism<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Environmental
determinism, also known as climatic determinism or geographical determinism,
relies on an approach which implies that individuals are bound to their
environmental settings, especially climate. These forms of physical geographies
determine human behaviour, the existence of different forms of societies etc.
This is defined by a stimulus-response reaction. Let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s
review our “Father of Sociology” Montesquieu</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s
idea in his book of Spirit of Laws:</span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">It is the variety of
wants in different climates that first occasioned a difference in the manner of
living, and this gave rise to a variety of laws. Where people are very
communicative there must be particular laws, and others where there is but
little communication…. In warm countries the aqueous part of the blood loses
itself greatly by perspiration;15 it must therefore be supplied by a like
liquid. Water is there of admirable use; strong liquors would congeal the
globules16 of blood that remain after the transuding of the aqueous humour…. In
cold countries the aqueous part of the blood is very little evacuated by
perspiration. They may therefore make use of spirituous liquors, without which
the blood would congeal. They are full of humours; consequently strong liquors,
which give a motion to the blood, are proper for those countries…. The law of Mahomet,
which prohibits the drinking of wine, is therefore fitted to the climate of
Arabia: and indeed, before Mahomet</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s time, water was the common drink of the Arabs. The
law17 which forbade the Carthaginians to drink wine was a law of the climate;
and, indeed, the climate of those two countries is pretty nearly the same….
Such a law would be improper for cold countries, where the climate seems to
force them to a kind of national intemperance, very different from personal
ebriety. Drunkenness predominates throughout the world, in proportion to the
coldness and humidity of the climate. Go from the equator to the north pole,
and you will find this vice increasing together with the degree of latitude. Go
from the equator again to the south pole, and you will find the same vice
travelling south,18 exactly in the same proportion. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">In Asia they have
always had great empires; in Europe these could never subsist. Asia has larger
plains; it is cut out into much more extensive divisions by mountains and seas;
and as it lies more to the south, its springs are more easily dried up; the
mountains are less covered with snow; and the rivers, being not so large, form
more contracted barriers…. Power in Asia ought, then, to be always despotic;
for if their slavery was not severe they would soon make a division
inconsistent with the nature of the country…. In Europe the natural division
forms many nations of a moderate extent, in which the ruling by laws is not
incompatible with the maintenance of the state: on the contrary, it is so
favourable to it, that without this the state would fall into decay, and become
a prey to its neighbours…. It is this which has formed a genius for liberty
that renders every part extremely difficult to be subdued and subjected to a
foreign power, otherwise than by the laws and the advantage of commerce…. On
the contrary, there reigns in Asia a servile spirit, which they have never been
able to shake off, and it is impossible to find in all the histories of that
country a single passage which discovers a freedom of spirit; we shall never
see anything there but the excess of slavery. </span></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: x-small; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">These fertile
provinces are always of a level surface, where the inhabitants are unable to
dispute against a stronger power; they are then obliged to submit; and when
they have once submitted, the spirit of liberty cannot return…. The barrenness
of the earth renders men industrious, sober, inured to hardship, courageous,
and fit for war; they are obliged to procure by labour what the earth refuses
to bestow spontaneously. The fertility of a country gives ease, effeminacy, and
a certain fondness for the preservation of life…. We have already observed that
great heat enervates the strength and courage of men, and that in cold climates
they have a certain vigour of body and mind, which renders them patient and
intrepid, and qualifies them for arduous enterprises. This remark holds good,
not only between different nations, but even in the different parts of the same
country. In the north of China people are more courageous than those in the
south; and those in the south of Korea have less bravery than those in the
north…. What we have now said is perfectly conformable to history. Asia has
been subdued thirteen times; eleven by the northern nations, and twice by those
of the south. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">I
basically agree with the above two views. Spencer believed that each nation has
different understanding of happiness. To be honest, Natural selection theory
given by Darwin be similar to Environmental determinism theory given by
Montesquieu in my opinion. Here I give you my line of reasoning about
Environmental determinism from the point of view of Game theory. In the course
of the evolution of the species, two factors are both important: One is genes
and the other is environment. Without belaboring the importance of genes, it is
because we can regard all genes we have as an initial endowment given by God in
any Game. In essence, genes represent what we have, and environment represents
which would be selected. A classic example: Sex-determination. In cold-blooded
animals, the gender is determined by environment temperature such as
crocodilians and sphenodontians, while in warm-blooded animals, the gender is
determined by sex genes such as mammals and birds. You can further discover a
phenomenon that different temperature has different preference, such as 42
Centigrade in birds (with WZ/ZZ) prefers ovarian gene as dominant gene and
conversely 37 Centigrade in mammals (with XX/XY) prefers testicular gene as
dominant gene. Since we are diploid organisms, we contain different two
alleles, so environment played a decisive role in natural selection. In short,
we must admit that different environment has a different preference. Here there
is another my experience to prove that environment indeed has preference, and
any biological strategy should adapt to the environmental requirements and
achieve an organism with the environment. You could find that the color of
human skin will gradually fade with the increase of the latitudes (except for
the immigrants in the past hundred years). I am a typical yellow, and I will be
black if I stay in Thailand for 20 days, but I will be whiter for a little bit
if I stay in UK for 20 days. Do you know cuttlefish in the ocean which are able
to rapidly change the color and patterns of their skin based on their
environment? Similarly, there are many coconut trees in Thailand which can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t live in cold region where there are many
erect pines. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Independent civilization evolution<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">I
draw a following tree (Figure 6.3) to express the independent civilization
evolution by different environment. At the beginning, we get started from
the most primitive beings called Homo sapiens in the left side.
At this point, human beings are not differentiated as same as undifferentiated
stem cells with self-renewal and differentiation capacity into a
variety of functional characteristics of cells. Later, for some
reason, primitive humans began to migrate to Asia and Europe from Africa. Have
you ever thought about a problem why some people choose to migrate while others
choose to stay in Africa? Is it because of the environment in Africa? I don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t think so because if so all human beings
should leave Africa. I am not certain but I guess the reason is struggle for
existence. A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at
which all organic beings tend to increase. At the beginning, there are not many
human beings in Africa under the condition of that women gave the birth to one
child at a time and never stopped producing but suffered the very low survival
rate. This point is not hard to understand because the birth survival rate
remains low in Africa now if without modern medical treatment. At that time,
wild food in nature is enough for a few people. In other words, the survival
threshold is very low at the beginning, you would get enough food as long as
you don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t die in childbirth. As the
population grows, wild foods in nature become less and less, and when
population growth exceeds natural capacity but without any technological
revolution, two human beings in a time of death, may be truly said to struggle
with each other which shall get food and live. Now, as the population increases
but with the constant resources, threshold of survival becomes higher and
higher, so people must fight for scarce resources. It is similar to why
American highway would be free of charge but Chinese highway need to be
charged. If China's expressways are also free, it will be hard to move. By the
way, China must develop public transport since China's population density does
not support one person with one vehicle. In China, now, more than 90% of
troubles are caused by its huge population. There is always a way to solve
scarce resources. In barbarism civilization people resorted to force, and in
so-called advanced civilization people resorted to money or power. There is no
essential difference between the two, and the only goal is to build a proper
high threshold, but by different game rule, to kick some unqualified people out
of the game. As long as there are scarce resources, there will be winners and
losers. You must admit that the struggle almost invariably will be most severe
between the individuals of the same species, for they frequent the same
districts, require the same food, and are exposed to the same dangers. In the
competition, what kind of people will choose to migrate? Winners or losers?
Definitely losers because the winners have no need to leave but the losers have
to face the tradeoff between staying with dying and migrating with little
opportunity to survive. If I were primitive, I would choose to go because
little opportunity is better than death. At first, human struggle was very
cruel, and I bet there was no love at all. I find that in agricultural
civilization people are more likely to kill each other. I think it is because
agricultural civilization is self-sufficient civilization, but the arable land
is limited, so people have to compete for limited resources. The relationship
between people is competitive. In other words, the benefits of your survival
are much less than your death, because you are useless to me in the age of
self-sufficiency, so my best strategy is to kill you if it is possible. The
selfish-herd model in itself has no place for cooperative interactions. There
is no altruism here, only selfish exploitation by each individual of every
other individual. Only when mutual benefit can stop the war. In short, trade is
the only reason why human beings stop killing each other because of comparative
advantage. When you are useful to me, I choose to use you, not kill you. A
relationship of mutual benefit between members of different species is called
mutualism or symbiosis. You may ask me why we see only a limited number of
widely divergent civilizations instead of continuous gradient unlimited number
of similar civilizations? I guess it is because Continental drift, otherwise
Genghis Khan would really rule the whole continent. I agree with the theory of
Continental drift because it was impossible for mankind to cross any channel at
the time of human technology, so the result must have been that the original
man arrived there first, and then the continents were separated. The sea became
first natural barrier that divided them into independent evolution. Of course,
the second natural barrier set by God is language in human nature. It</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s very important to realize that the
existing civilization is developed alone. </span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AF20rzg-5BM/XGaNeB2vQPI/AAAAAAAACkc/QodCHdY83rQAnOCvpCLyjpcY3a3rOl2lgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E5%258F%25B0-%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2590%258C%25E6%2596%2587%25E6%2598%258E%25E7%258B%25AC%25E7%25AB%258B%25E8%25BF%259B%25E5%258C%25966.3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1233" data-original-width="1600" height="246" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AF20rzg-5BM/XGaNeB2vQPI/AAAAAAAACkc/QodCHdY83rQAnOCvpCLyjpcY3a3rOl2lgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E5%258F%25B0-%25E4%25B8%258D%25E5%2590%258C%25E6%2596%2587%25E6%2598%258E%25E7%258B%25AC%25E7%25AB%258B%25E8%25BF%259B%25E5%258C%25966.3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">Next,
I am going to discuss how the different civilizations developed separately. In
Figure 6.3, red boxes represent people in Africa environment, and green boxes
represent people in Middle East environment, and magenta boxes represent people
in East Asia environment, and blue boxes represent people in Europe
environment. Some people, as winners, had the right to stay in Africa, because
the environment has not changed from beginning to end, so they still maintain
the original style. For example, let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">s assume that there are four
different interest groups: Strong men, strong women, emaciated men, and
emaciated women. Under the African unchanged environment, they would achieve
some kind of equilibrium with different strategies: Strong men with strategy of
A, strong women with strategy of B, emaciated men with strategy of C, emaciated
women with strategy of D. These four strategies form a stable state, of course
including rape and death. No change in the environment, the interests of the
pattern has not changed, so people</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">s thought has not changed
yet. This is an indisputable fact that many years later we can see Africa is
still in primitive civilization where they all still rely on picking wild fruit
to make a living. Some people, as losers, had to leave Africa to find a way to
make a living. They came to the middle east area. Changes in the environment
have broken the original pattern of interests. For example, if they come to the
beach, they can live by fishing and some new technologies must be invented in
fishing, and then genes that are good at fishing immediately become environment</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">s preference and are preserved and passed
on; if they come to the grassland, they can live by feeding livestock and some
new technologies must be invented in feeding, and then genes that are good at
feeding immediately become environment</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">s preference and are
preserved and passed on. In short, the change in the environment equivalent to
the change in the rules of the survival game, created new winners and new
losers. Under the new environment of Middle East, the four different interest
groups achieved a new equilibrium with new different strategies set: (</span><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0mFrWOSgK5s/XGaOMjmFSyI/AAAAAAAACkk/kSGq-dUu4D0G3Kobh1MIiWLHwBO2OFNIACLcBGAs/s1600/1.PNG" style="font-family: 等线; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="48" data-original-width="134" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0mFrWOSgK5s/XGaOMjmFSyI/AAAAAAAACkk/kSGq-dUu4D0G3Kobh1MIiWLHwBO2OFNIACLcBGAs/s1600/1.PNG" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">), including sex segregation and religion. Apparently, men,
in Middle East, chose sex segregation to deal with rape. Similarly, East Asia
environment has its own preferences, and the four different interest groups
achieved a new equilibrium with new different strategies set: (<span style="mso-text-raise: -5.0pt; position: relative; top: 5.0pt;"><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" o:ole="" style="height: 21.5pt; width: 65pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"> </v:shape></span></span><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NJfP4h84bcM/XGaOSpkWy3I/AAAAAAAACko/-mrzcgvCbtAVAXWg4TfW8K6Yw6axvaElQCLcBGAs/s1600/2.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="53" data-original-width="144" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NJfP4h84bcM/XGaOSpkWy3I/AAAAAAAACko/-mrzcgvCbtAVAXWg4TfW8K6Yw6axvaElQCLcBGAs/s1600/2.PNG" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">), also including sex segregation and religion. With the
outbreak of the proletarian revolution and the rise of feminism, women began to
work outside. At this point, the pattern of interests has been broken, but
people</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">s thought hasn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">t changed yet, so four different interest
groups achieved a new pseudo-equilibrium with new different strategies set: (<span style="mso-text-raise: -5.0pt; position: relative; top: 5.0pt;"><v:shape id="_x0000_i1027" o:ole="" style="height: 21.5pt; width: 1in;" type="#_x0000_t75"> </v:shape></span></span><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DuL59PSERLc/XGaOXt6AF7I/AAAAAAAACks/D8M-ONupWswcNMuvLBpBxZr8admmS1KhgCLcBGAs/s1600/3.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="51" data-original-width="157" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DuL59PSERLc/XGaOXt6AF7I/AAAAAAAACks/D8M-ONupWswcNMuvLBpBxZr8admmS1KhgCLcBGAs/s1600/3.PNG" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">), including lies and love. Following the same logic,
environment of Europe has its own preferences, and the four different interest
groups achieved a new equilibrium with new different strategies set: (</span><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ye_qV0fGMqI/XGaOgBdNUlI/AAAAAAAACk0/t8DLVhxKCRIZP37KjLJKCuZ5pfciOfSDQCLcBGAs/s1600/4.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="46" data-original-width="134" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ye_qV0fGMqI/XGaOgBdNUlI/AAAAAAAACk0/t8DLVhxKCRIZP37KjLJKCuZ5pfciOfSDQCLcBGAs/s1600/4.PNG" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">), also including sex segregation and religion. One day, the
outbreak of the two World War forced women to step out of their homes and into
factories. From then on, women began to work and support themselves, and the
original pattern of interests has been broken, but women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">s thought hasn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">t changed yet, so the western society
reached a new pseudo-equilibrium with new different strategies set: (<span style="mso-text-raise: -5.0pt; position: relative; top: 5.0pt;"><v:shape id="_x0000_i1029" o:ole="" style="height: 21.5pt; width: 1in;" type="#_x0000_t75"> </v:shape></span></span><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MDmBLYK2nWw/XGaO31iLGCI/AAAAAAAAClE/roEyhpCKoro5VqIMl1PRLEy3DxgX8hBHACLcBGAs/s1600/5.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="49" data-original-width="148" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MDmBLYK2nWw/XGaO31iLGCI/AAAAAAAAClE/roEyhpCKoro5VqIMl1PRLEy3DxgX8hBHACLcBGAs/s1600/5.PNG" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">). You can find three very interesting phenomena. One is that
religion exists in all civilizations except Africa civilization, and why? It is
because Africa civilization is Barbaric civilization belonged to Ground state
with absolute stable state which doesn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">t need any lies to sustain
it. The second is that all civilizations adopted the strategy of sex
segregation in its long history, and why? I think it is because sex segregation
is indeed the best way to protect women against sexual assault. The last is
that love is most popular in Western and East Asia civilization, and why? I
think it is because only the existence of love can drag a woman in to P-V
model, and there is no need of love between two sexes in Middle East and Violent
civilization. I admit that geographical position really can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">t play a decisive role, but it plays a role
of endowment, and the follow-up result is the consequence of coevolution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Man is the creature of
circumstances. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Every
civilization that evolves independently is in its own equilibrium. This is a
problem of balance, like scuba diving. If you can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t keep the balance between the inside and
outside of the ear, you will squeeze your eardrum and feel hurt; if you keep
the balance very well, you don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t feel any pain theoretically
regardless of the depth. I agree that all human beings come from the same
ancestor-Homo sapiens, but as the environment is different, humans have already
evolved into different subspecies in different organic ecology with different
strategies. It</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s like we are all dinosaurs,
but some are swift dragons, some Tyrannosaurus Rex, some pterosaurs, and so on.
Each subspecies adopts a completely different strategy in survival and
reproduction. After all, you have to admit that the civilization that exists
has not disappeared, and what is rational is actual and what is actual is
rational. You can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t conclude that Western
civilization is better than other civilization, and the only thing I can
conclude is that Western civilization is closer to contract civilization. The
any western policies are aimed at keeping its own balance. For example, the
west is also using various means to suppress single people, by giving couples a
rental housing subsidy. The essence is the same, forcing women into the P-V
model, to maintain social stability. Women are destined to be comfort women in
any existing civilization, and the only difference is voluntary or involuntary,
which can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t change the cruel facts. The
stupidest thing is to break ongoing balance before you don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t have the ability to achieve the next one.
The main reason why the world is so chaotic now is the conflict of interests
caused by the integration and collision of civilizations in different
equilibrium states after the isolation threshold has almost turned to zero. Compare
with so-called bullshit “Human rights”, we should pay more attention to the
problem of balance because the so-called equal rights movement from the West
has destroyed the balance of local nature. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">In defense of the Middle East civilization<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Here
I want to defense Middle East civilization for a little bit. Almost all
Westerners believe women in the Middle East are inferior, because the Koran has
some restrictions on Muslim women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s dress and act. For example,
in Islam women are not allowed to show their bodies (other than face and hands)
to men (other than their fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, nephews,) and they
are not allowed to marry a non-Muslim (no exceptions), so Muslim women must
wear a headscarf to cover their head and hair called hijab, while others wear a
burka or niqab, which also covers up their face. I have been to Malaysia for
scuba diving where I found the girls just wear hijab unlike the women in the Middle
East who must were burka or niqab. To be honest, hijab is acceptable for me,
but burka or niqab is kind of scary, because I can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t figure out whether you are friendly or
unfriendly. The Muslim woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with
relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men. The
Koran has placed restrictions on men meeting strange women privately. Cannot
shake hands of a non-Muslim man unless he is family. Similarly, no man other
than her husband is allowed to touch any part of a woman's body. A wife must
neither receive male strangers nor accept gifts from them without her husband's
approval. Additionally, it is not lawful for a woman believing in Allah and the
Hereafter to undertake a journey extending over three days or more, except when
she is in the company of her father, or her son, or her husband, or her
brother, or any other Mahram. No sex and kissing before marriage (applies to
Muslim men too). The west still has the prejudice towards the Middle Eastern
civilization because they think Muslim women have no human rights. Here let me
in defense of Middle Eastern civilization for a little bit. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">We
have seen rape everywhere today in Africa from the book of <i>Half the Sky</i>. Goma, the principal city of North Kivu province in
the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo, has been called the rape
capital of the world. At the height of the conflict, in 2006-7, 48 women were
being raped every hour. How can we prevent women from being raped when the
external conditions remain unchanged? Sex segregation, I think, was an only
choice under violent civilization. Many superficial scholars believe that sex
segregation represents the society has stratified and hierarchical system and
discrimination against women. This is the root of our wrong cognition. In the
boxing match, separating boxers into divisions helps ensure fair fights.
Men are born unequal. You never count on me to win Tyson in a
boxing. As a weak man, you must acknowledge your weak position, and then adopt
your best counter-strategies. As a rational father, how would you protect your
daughter from rape when all the rapists are around? Keep her staying at home.
In fact, the Quran adopted sex segregation as the passive and conservative
counter-strategy to protect women instead of
persecuting the feminine. This counter-strategy had been adopted in
many countries in human history. In ancient China, women were also forbidden to
go out, and in order to keep women from going out foot binding appeared.
Additionally, unmarried women can't be seen by strangers. The main purpose of
all these rules is to limit the mobility of women and confine women to their
husbands</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> homes. The nature of it is
also sex-segregation. One of the Chinese classic authors consider the man as a
prodigy of virtue who, finding a woman alone in a distant apartment, can
forbear making use of force. As everyone knows, the desire to have sexual
release would be aroused by female face and body, so women should go as far as
to cover their faces because even the face may attract sexual glances from men.
By keeping a safe distance between two sexes, the real purpose behind those
restrictions is to safeguard women against evil inclinations. The Quran says
the rules on dress are slightly relaxed when a woman reaches old age and her
sexual attractions have faded. I don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t know the history of Western
women's humiliation, but I guess there must be a phenomenon like sex
segregation in West history, because as a conservative strategy, segregation is
always an evolutionarily stable strategy forever. In fact, many countries now
set up the coach for ladies only on the subway to prevent sexual harassment,
whose essence is sex segregation. So far, we can conclude that this conservative
strategy is not outdated, but there are still many men who behaves unruly
sitting in that coach in KL. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The
Koran is not oppression of women, but protection. In Africa, the men still in
savage civilization are like male animals, and apparently rape is best strategy
for male, so single women are easy to rape outside.
To deal with rape problem, the Middle East civilization has
evolved the counter-strategy: wearing a burka or niqab and keep women at homes.
We must admit that Middle East civilization is in higher level (Stable state)
above African civilization (Ground state) because women are sexually raped by a
man in marriage is much better off than by group of men on the street. In
stable state, sexual relations are the relations of prostitution, while husband
provides food and protection for his wife in exchange for sexual-services, and
conversely</span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">,<span lang="EN-US">wife provides sex-services for her husband in exchange for
necessaries and protection, and both of them has surplus. Let</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s move on East Asian civilization.
Apparently, rape is not the mainstream in Asian civilization, because I wouldn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t worry about being raped when I was
walking on the street in China now special in the daylight instead of night.
Women can go out for working alone, but they are still lack of rationality.
Here my question is which level East Asian civilization located now? You might
think that East Asian Civilization is in higher level (Stable state) above
Middle East civilization. You guess the only half right. East Asian Civilization
is indeed located in higher level over Middle East civilization, but in virtual
state. In virtual state, Pseudo-equilibrium depends on the imaginary to
sustain, such as religions, love, morality and all kinds of lies, where men are
in a win-win situation and women in a lose-lose situation. Looking at the
history of the United States, you will find that the United States is the
mother of cult. Peoples Temple is the famous one, created by Jim Jones, whose
doctrine is everything is free. In my opinion, any religion who claims
everything is free is cult, but this doctrine really caters to the ignorant,
greedy and credulous masses. The biggest cult in the world is Love because love
reduces women to free prostitutes. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Here
I</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">m going to talk about a movie
called <i>India</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s Daughter</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">. It is generally known that
Delhi has become the rape capital of the world. Western female tourists are
often reported to have been raped in India. To be honest, India is not the most
dangerous place for women if you count Africa in. Rape is normal in a violent
civilization where females don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t resist it because they know
they can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t beat the male. Why is rape
condemned in contract civilization? Because it violates the voluntary principle
of contract civilization. The confusion of gender relations in India lies in
the mismatch of behavioral strategies among different civilizations. On one
hand, in traditional Indian culture, the differences between a girl and a boy
are created in people</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s mind from birth, and girls
should not go out in the evening because women are always victims of violent
civilization. On the other hand, western civilization advocates contract
civilization which is based on voluntary transactions between the two sides and
where physical differences have been completely ignored. It is doomed to
failure that you attempt to restrain some gays who are the beneficiaries of violent
civilization with the rules of contractual civilization. The biggest lie of
Western civilization is gender equality which is very useful for maintaining pseudo
equilibrium state in the West but is not suitable for Indian civilization
because India</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s gender civilization is in
balance and there is no need and place for any lies. Under the lie of
egalitarianism, Indian girls forget that they are still victims of violent
civilization; under the lie of Love, they forget they are still the sellers of
sexual services. This is two mistakes women always make. Defense lawyer for the
rapists said, “A female is just like a flower. It gives a good-looking, very
softness performance, pleasant. But one the other hand, a man is just a thorn,
strong, tough enough. That flower always needs protection. If you put that
flower in a gutter, it is spoilt. If you put that flower in a temple, it will
be worshipped. They left our Indian culture. They were under the imagination of
the film culture in which they can do anything. She should not be put on the
streets just like food. The “lady”, on the other hand, you can say the “girl”
or “woman” are more precious than a gem, than a diamond. It is up to you how
you want to keep that diamond in your hand. If you put your diamond on the
street, certainly the dog will take it out. You can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t stop it. You are talking about man and
woman as friends? Sorry, that doesn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t have any place in our
society. A woman means I immediately put the sex in his eyes. We have the best
culture. In our culture, there is no place for a woman.” I do not want to
defend violent civilization, but this lawyer</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s words indeed fully corroborate my two
points. So far, all men, whether from the East or the West, consider P-V model
legitimate. The only difference is that one resorts to violence and the other
to lies. Relationships between men and women, whether based on violent
civilization or on lies, has not escaped P-V model. There is no essential
difference between the two. One of rapists said, “When being raped, she should
not fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they would
have dropped her off after doing her, and only hit the boy.” This is because he
has a strong sense of imbalance when the victim resists. You can be fucked for
free by other men, why can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t you be fuck for free by me?
Men know exactly what sexual intercourse means, but women don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t; men know exactly why men need women, but
women don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t. At the end of the film, a lawyer
said, “If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital activities, and
disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such
things. I would most certainly take this sort of sister or daughter to my
farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set
her alight.” I guess those guys who shouted for “Long live woman</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s freedom! Your freedom! My freedom!” in
the parade must be the beneficiaries of women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s abuse of freedom. When women are free,
they will volunteer to take off the pants for free in pursuit of love and
vagina orgasm. Their purpose has been achieved without rape or payment. Freedom
is a such good thing. I wonder whether they will still shout for women's
freedom when women's freedom is to refuse to take off their pants. I think the
answer is obvious. The more I know men, the more I sympathize with women. There
is no better way because evolution needs victims. Women are destined to be
victims of evolution, both from the perspective of individual strength and from
the perspective of genetic interests, because vagina is what men need and
uterus is what genes need. So far, there is no equality between men and women,
because men do not allow equality between men and women. How to make men
compromise? Pseudo-equilibrium state is unavoidable. First of all, women should
believe in love before they can be free, and then men allow women to read and
work. On the one hand, they still provide free sex services, on the other hand,
they can earn money to support their families. Only in this way can men agree
to liberate women because they become arbitragers. If women do not believe in
love, the relationship between men and women will not enter a
pseudo-equilibrium. Women refuse to enter marriage immediately after they study
and work. It means men cannot arbitrage from it. After weighing the pros and
cons, men won</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t allow women to read and
work. What is the difference between human beings and animals? The difference
is not whether to wear clothes or not, but the former resorts to trade, the
latter resorts to violence. Women are eunuchs in a pseudo-equilibrium state. Next,
what should the Indian government do? Sterilization of the poor is what India
needs to do. Poverty is the root of all evil. Like genes, poverty can be
inherited. Individuals can have human rights to survive, but you must give up
your reproductive rights if they want to a relief. Let this virus gene not be
inherited. To be honest, I don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t know what justice is and I
don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t think anyone in the world can
understand it, but I know what equilibrium is and most people ignore it. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">so
far, you can understand why I stand for the Middle East civilization that is
just a passive counter-strategy of violent civilization, aimed at protecting
women instead of hurting women. An ignorant woman, as a prey, does not know she
is in a pack of wolves. When you can't change your surroundings, you should not
expose your body to arouse wolf</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s his desire. Here is an
example for you. There is a beautiful diving island in eastern Thailand, called
Ko Tao, where I got my scuba diving license in 2015, but Koh Tao is not perfect
and some travelers believe that the island are full of sinister gangsters,
riled up murderers and ominous threats. And yes, there was a devastating, high
profile, double murder on the island in September of 2014. Following the
shocking news that Hannah Witheridge, 23, and David Miller, 24, were murdered
on the idyllic southern island of Koh Tao on Monday, Thailand's Prime Minister
has spoken out about the incident, causing outrage. Questioning the safety of
Westerners in bikinis, he said, "There are always problems with tourist
safety. They think our country is beautiful and safe so they can do whatever
they want, they can wear bikinis and walk everywhere. But can they be safe in
bikinis…unless they are not beautiful?" Sudin Dhavalikar, the minister for
the public works department in the Indian state of Goa, made similar
controversial statements – calling for a ban on bikinis after linking them to
sexual crimes on beaches. "We should not allow girls with bikinis to enter
public places because it is very difficult to control people who arrive in Goa
from different states," he said. " Needless to say, these comments triggered
critics and anger from the victims' families and the crowd because these
comments implied that women are effectively asking for trouble by wearing
bikinis placing blame on the victims of horrific crimes. These bureaucrats are
right, but truth is always hard to accept. Different civilizations need
different counter-strategies to maximize your payoffs and minimize your costs. You
cannot but accept local equilibrium price, which is market power, or you are
toast. </span></p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Under
the guise of LOVE, men can enjoy sex-services without pay, and women became
free prostitutes, but with the return of women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s rationality, civilization has only one
option: professionalization. Some women with lower opportunity cost become
professional prostitutes, while some women with higher opportunity cost become
unqualified suppliers who choose to exit the sex-service market actively. Social
evolution is very slow and requires progress in both material and spiritual
progress. Western civilization, as the leader of human civilization, has to pay
the high price for some unknown errors when exploration, which could be called
the price of trial and error. Boss is not easy to be. The greatest harm is the
West tries to impose this higher pseudo-equilibrium on the lower true
equilibrium, and chaos resulted. Evolution is always second-mover advantage
instead of first-mover advantage, because the second-mover can draw lessons
from first-mover and avoid unnecessary costs. In my opinion, the best thing
about the western system is that women, as losers, have the opportunity to
choose freely, but they have two consequences of this freedom: better off or
worse off. The Savior must have been born at this time to lead the human race
to the next stable state. At any time, mankind needs the savior to save. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Human rights<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span class="hps"><span lang="EN"></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">In the past, civilizations evolved
relatively independently, so they each reached their equilibrium, and there is
no such problem called “Human rights”, and people observed their customs in
their respective worlds, but in recent years, various civilizations began to
intertwine with each other, and so-called the problem of “Human rights”
emerged. In my opinion, the problem of “human rights” is a totally false
proposition because it must originate from comparison. Here I want to introduce
a concept: Easterlin paradox which is a key concept in happiness economics and theorized
by Professor Richard Easterlin who is an Economics Professor at the University
of Southern California. Some Empirical Evidence”, he concluded that a country's level of economic development (i.e., the
increase in the standard of living) and level of happiness are not connected. I
basically agree with his argument and I am not going to waste your time to
repeat his point here. In my opinion, happiness is a kind of subjective feelings
whose characteristic is depending on the comparison with his/her expectations
but lack of objective criteria to measure. There are a thousand Hamlets in a
thousand people's eyes. Think about your smartphone. I bought my favorite
smartphone two years ago and I was satisfied with it at that time. Now it's
still the same and functioning well but I am not happy with it. Why? It is
because it really sucks compared with my colleague's iPhone Xs Max. Bhutan was
once the happiest country in the world until satellite TV was introduced into
this country. Since then, people's level of happiness has dived sharply. Television's
dazzling high-end lifestyle, clothing and jewelry not only led to deep
resentment, but also led to a wave of crime. In order to pursue the so-called
Western life, many people began to steal and rob. Comparisons are very harmful.
Segregation and lies are necessary, because it is easier to satisfy
occasionally a fool. Stuart Muller said that it is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, but unfortunately, the pig does not think
so. What is happiness? Are people happier now than one hundred years? It is
hard to say. I think happiness is a relative value depending on the gap between
your actual situation and expectations. You have to lower your expectation when
you don't have enough ability to change your situation. Frankly speaking, if
China didn't open the door, the Chinese people may feel happy as same as North
Korean. The United States believed that overthrowing dictators can bring people
happiness, but the fact is that people there don't feel happy because they
believed they can be happier in Europe. God's strategy is to castrate people's
desires before they have the ability to achieve the next Equilibrium. I stress
it again that segregation is always a conservative stable strategy, please
think about the</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">IOS</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">ecosystem
of Apple phone. On the question of happiness, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">I happened to coincide with
Herbert Spencer, and let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s review what Herbert Spencer
said in <i>Social Statics</i>: </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Assuming it to be in other respects
satisfactory, a rule, principle, or axiom, is valuable only in so far as the
words in which it is expressed have a definite meaning. The terms used must be
universally accepted in the same sense, otherwise the proposition will be
liable to such various constructions, as to lose all claim to the title—a rule.
We must therefore take it for granted that when he announced “the greatest
happiness to the greatest number” as the canon of social morality, its
originator supposed mankind to be unanimous in their definition of “greatest
happiness.”…was a most unfortunate assumption, for no fact is more palpable
than that the standard of happiness is infinitely variable. In all ages—amongst
every people—by each class—do we find different notions of it entertained. To
the wandering gipsy a home is tiresome; whilst a Swiss is miserable without
one. Progress is necessary to the well-being of the Anglo-Saxons; on the other
hand the Esquimaux are content in their squalid poverty, have no latent wants,
and are still what they were in the days of Tacitus. An Irishman delights in a
row; a Chinese in pageantry and ceremonies; and the usually apathetic Javan
gets vociferously enthusiastic over a cock-fight. The heaven of the Hebrew is
“a city of gold and precious stones, with a supernatural abundance of corn and
wine;” that of the Turk—a harem peopled by houris; that of the American
Indian—a “happy hunting ground;” in the Norse paradise there were to be daily
battles with magical healing of wounds; whilst the Australian hopes that after
death he shall “jump up a white fellow, and have plenty of sixpences.”
Descending to individual instances, we find Louis XVI. interpreting “greatest
happiness” to mean—making locks; instead of which his successor read—making
empires. It was seemingly the opinion of Lycurgus that perfect physical
development was the chief essential to human felicity; Plotinus, on the
contrary, was so purely ideal in his aspirations as to be ashamed of his body.
Indeed the many contradictory answers given by Grecian thinkers to the
question—What constitutes happiness? have given occasion to comparisons that
have now become trite. Nor has greater unanimity been shown amongst ourselves.
To a miserly Elwes the hoarding of money was the only enjoyment of life; but
Day, the philanthropic author of “Sandford and Merton,” could find no
pleasurable employment save in its distribution. Rural quietude, books, and a
friend, are the wants of the poet; a tuft-hunter longs rather for a large
circle of titled acquaintance, a box at the Opera, and the freedom of Almack</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s. The ambitions of the tradesman and the
artist are anything but alike; and could we compare the air castles of the
ploughman and the philosopher, we should find them of widely-different orders
of architecture…. Generalizing such facts, we see that the standard of “greatest
happiness” possesses as little fixity as the other exponents of human nature.
Between nations the differences of opinion are conspicuous enough. On
contrasting the Hebrew patriarchs with their existing descendants, we observe
that even in the same race the beau ideal of existence changes. The members of
each community disagree upon the question. Neither, if we compare the wishes of
the gluttonous school-boy with those of the earth-scorning transcendentalist
into whom he may afterwards grow, do we find any constancy in the individual.
So we may say, not only that every epoch and every people has its peculiar
conceptions of happiness, but that no two men have like conceptions; and
further, that in each man the conception is not the same at any two periods of
life. The rationale of this is simple enough. Happiness signifies a gratified
state of all the faculties. The gratification of a faculty is produced by its
exercise. To be agreeable that exercise must be proportionate to the power of
the faculty; if it is insufficient discontent arises, and its excess produces
weariness. Hence, to have complete felicity is to have all the faculties
exerted in the ratio of their several developments; and an ideal arrangement of
circumstances calculated to secure this constitutes the standard of “greatest
happiness;” but the minds of no two individuals contain the same combination of
elements. Duplicate men are not to be found. There is in each a different
balance of desires. Therefore the conditions adapted for the highest enjoyment
of one, would not perfectly compass the same end for any other. And
consequently the notion of happiness must vary with the disposition and
character; that is, must vary indefinitely…. Similar unsettled questions might
be indefinitely multiplied. Not only therefore is an agreement as to the
meaning of “greatest happiness” theoretically impossible, but it is also
manifest, that men are at issue upon all topics, which for their determination
require defined notions of it. So that in directing us to this “greatest
happiness to the greatest number,” as the object towards which we should steer,
our pilot “keeps the word of promise to our ear and breaks it to our hope.”
What he shows us through his telescope is a fata morgana, and not the promised land.
The real haven of our hopes dips far down below the horizon and has yet been
seen by none. It is beyond the ken of seer be he never so farsighted. Faith not
sight must be our guide. We cannot do without a compass. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Similarly, this logic can be applied to the
issue of human rights. Different nationalities at the same time, or even the
same nation at different times have different perception of human rights. During
the period of cultural isolation, there is no comparison and people in lower
civilizations don't feel too bad because everyone around them lives like this. Similarly,
poverty is also a relative concept. It depends on who you compare with. Compared
with Buffett, I am a real poor woman, but compared with many Chinese people, I
am still rich enough. As the scandalous Mandeville put it in 1723, “which it
would be prudence to relieve, but folly to cure.” He was right. 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. When Herbert Hoover ever said with earnest simplicity,
“We shall soon with the help of God be within sight of the day when poverty
will be banished from the nation,” he might have been shortsighted—as who was
not?—but he rested his case on the incontrovertible fact that the average
American family lived better, ate better, dressed better, and enjoyed more of
the amenities of life than any average family thitherto in the history of the
world. The vision of Every Man being a Wealthy Man had been shown up as a
hallucination. The issue of human rights originates from the comparison of
norms of conduct among different civilizations.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Mismatched
decency and dignity will inevitably lead to lagging economic development. A
group of low-energy electrons which are located in the 1S orbit envy the
high-energy electrons which are located in the 4P orbit every day, "how
free they are, there is no human rights in 1S orbit." At present, the main
trouble of human beings is that those low-energy electrons in 1S orbit want to
go to the 4P orbit because there are human rights there. Let me give you my
reasoning about that. With the promoting of world integration, people are
becoming more and more aware of other civilizations, they suddenly found out
that they can gain even greater benefits if they are located in some other
civilization. What would they do? Two choices: One is to choose immigrant; the
other is to ask the local government for their so-called rights in their own
country. In essence, what are they doing? Arbitrage in different civilizations.
There are only two results: One is to break the balance of another
civilization; the other is to break the balance of local civilization. Let's take China's birth control as an example.
During my trip to the West, almost all Westerners are criticizing the policy of
birth control in China as a violation of human rights, but I don't think so. In
my eyes, there is no good or bad policy, but only valid or invalid policy. Westerners
are overconfident on many issues. In Deng Xiaoping's words, “You're not all
wrong, we're not all right.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Population model</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">About reproductive balance, let's review what Darwin said in his book of <i>Origin of species</i>:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">There is no exception to the rule that
every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not
destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair.
Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a
few thousand years, there would literally not be standing room for his
progeny…. A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at
which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its
natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during
some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise,
on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so
inordinately great that no country could support the product…. The elephant is
reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some
pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be
under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on
breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pairs of young in this
interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive
fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair…. In a state of nature
almost every plant produces seed, and amongst animals there are very few which
do not annually pair. Hence we may confidently assert, that all plants and
animals are tending to increase at a geometrical ratio, that all would most
rapidly stock every station in which they could any how exist, and that the
geometrical tendency to increase must be checked by destruction at some period
of life. Our familiarity with the larger domestic animals tends, I think, to
mislead us: we see no great destruction falling on them, and we forget that
thousands are annually slaughtered for food, and that in a state of nature an
equal number would have somehow to be disposed of…. In looking at Nature, it is
most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations always in mind – never to
forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to
the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period
of its life; that heavy destruction inevitably falls either on the young or
old, during each generation or at recurrent intervals. Lighten any check,
mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will
almost instantaneously increase to any amount. The face of Nature may be
compared to a yielding surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close
together and driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being
struck, and then another with greater force…. What checks the natural tendency
of each species to increase in number is most obscure…. In some cases it can be
shown that widely-different checks act on the same species in different
districts. When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank, we
are tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call
chance. But how false a view is this!... Climate plays an important part in
determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme
cold or drought, I believe to be the most effective of all checks. I estimated
that the winter of 1854-55 destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own
grounds; and this is a tremendous destruction, when we remember that ten per
cent. is an extraordinarily severe mortality from epidemics with man. The
action of climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle
for existence; but in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it
brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals, whether of the same
or of distinct species, which subsist on the same kind of food. Even when
climate, for instance extreme cold, acts directly, it will be the least
vigorous, or those which have got least food through the advancing winter,
which will suffer most. When we travel from south to north, or from a damp
region to a dry, we invariably see some species gradually getting rarer and
rarer, and finally disappearing; and the change of climate being conspicuous,
we are tempted to attribute the whole effect to its direct action.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;"></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">African states have
found success elusive both in slowing population and in raising production.
Although babies are born at a slower rate than in the 1950s, the overall
population growth rate is higher because life expectancy has risen
dramatically. The ghost of Malthus seems to frown upon countries such as
Ethiopia, where drought and war act as positive checks. According to American
media reports, Africa's population will more than double to 2.4 billion by
2050. Sub-Saharan Africa's population is rising faster than the rest of the
world because modern medicine and health care on the continent means more
babies are surviving birth complications, and fewer adults are dying from
preventable diseases. But the number of children being born is not dropping, or
is doing so very slowly. African mothers have an average of 5.2 children,
rising to 7.6 in Niger, the country with the world's highest fertility rate
that is close to five times the European average of 1.6 children born to each
woman. According to foreign media reports that a 37-year-old Ugandan woman has
given birth to 38 children including twins, triplets, quadruplets. One
biologist has calculated that a pair of animals, each pair producing ten pairs
annually, would at the end of twenty years be responsible for
700,000,000,000,000,000,000 offspring; and Havelock Ellis mentions a minute
organism that, if unimpeded in its division, would produce from one single tiny
being a mass a million times larger than the sun—in thirty days. On one hand,
we have to admit that the function of reproduction is exponential. Any
reproduction conforms to the geometric ratios, including human reproduction. On
the other hand, God is pretty cruel to any exponential function because it
would cause imbalances, so they must suffer destruction by different ways. God
must strike a balance by somewhat kinds of means. By raising the death rate. What
are the positive forces that can “save” us from geometric ratios? War, famine,
and plagues. The black death lurks in every alley ready to rescue us. Infant
mortality liberates us from overpopulation. And famine haunts us always: Famine
seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. In Smith's day
infant mortality among the lower classes was shockingly high. “It is not
uncommon,” says Smith, “... in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has
borne twenty children not to have two alive.” In many places in England, half
the children died before they were four, and almost everywhere half the
children lived only to the age of nine or ten. Malnutrition, evil living
conditions, cold, and disease took a horrendous toll among the poorer element. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Do you know under what circumstances the Chinese
government was forced to introduce the </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">policy of One Child? My
classmate</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s mother who was born in 1950s
had nine brothers and sisters. This was not a rare phenomenon at that time. I
am saying that again the government was forced to do the brakes. Why is there a
sudden increase in population? According to my match theory, modern medicine
and the desire to reproduce like an animal don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t match each other. You would see that
tigers never take birth control, but the number of tigers in the world is far
smaller than that of human beings. Why? It is because their babies die every
day while they give birth every day. A TV program called the animal world in
China, told me that crocodile mothers will lose 90% of their children in the
first week. The main problem in the Africa is the mismatch between African
social pattern and modern medicine. So far, Africa is still in self-sufficient period
and all people grab subsistence materials from nature, so they are still in zero-sum
game. They can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t make the pie bigger, so they
have to fight each other for given subsistence materials. The more people, the fiercer
they fight. The fundamental reason for the war is that the benefits of war are
greater than costs, or in other words, their opportunity cost is very low. I
can't imagine what if they have modern weapons. I suggest let Africa be in its
own equilibrium (Self-sufficiency + high mortality + high birth rate + wooden
weapons) which also the equilibrium for animals. Human beings have a great
misunderstanding of cognition that death is the worst outcome, but the fact is
that many people are living death, because the only purpose of her being raised
was to become a sex slave. So-called civilized government keeps making women as
sex-slaves under the guise of “Women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s rights” now. How evil human
beings are! I stress it again: Death is not the most terrible thing in the
world, because a lot of life is worse than death. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Before
I discuss the problem of arbitrage in different civilization, I should discuss
a phenomenon that Westerners care about very much why Chinese people like
having children, while Westerners dislike having children. The heart of the
problem is supply and demand. As everyone knows, Europe are suffering the low
fertility for many years. In order to maintain the steady state, the Western
government tried lots of ways to convince people to have more kids. A French
maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as
guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to
1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their
full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place
for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the
point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations
are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby
born. South Korea, which has one of the world</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000
per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an
average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for
stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of
working moms</span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">—<span lang="EN-US">who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers."
A Danish travel agency released an amazing commercial urging Danes to have more
sex while on vacation. The ad points to the plummeting birth rate in Denmark as
incentive for couples to take a romantic holiday and, as their slogan goes,
"Do it for Denmark. Do it for Mon." In Northern Europe, people have
entered the communist society by establishing social welfare from cradle to
death. You will find a phenomenon that low fertility is not unique to Europe,
and in richer Korea and japan, people are not willing to have children, and
even in China the fertility aspirations of urban residents are also low. In big
cities like Beijing and Shanghai, the number of births is already smaller than
the number of deaths. Through these examples, it is not difficult for you to
come to such a conclusion: The middle class is reluctant to give birth to
children, and conversely the proletariat is willing to give birth to more
children. Why is that? Please keep in mind that don</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t forget to resort to the interests when
you are confused about any phenomenon. Now let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s do it. Next, I</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">m going to </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">apply the three steps</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> in Microeconomics in building
two sets of figures (Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5) to explain why the West and the
Chinese governments adopt two opposing strategies to deal with the population
problem. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Figure
6.4 represents how Westerners adjust their counter-strategies step by step.
First of all, I want to defend the animals for a little bit. Non-human animals
are simple with pure reproductive strategy which is to spread the genes as much
as possible, because they are completely under the control of selfish genes
without any self-consciousness. You would find a universal phenomenon that when
the pups are adult, they will leave their mother completely and live alone.
What does this mean? It means mother, as an individual or a survival machine,
can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t get any return from their
children in this reproductive strategy. What about human beings? They are much
more evil than animals, because they began to have self-awareness. I am sorry
that I really can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t figure out the difference
between the two words: self-consciousness and self-awareness, so they all mean
individual cognition which is independent of pure genes control. From now on,
human being</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s reproductive strategy is
not limited to spread genes purely as same as animals, but also to raise
children against their old age. In other words, the purpose of having children
and raising children in human beings had shifted from for gene</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s benefit to for individual</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s benefit. In essence, raising their
children becomes a kind of investment for their old age. I had mentioned that
raising daughters for money in their short-run interests while sons for age
protection in their long-run interests. The change of purpose must be
accompanied by the change of strategy. You could find that adoption phenomenon
is very rare in animals world, but has long history in human beings. Where
there is demand there will be supply, so baby trafficking is still rampant in
China now. Would they be so kind to help people to spread genes? Definitely not.
They did it for themselves. I don't raise any
children of other people, because I have no purpose. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Westerners
always slander the purpose of raising children in China, let’s have a looking
at the works of Westerners themselves. The famous novel named “The
Metamorphosis” was written in 1915 by Franz Kafka who was a German-speaking
Bohemian novelist and short-story writer, widely regarded as one of the major
figures of 20th-century literature. What is The Metamorphosis about? The
Metamorphosis plot focuses on Gregor Samsa, a traveling salesman and dutiful
son who single-handedly supports his parents and sister. One morning, following
one of his infrequent overnight visits to his parents' home, Gregor is shocked
to find that his body has been changed into an insect. Gregor's family is
horrified to discover the change in Gregor. Soon their shock gives way to
disgust, but Gregor is mindful of their feelings and hides in the room when his
sister brings his daily meals of Gregor, now unable to continue working to
support them, discovers that his parents' claims of being too ill to work are
false. Once Gregor becomes a problem rather than a provider, his family rejects
him completely. His sister initially provides for his care and feeding, but she
becomes indifferent to him, and he dies shortly after hearing his family's
plans to abandon him. After its publication, the book was banned in Nazi
Germany as well in the Soviet Union. For a period of time, after the Prague Spring,
the book was banned in Czechoslovakia as well. I think the reason why this book
was banned is its authenticity and cruelty. In short, the truth is always
cruel. You can imagine that one day you wake up to discover you have been
transformed into a giant insect, and your parents are going to love you or
disgust you? Once you become a problem rather than a provider, your family
feeds you or abandons you? People don't care what they have already got from
you, but what else they can get from you in the future. The answer is in your
heart. In China, the reason why many parents have a bad relationship with their
adult children is that their children cannot earn a lot of money to feed them
back. The ultimate goal of venture capital is not to run the company or love it
but to sell it after the IPO. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OA2qZ2HLb88/XGaRclUvYaI/AAAAAAAAClQ/PK1IjbFAeuQM9fd1UiLSqJqhP2ukYFPIACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E8%25AE%25A1%25E5%2588%2592%25E7%2594%259F%25E8%2582%25B2-%25E8%25A5%25BF%25E6%2596%25B96.4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="514" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OA2qZ2HLb88/XGaRclUvYaI/AAAAAAAAClQ/PK1IjbFAeuQM9fd1UiLSqJqhP2ukYFPIACLcBGAs/s320/%25E8%25AE%25A1%25E5%2588%2592%25E7%2594%259F%25E8%2582%25B2-%25E8%25A5%25BF%25E6%2596%25B96.4.jpg" width="102" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s get down to business. We can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t draw the marginal cost and revenues
curves of animals because they don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t have any revenues from
their children, but human beings do. This being so, let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s go deeper how many children a rational
man need to produce? According to microeconomics, the rational producer
maximizes profit by producing the quantity at which marginal cost equals
marginal revenue. In panel (a) of Figure 6.4, the marginal revenue decreases
and the marginal cost increases, intersecting at point E<sub>1,</sub> and
a rational man would produce quantity at Q<sub>1</sub>. Notice two things here:
(1) At this time children are father</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">private
goods, and there is no any externality in this scenario because father takes
all raising costs as private costs while, of course, he gets all the revenues
as private value; (2) Due to poor medical technology and endless war, the slope
of marginal cost is very large, which means children are prone to death whether
in childbirth or in parenting. The result is that, as same as animals, Q<sub>1</sub>
is still very small although people never have birth control. In panel (b),
other things being same, with the development of medical technology, only the
slope of marginal cost becomes small. New marginal cost and old marginal
revenue intersect at point E<sub>2</sub>, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">and a rational man would
produce quantity at Q<sub>2</sub>. Ob</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">viously Q<sub>2</sub> is much
bigger than Q<sub>1</sub>. This is the first population expansion in human
society. In panel (c), here comes the fun: Old-age pension. I dare say that the
emergence of pensions in the West world is a turning point in the human
reproductive strategy. According to Wikipedia, in the United Kingdom, the
beginning of the modern state pension was the Old Age Pensions Act 1908. After
the Second World War, the National Insurance Act 1946 completed universal
coverage of social security. The National Assistance Act 1948 formally
abolished the poor law, and gave a minimum income to those not paying national
insurance. In United States, pension plans became popular in the United States
during World War II, when wage freezes prohibited outright increases in
workers' pay. The defined benefit plan had been the most popular and common
type of retirement plan in the United States through the 1980s; since that
time, defined contribution plans have become the more common type of retirement
plan in the United States and many other western countries. We can say that the
pension system became popular in West World after the World War II. I guess
before the emergence of pension system, Europeans also need to have children to
support themselves in their old age, especially the poor guys, unless you can
inherit a fortune from your father, but the pension system changed their
options. In other words, the purpose of raising children is replaced by
pensions. The Game Theory told us you must change his/her payoffs if you want
to change his/her option. Apparently, the emergence of pensions has changed
people's choice by shifting marginal revenue
to the down. Now MR<sub>2</sub> and MC<sub>2</sub> intersect at E<sub>3</sub>,
so a rational man will reduce the quantity to Q<sub>3</sub>. Obviously, Q<sub>3</sub>
is smaller than Q<sub>2</sub>. What does it mean? It means Westerners are
reluctant to give birth to children. Why? Useless. What does useless mean? It
means, a</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t
this time children become public</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> goods with positive externality
for the whole society, which are neither excludable nor rival in consumption,
but father takes all raising costs as private costs while he only gets a part
of revenues as private value, so rational man does not take the external
benefits into his account, so chooses to exit supply market. In the pension
system, raising children is a positive external thing, infertile person becomes
a free rider. As a result, in the absence of any public policy, people would
devote too few resources to childbirth and raising. This is the essential
reason for the decline of the population in the west. What should the
government do? Hedging cost. In panel (d), in order to maintain quantity of Q<sub>2</sub>,
Western Government has</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">to
enacted policy as subsidy to hedge personal external cost by shifting MC<sub>2</sub>
to MC<sub>3</sub>. Notice one important thing here: Inertia. Here, inertia
refers to people's behavior stickiness when
an old Equilibrium was broken. For an example, if people are very rational and
pragmatic with zero behavior inertia, when they have old-age pension,
equilibrium point immediately jumps from E<sub>2</sub> to E<sub>3</sub>; if
people's behavior inertia is very large, their decision still stay at E<sub>2</sub>
for a long time after pension and move from E<sub>2</sub> to E<sub>3</sub> very
slowly. Similarly, the government's counter-strategy also has two problems:
Timeliness and moderation. For an example, when people are very rational and
pragmatic with zero behavior inertia, government should immediately formulate
subsidy policy, or the population will rise and fall too much; when people's
behavior inertia is very large, government should adopt dynamic subsidy, or
people would overreact. In any case, all possibilities of the western society
fall into the shadow of grey, mostly on the left because marginal revenue
shifts down first. Pink arrow may be the real path. This is the real reason and
history of Western population evolution. I have a few points to add. (1) You
could say that children can bring fun to their parents. Yes, I admit that, but
any imaginary numbers are not involved in real axis game. (2) The different
people have different opportunity costs, and the poorer you are the lower
opportunity costs you have, so when opportunity costs are very high, social
welfare must become very large to maintain equilibrium. For example, I have
huge opportunity costs, and I am not going to waste my time on my child, unless
I can lower my cost. (3) According to the Western contract spirit, the birth
contract is the choice of both parents, having nothing to do with child, so the
child has no obligation to support his/her parents financially. You would find
an interesting phenomenon: The West World, as the leader of the world, played
the chain game very well. In other words, there is no big gap in West
evolution. Modern medical care had developed first in West, and leaded to high
baby survival rate and a rapid increase in population, and before long, pension
system, as a restraint, appeared in Western history, so now westerners don't
need birth control. Next, let's have a look at evolutionary process of Chinese
population. You will find out that order really really matters a lot in
evolution, which may lead to a diametrically opposed government strategy.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Ubgg6zKbRM/XGaYEglx3YI/AAAAAAAAClc/NBd87knsdM000HoEwUsQwK-gUCryIFtKgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E8%25AE%25A1%25E5%2588%2592%25E7%2594%259F%25E8%2582%25B2-%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%259B%25BD6.5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="564" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Ubgg6zKbRM/XGaYEglx3YI/AAAAAAAAClc/NBd87knsdM000HoEwUsQwK-gUCryIFtKgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E8%25AE%25A1%25E5%2588%2592%25E7%2594%259F%25E8%2582%25B2-%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%259B%25BD6.5.jpg" width="112" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">In
panel (a) of Figure 6.5, as same as in Figure 6.4, the marginal revenue
decreases and the marginal cost increases, intersecting at point E<sub>1,</sub>
and a rational man would produce quantity at Q<sub>1</sub>. In panel (b), it is
also the same. Advances in medical technology have led to the first steady
expansion of the population. Next, difference comes.
It is known to all that at the end of the
World War II, China declared its entry into so-called “Communism”
immediately. What does the word “Communism” mean? The principle of distribution
in communist society is “from each according to his ability” and “to each
according to his needs”. It means China entered free era, and everyone can get
free medical care, free food, free house and free education. It sounds so
perfect like in paradise or heaven, but the result backfired, because what has
always made the state a hell on
earth has been precisely that
man has tried to make it
heaven. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Food, health care, education and so on
become common resources. are not excludable: They are available free of charge
to anyone who wants to use them. Common resources are, however, rival in
consumption: One person's use of the common
resource reduces other people's ability to use it. Common resources inevitably
lead to tragedy of commons. What causes the tragedy? The reason is that social
and private incentives differ. F</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">or an individual, work
becomes a thing of positive externality, and no one wants to work for society
and everyone wants to be a free rider. These all mentioned above are one side
of positive externality, but the fact is, what</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s more, that there is other side of
negative externality. At this time there was no any old-age pension system in
China, and people still needed their children</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s support in their old-age, so childbirth
became a thing of negative externality, and everyone wanted children as many as
possible because household got whole revenues as private value while took a
small parts of the raising costs as private costs, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">so
rational person did not take the external costs into his account and chose to
enter the birth market. In panel (c), the emergence of communism had changed
people's choice by shifting marginal cost to
the down. Now MR<sub>1</sub> and MC<sub>3</sub> intersect at E<sub>3</sub>, so
a rational man will increase the quantity to Q<sub>3</sub>. Obviously, Q<sub>3</sub>
is much bigger than Q<sub>2</sub>. Apparently, the cost curve moving first,
cause the rapid expansion of China's population. In other words, Capitalism
matches “raising children to provide against old age” very well, while Socialism
matches “old-age pension” very well. On the contrary, Capitalism and “old-age
pension” are incompatible, while Socialism and “raising children to provide
against old age” are incompatible, because there is an arbitrage opportunity in
each of them. We can see that the pension system has 60 years of history in the
West at least. What about in China and when did China establish the pension
system? China began to establish a pension system in 1986, and created the
individual accounts during Railway System in1998. We can see that the pension
system has only 20 years of history in China at most. Notice: There are 40
years of lag between West and China. China's baby boom was in 50s and 60s just
during the lag of 40 years. In other words, at present, a large number of
elderly people do not have pensions in China especially in rural areas. Who
will support them? They did not pay the bills when they were young, and the
government is certainly unwilling to cover the costs now. This is a very normal
logic. What should Chinese government do? Transfer costs to their children, so
the law of China requires that children have the duty to support parent. The
government has instilled such logic into the public: I feed you up when you are
young, you must feed me back when I am old. It sounds like a fair deal at first
glance, but, unfortunately, you don’t obtain your children’s consent. Such a
despot clause it is! This gangster contract led directly to the baby
trafficking. Human trafficking is another sensitive question, but the West does
not understand the nature of this affair. There are two entirely different
forms of human trafficking: One is baby trafficking; the other is women
trafficking, because they didn't share the same purpose. The former is a kind
of investment, the latter is a kind of consumption, and the commons are that
the both are forced trading and respond to incentives. You can't stop the evil
until you know the real reasons. You must have seen the movie of Slumdog
Millionaire. The bad man blinds the child's eyes in order to beg for more
money. Who's the culprit? The bad guys? Definitely not. Foolish kindness and
compassion led to the children's tragedy, because they created arbitrage
opportunities. No one would waste any time and money on other's children if
they can't get any return from the children. I once saw a story: a person was
pushed out of a Pyramid selling organization because he ate too much. And, of
course, there is also a non-economic reason. In order to prepare for the Third
World War with the United States, then-leader encouraged fertility in the
fifties. He needed as many cannon fodder as possible to protect his power. Until
his death in 1976, the new leader Deng realized that the third world war could
not break out, and the huge population had been great burden that a large
number of hungry people would inevitably lead to civil commotion, so in 1982
one child policy was defined as a basic national policy and written into the
Constitution for the first time. How to deal with this productive negative
externality? Let us recall some knowledge of Microeconomics that all of the
remedies share the goal of moving the allocation of resources closer to the
social optimum. Who can tell me what called the social optimum? I think the
social optimum is a state which can continue indefinitely without causing
imbalance. About the question of externality, the government can respond in one
of two ways. Command-and-control policies regulate behavior directly.
Market-based policies provide incentives so that private decision makers will
choose to solve the problem on their own. Obviously, the Chinese government, as
a member of socialism, chose the one child policy as regulation at that time
based on the principle of fairness. I strongly support the family planning
policy because it was just a passive counter-strategy at that time, but in
fact, instead of prohibition of birth in response to this reproductive negative
externality, I prefer corrective taxes to regulations as a way to deal with
negative externality. Poll tax or tradable birth permits. I prefer the latter
one because trade can make everyone better off, and maybe I can get some money
by selling my birth permit to another woman. Unfortunately, I know it is
impossible in China, because money control belongs to the capitalist category
and violence control belongs to the socialist category. Due to the function of
reproduction conforms to the geometric quadratic, one child policy, first
emergency brake, was a mandatory measure that the government had to take at
that time. Fight terroir with terroir and fight violence with violence because
we</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">had</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">no</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">choice
but only resort to coercive measures. Neutering male dog is very popular in the
West because castration is the only way to control reproduction, otherwise, God
must choose a high mortality rate to match. Apparently, first emergency brake
was not enough for Chinese, from 1978 China embarked on the road of capitalism
named “reform and opening up”. Like the enclosure movement in England in the
16th century, we gradually woke up from public ownership and entered the most
brutal private ownership system. How to solve the problem of tragedy of
commons? Internalizing the externality. In panel (d), privatized capitalism
shifts the MC<sub>3</sub> to back to MC<sub>2</sub> to internalize the
externality by increasing the cost of parenting, and equilibrium point moves
from E<sub>3</sub> back to E<sub>2</sub>. The high cost of raising is second
brake, which must be passed on to parents in the form of higher raising prices.
The emergence of pensions is third, last and fatal brake. At the end of the 20<sup>th</sup>
Century, the Chinese government imitated the West to carry out Pension system.
As same as the pension's effect in West, the
purpose of raising children is replaced by pension, so equilibrium point moves
from E<sub>2</sub> to E<sub>4</sub>. The emergence of pensions is third, last
and fatal brake. Why don't I have a baby? Useless for me. Where did I get the
courage? Pensions give me this courage because I like arbitrage as well. You'll
find a common phenomenon in China: People who lives in city, are not willing to
have children because they have good pension and reluctant to bear the high
cost of parenting; people who lives in countryside, are still willing to have
children because they have no pension and still need children's support when
they get old. Because China is gradually entering the aging society, the
shortage of pensions forced the government to change the policy from one child
to two children even to open birth completely. Frankly speaking, China is not
short of people, but there are too many old people for historical reasons, a</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">nd a</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">lmost
all troubles in China now comes from the contradiction between huge population
and limited resources, so Chinese have to fight for everything, such as school,
medical resources, parking lot and so on and so forth. I believe that in the
near future, in order to increase the population, the government has to
subsidize fertility by shifting MC<sub>2</sub> to MC<sub>3</sub> as same reason
as Western, and equilibrium point moves from E<sub>4</sub> to E<sub>5</sub>. </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">There is an inevitable consequence: The rural population
gradually eliminated the urban population. The reason is very simple: On the
road of reproductive professionalism, urban people will gradually become
unqualified suppliers because they are faced with higher opportunity cost than
rural people. Of course, before the subsidy, reproductive legalization of
single women must also be realized. The law is changing over time, but usually
the change is very slow and reaches over several generations. So far, in China,
single women have no right to have own children without marriage, which was
also one of the means of forcing women into monogamy in the past because t</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">he
only reason why many women get into marriage is to have children. But with the
decrease of birth rate, the authorities face the tradeoff between men and
offspring. </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Now the Chinese
government has to reweight the pros and cons. If single women are allowed to
reproduce, the advantage is to increase the population without any subsidy, whereas
the disadvantage is that more and more women will refuse to enter P-V model,
which must lead men will lose free sex slaves, that must threaten social
stability and the rule of the authorities, because the essence of this
legalization is to separate function of the uterus from the function of the
vagina, which is a part of God</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s strategies but depending on the timing. The essence of
monogamy is to use women's strong reproductive desire to force women into the
role of free prostitutes. This insidious strategy works well until the woman
gives up her desire to reproduce, as a result of which authorities have to face
trade-offs. Cheat is an eternal and cheap strategy. According to the latest
unofficial news on the Internet, in order to tie women to two identities of
vagina and uterus, Chinese government began to restrict abortion and divorce
from 2018. Before that, you didn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t need any proof and signature to go to the hospital to
have an abortion, but now, abortion requires community certificates and parents</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">' </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">signatures; before
that, both parties can divorce immediately as long as they go to the Marriage
Registry, but now, they start to limit the number of divorces per day. This is
a clear violation of the principle of free trade under contract civilization. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The
slave owners were worried because there are not enough slaves soon. The United
States place women as double victims as well. The Georgia House Bill 481 was an
American anti-abortion law passed in 2019 that sought to prevent physicians in
the U.S. state of Georgia from performing abortions beyond six weeks, except in
special situations. Why did the authorities dare to issue this heartbeat bill? They
wanted to transfer the cost on women because they did believe women's choices
are inflexible. How should women cope? Transfer costs to others. All women
should shout to the authorities: If you don't let me have an abortion, I will
refuse to take off my pants. After trade-offs, the authorities would definitely
say that you'd better have an abortion. To be honest, the world is very
unfriendly to women. Women are ha</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">lf victims and half accomplices, of course.
</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Anyway, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">after
taking the same problems of inertia, timeliness and moderation, all
possibilities of the Chinese society fall into the shadow of grey, we are still
going through the right because marginal cost shifts down first. Pink arrow may
be the real path which is the real reason and history of Chinese population
evolution. Which curve between supply and demand curves moves first is very
important because it may lead to the opposite strategy. Now, you can understand
very well what I said before “Order matters a lot in evolution”. For example,
the order of death is very important in family heritage succession, which determines
the way property is distributed. There is no short-cut in evolution, and cruel
capitalism is inevitable where Chinese are going through now. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Western civilization has a serious
prejudice against the Chinese government just because it is under the guise of
socialism. This prejudice is too arbitrary. I am not defending the Chinese
government, but family planning was indeed an indispensable means in those
years. To be frank, China was not the only country to adopt family planning
policy, and in the last century Singapore also went through the pink route in
panel (d). World War II in Singapore ended in 1945, and the years following
caused the population to increase faster than the economy was developing. There
were about 1 million baby boomers born between the years of 1947 and 1964, live
births increasing 58%. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">With the rapid increase of Singapore after
the war, the country would soon face of the effects of overpopulation, which
could be the depletion of natural resources, degradation of environment, a rise
in unemployment, and a higher cost of living. From 1947 to 1957, the social
forces which caused the post–World War II baby boom elsewhere in the world also
occurred in Singapore. The birth rate rose and the death rate fell; the average
annual growth rate was 4.4%, of which 1% was due to immigration; Singapore
experienced its highest birth rate in 1957 at 42.7 per thousand individuals.
(This was also the same year the United States saw its peak birth rate.) Upon
Singapore experiencing the many of the effects of overpopulation, and in fear
of experiencing more, the Singapore government decided to step in. Fearing that
Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy, Lee
Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, governing for three decades,
recognized as the nation's founding father, started a vigorous Stop at Two
family planning campaign. Abortion and sterilization were legalized in 1970,
and women were urged to get sterilized after their second child. In addition to
promoting just having two children, the government also encouraged individuals
to delay having their second child and to marry late, reinforcing the
inevitable demographic transition. The situation has changed over time, by
1987, the total fertility rate had dropped to 1.44. The Government of Singapore
had recognized that falling birth rates were a serious problem and began to
reverse its past policy of Stop-at-Two, encouraging higher birth rates instead.
By 30 June of that year, the authorities had abolished the Family Planning and
Population Board. In October 1987, future Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the
son of Lee Kuan Yew, exhorted Singaporeans to procreate rather than
"passively watch ourselves going extinct". Starting 1990, a tax
rebate of 20,000 SGD (US$18,000 in 2010 dollars, factoring historic exchange
rates) were given to mothers who had their second child before the age of 28. Is
Singapore's evolutionary path exactly in pink arrow consistent with my prediction?
Of course, yes. In fact, China would be better if it also began sterilization
in the 1950s. Unfortunately, there is no assumptions in history. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">When I come to population issues, I cannot
avoid the book of <i>An Essay on the Principle
of Population</i> written by Thomas Robert Malthus. I have just finished
reading this good work recently, and I am surprised to find that I coincide
with Malthus on many views. Here, I review this work for a little bit written
two hundred years ago. He wrote: </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The power of
population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce
subsistence for man…. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical
ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight
acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in
comparison of the second…. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary
to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept
equal…. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from
the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must
necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind…. Through the animal
and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the
most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room
and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in
this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill
millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that
imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed
bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great
restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape
from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and
premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice. The former, misery, is an
absolutely necessary consequence of it. Vice is a highly probable consequence,
and we therefore see it abundantly prevail, but it ought not, perhaps, to be
called an absolutely necessary consequence…. In the United States of America,
where the means of subsistence have been more ample, the manners of the people
more pure, and consequently the checks to early marriages fewer, than in any of
the modern states of Europe, the population has been found to double itself in
twenty-five years…. This ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power of
population, yet as the result of actual experience, we will take as our rule,
and say, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every
twenty-five years or increases in a geometrical ratio…. Taking the population
of the world at any number, a thousand millions, for instance, the human
species would increase in the ratio of -- 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256,
512, etc. and subsistence as -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two
centuries and a quarter, the population would be to the means of subsistence as
512 to 10: in three centuries as 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the
difference would be almost incalculable, though the produce in that time would
have increased to an immense extent…. No limits whatever are placed to the
productions of the earth; they may increase for ever and be greater than any
assignable quantity. Yet still the power of population being a power of a
superior order, the increase of the human species can only be kept commensurate
to the increase of the means of subsistence by the constant operation of the
strong law of necessity acting as a check upon the greater power.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">In short, Malthus
believes that the restrictive law of</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> nature</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> is the only reason to keep two unequal powers (the power
of population and the power in the earth to produce subsistence) equal. His
restrictive law is basically the same as my matching theory. In order to keep
equilibrium, God must choose to strike a balance between in and out. A high
“In” rate must match a high “Out” rate. In lots of China Insurance Companies,
the only reason they are hiring every day is that they are laying off employees
every day. Chinese securities brokers are also a profession with low threshold
in and high elimination rate, which is quite cruel. Like the role of price is
to prevent consumption, the role of misery is to prevent reproduction. I
basically agree with him, except for two points. One is he believed plants and
animals are all impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their
species, and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts about
providing for their offspring. Facts proved that he was wrong because animals
can adjust their reproductive strategies based on the different external
environment. When the external environment becomes bad, animals will reduce
their losses by reducing production or sterilization. It turns out that animals
are rational, and they have rational birth control to maximize their payoffs
because they are not in Communism society and can't pass the cost onto others.
The other is he believed human beings are also driven to reproduce by an
equally powerful instinct as same as non-human beings. Like I said before,
human beings are in the half Orc stage, where they began to be controlled by individual
consciousness and genetic consciousness both. Precisely speaking, the motive of
human reproduction lies in somewhere between individual interests and genetic
interests. At least in China, reproduction is an investment for their old age,
and because of this, the strategy of adopting abandoned babies is logical. As
time goes by, with the increase of individual opportunity cost, as reproduction
becomes a negative externality, more and more people, who have higher
opportunity costs, choose to withdraw from the reproductive market. Regardless
whether the Chinese used to love having children, or refuse to have children
right now in China, or love to have children in the West now, the common point
is they are all pursuing personal interests, but the only difference is, as
rational market participants, they rationally choose to enter or exit the
reproductive market based on their own opportunity cost and external
equilibrium price. These Chinese used to be qualified suppliers, but now they
are unqualified suppliers; even though they are unqualified suppliers in China
now, but they are still qualified suppliers in West. At present, two kinds of
Chinese like to have children. One is rich people who tend to have more
children because they make money easily, for example, those film stars who took
advantage of the irrationality of the Chinese people and easily accumulated
huge wealth, so money is cheap in their accounts. The other is poor people who
also tend to have more children because they face very low opportunity costs
and childbirth is a relatively cost-effective investment. In China, only the
middle class does not have more children. There are two reasons: 1. It's not
easy to make money; 2. Opportunity costs are high. Use Bill Clinton famous
saying to sum up, “It's the economy, stupid.” In summary, human beings now are
controlled by individuals and genes at the same time, so it is hard to predict
their decisions accurately according to a single interest subject. Additionally,
I am</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">a little extended about Mr. Godwin and his utopian
vision. In Matthew 7:15 Jesus reminds people to beware of false prophets: Watch
out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they
are ferocious wolves. I have never doubted their intentions, but the road to
hell is paved with good intentions, which only throw the whole community in
confusion. Communism will never come, because human endless desires and limited
products are naturally unequal.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">You must change the payoffs,
if you want to change someone</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s option. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The law acts only as a threshold made by human in order
to preserve equilibrium. The differences in value preference around the world
are staggering as same as it in living standards, so the equilibrium points
must be reached in different location from country to country. In some
countries, the roadside parking needs to be charged $5 to solve traffic jams,
while in some other countries, it needs to be charged $10 to solve traffic
jams. Different societies need different laws to maintain balance. Blind imitation
inevitably leads to imbalances because the two share the different tipping
points. According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, this principle, being that life
depends on, or consists in, the incessant action and reaction of various
forces, which, as throughout nature, are always tending towards an equilibrium;
and when this tendency is slightly disturbed by any change, the vital forces
gain in power. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The law </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">itself</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">divided into neither</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">good</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> n</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">or</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">bad</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">, but either useful or
useless. Useful law prevents people from doing evil while useless law
encourages people to do evil. The law itself has a powerful demonstration
effect. What kind of behavior should be punished by law? It depends on whether
the society would fall into mess when all others follow this behavior. For
example, baby hatch is the result of blind learning from the West, which should
not exist in China at all. According to the news, the baby hatch in Guangzhou
has received 262 babies in less than two months. All 262 babies suffer from
disabilities or diseases such as cerebral palsy, Down</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s syndrome and
congenital heart disease. This baby hatch has been overwhelmed with abandoned
infants, forcing a suspension of services. The closing of baby hatch is a
perfect display of degeneration after the failure of taking Chinese into the
virtual state by stupid and radical people. One percent of birds (usually
cuckoos and cowbirds but also including a species of duck), is entirely
dependent on other species to raise their young. Naturally this arrangement is
rarely to the advantage of the “host” birds, who may end up raising unrelated
young in addition to their own. So, selects in the victim for the ability to
recognize a strange-looking egg and eject it. This, in turn, selects for egg
mimicry in the brood parasite because they have the tendency to produce eggs
which have the same spotting and coloration as the eggs of the host. Baby hatch
for them is as same as host nest for cuckoos or other 'brood-parasites',
because a bird cuckoo deposits her egg and disappears as same as them. Why do
the parents send their babies to baby hatch? The only reason is, from the
perspective of personal interests, parents feel that continuing to invest is a money-losing
business and want to transfer the costs to taxpayers. In other words, parents feel
that disabled children are useless to them, but the key is that disabled children
are useless to others as well. The existence of baby hatch inevitably creates
arbitrage opportunity and a kind of built-in unfairness for poor guys who
raises their own children. So, the bad and irresponsible genes would spread
through the population, and the nice and responsible genes would break down.
Arbitrageurs set a bad example to others because they did something bad but
without any punishment, so soon afterwards others will follow suit to
arbitrage. The closing of baby hatch is quite normal thing, just the matter of
sooner or later. Even in the United States, bankruptcy law stipulates student
loans and child support won</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t be
forgiven. It is reported that Evander Holyfield has a minimum of 11 children
and Dwight Howard has 10 children. Under American law, they have to provide
financial support to all their biological children even in bankruptcy. Another
question is, why don't pregnant women have prenatal exams? They totally can
abort a malformed child before birth by modernized medical service, but still
why? The reason is very simple: they are poor and have little opportunity cost.
A pregnant woman should have at least four fetal examinations before birth, and
of course these examinations could cost thousands of RMB. For most of Chinese,
the best strategy is directly giving birth after 10 months without any
examination, and then kill the baby if the parents find it deformed or female,
and then give birth to next one. During the so-called classic times, it was
common to expose babes to the tender mercies of wild beasts. Infanticide is
also very common in animal. The mother dog would kill the defective puppy to
avoid the waste of milk, and improve the survival rate of the other pup,
because milk is limited and the mother must weigh the pros and cons. In trading
stock, the three most important rules are “cut your losses, cut your losses,
and cut your losses.” People respond to incentives only. An incentive is
something that induces a person to act, such as the prospect of a punishment or
a reward. Because rational people make decisions by comparing costs and
benefits, they respond to incentives. You will see that incentives play a
central role in the study of economics. One economist went so far as to suggest
that the entire field could be simply summarized: “People respond to
incentives. The rest is commentary.” Apparently, on fertility issues, Chinese
and Westerners made opposite decisions because social and private incentives
differed. For example, John Lone, a Chinese American actor, was born in HK but abandoned
by his parents as soon as he was born, and then was adopted by an odd and
disabled woman. Unfortunately, the only purpose of this women is just to get
government subsidies through John Lone. A Korean film named Barbie (2012) illustrated
that the only purpose of American rich people's adoption in South Korea is for
organ transplantation. All hidden beneath the surface of beauty are cruel
truths. Whether reproduction, adoption, abandonment or abortion is just the
choice to maximize individual interests. When abortion in advance is more
advantageous to them, they would choose abortion instead of giving birth. Public
policymakers should never forget about incentives: Many policies change the
costs or benefit that people face and, therefore, alter their behavior. In
other words, s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">ubsidies people get from government affects
their incentives and the decisions they make, and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">baby hatches reduce the
benefits of responsibility. How to solve this problem? We must adopt the
strategy of internalizing the externality as a response. This is the cruel reality and real equilibrium
state where Chinese are. In this case, it is necessary for Chinese government
to allow people to kill their own defective children before two years old because,
for them, the cost of rebirth is far less than the cost of treating disabled
children. Don't say I'm cold-blooded, unless you bear the costs of all these
treatments. The Chinese and Western cultures have very different ideas about
the death of the children. In China parents will receive popular sympathy when
parents</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">
negligence leads their children to death. The public believe the parents are
the loss of the child</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s death
because they have invested some sunk costs without any return. But when the
same thing happens in Western countries, the public believe parents are
murderers and must be punished by law. Human rights are a false proposition. </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The great difference
about children between Chinese and Western stems from the property right of children.
In West with developed old-age insurance, the beneficiaries of the children's
existence are the whole society, and the property right of children belongs to
the whole society, so parents will be deprived of their guardianship by the
government if they don't treat children very well, and then the government has
a special institution to take over the children. On the contrary, in China with
underdeveloped old-age insurance, the beneficiaries of the children's existence
are the parents, and the property right of children belongs to the parents, due
to the negative externality, parents have the incentive to leave their children
to the society. In short, in West children are public goods and in China
children are private goods, so 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. The
starting point of contract civilization is the clarity of property rights and a
well-defined individual right. I have the right to dispose of my personal
belongings, including beating my horse, shooting my dogs eat my rats, and
killing my baby. Chinese overseas students often complain that they beat dogs
in the rental house, which was reported by the landlord, as a result of which they
were warned by the police. In the eyes of Chinese people, it has nothing to do
with you whether I beat my dog or my child. I advocate that parents have the
right to kill their young and sick children in China, because the cost of
treatment is much more than having another one. This belongs to the category of
private rights. Don't stand on your moral high ground and judge them because
you don't pay for them. In China, the government can't deprive the parental
custody of their children because everyone will throw their children to the
government. In the West, the essence of depriving the parental custody is to
deprive revenue, but in China is to deprive cost. Committing the direction
wrong is fatal. There are only two things in the world: One is how to split the
interests; the other is how to apportion the costs. Children in China are just
tools of parents: One is for supporting them in old age, the other is for
fulfilling their unfinished dreams. The fact that all Chinese, especially
mothers, put all their hopes on their children, illustrates two things: One is
they have no self-awareness, the other is they despaired of China's current
society, so they are eager to change their fate through their children after
the failure of changing their fate through their husbands. Now, the education
of the Chinese is abnormality. In the heart of women's comparisons, the
children are speeding up towards the Communist society. Parents want children
to be winner in everywhere in life, so children need to go to school earlier,
get married earlier and giving birth earlier. There is a famous slogan of
powdered milk in China, “Don't let your child lag behind the starting line.”
This is the sorrow of the generation of one child. Owing to the pension
deficit, the Chinese government allows two children to be born. The greatest
benefit of Two-Children Policy, I think, is to collapse the unique alliance
between parents and offspring, and let Chinese know there should be a boundary
between any two adults, because under Two Children Policy, parent have to face
how to invest in two children while two children have to face how to compete
for parents’ limited resources. Two-Children Policy must break the Chinese
traditional family as same as the fact that female orgasm must break the
traditional sexual relations, because the only thing which can break the
current equilibrium is interests. Maternal love is not great at all because
nothing is great in evolution, which only related to personal calculations and
opportunity costs. Recently, I saw an absurd news about second child like this:
A couple approaching 50 years old insisted on having a second child despite
their poor financial situation because their eldest son didn't filial piety
them. It's not over yet, and the more absurd is still behind. Because they didn't
have the money to raise their second son, they sued their eldest son for
raising his younger brother after the eldest son refused to raise his young
brother. This ridiculous lawsuit ended in that blackmailers win. The judge
ruled that the elder brother must raise the younger brother. It's really a good
play of passing on the costs to each other. Never doubt the purpose of
reproduction. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Many suitable policies
in the West are not acclimatized in other countries, because they are located
in different equilibrium states with different preferences and different budget
line, so different the laws needed. The West should erode some popular beliefs
about many things, such as One Child Policy, Same-sex marriage, Child Labor,
Unmarried childbearing and so on and so forth. All the problems are how people
face the tradeoff between short-term interests and long-term interests.
Long-term interests can't be taken into people's account before the short-term
interests satisfied. The first problem China faced is not human rights nor
dictatorship, but poverty. At beginning, I may be tempted to conclude that a
human life is priceless, influenced by Western values, but now I know I was
wrong, and each person's life is worth different prices. A better way to value
human life is to look at the risks that people are voluntarily willing to take
and how much they must be paid for taking them. The life of a man who runs a
red light must be worthless; the life of a child who is abandoned by his
parents at the gate of baby hatch is worthless. You might say I am
cold-blooded, but that is a fact. The value of each man's life is very
different from each other as same as the time cost, depending on what you can
do with your time. There is a stupid saying, “children are innocent.” But from
genetic perspective, no child is innocent because one of the most striking
properties of survival-machine behavior is its apparent purposiveness, and
someone must pay for its purpose, from individual's perspective, we are all
born guilty because we are all the products of sexual assault. A foolish policy
can only lead to moral hazard. The most useless thing in the world is good
intention with low intelligence. Let me reiterate my view that I support female
infanticide because those girls who were born in families that tried to abort
their children would suffer the living death all their lives. The only purpose
of the government to keep them alive is to produce enough comfort women and
placebos just under the guise of human rights. Shameless enough! How to
maintain the balance from Game Theory? First of all, change the payoffs of the
game of reproduction; secondly, people are governed by inertia, so the old
regulation should continue to be used; finally, people gradually become
rational and choose to enter or exit the market, and at this time, regulation
gradually withdrew from the stage of history. Sometimes waiting is a good
strategy. Waiting for what? Waiting for all old people without pensions dead.
Learning from the West blindly will only lead to degeneration, even anti-stokes
degeneration. All in all, species in different areas need to be inhibited
differently, and don't forget, at any time, segregation is not the worst
strategy. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">As a conservative, here I have to defend
the dictators for a little bit. To be honest, Chinese must</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">follow</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">our</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">own</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">path
instead of blind learning from the West. The failure of Baby </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">hatch is
a big lesson. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">From the above analysis of the population,
we can easily draw conclusion that the Chinese government should adopt policies
that are diametrically opposed to Western governments because what kind of
policies government should adopt depends on which curve moves first, and any
the government's strategy only serves as a
hedge to keep equilibrium. It's hard for the Chinese government to deal with
the population problem because the gap between the rich and the poor is too
large. The Chinese have spent 40 years walking through the capitalism where the
Westerners have been walking for 300 years. Not only the material civilization
gap is big in China, the spiritual civilization disparity is bigger. In ancient
China without any welfare system, people chose to reproduce as many as
possible, so the government, at that time, had to choose “Poll tax” as
counter-strategy to suppress the population explosion. In further, the better
the social welfare, the more children the poor guys want. To be honest, the
best strategy to deal with Chinese is the price discrimination, but I don't
think it would be adopted by government because of so-called “Equality”. Like I
said before, there is a purpose for Chinese to adopt children, and all goodness
with a purpose is not really good, but just an investment. The misunderstanding
between China and West lies in the child's property rights. In all confusion,
the market fails to allocate resources efficiently because property rights are
not well established. When you put aside the emotional factors, you can see
through the reasons behind any seemingly opposite phenomenon. There are only
two things in the world: (1) how to divide profits; (2) how to share costs. All
the confusion in Utopia is due to no clear rights and responsibilities. The law
stipulates who benefits and who pays. Nothing to do with human rights. I dare
to say that there are many good policies in West, but are not suitable for
China. If we take inappropriate strategies, it will inevitably lead to crazy
arbitrage and collapse finally. Keep in mind that direction is more important
than effort. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Let</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s be frank and come to my conclusion: Human
rights is a false proposition because human cognitive ability is always
limited, otherwise Western woman would not be penetrated under the guise of
lies. Human reasons, however, are subordinate to the Supreme mission, and
different races are located on different equilibrium, so they must have
different human rights. You can find that there is a greater difference between
savage and civilized men than between some savage men and some beasts. You must
be surprised at the gap between the state of nature and the state of so-called
civilization, but I am not surprised by this gap. American president Trump once
said, “These aren</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t people. These are animals.”
My question is how to define which beings are human and which are non-human
animals? The ambiguity of concept stems from the ambiguity you define. In my
opinion, the former is guided by transaction civilization, and the latter
violence civilization, so in some sense, savage men are closer to animals
instead of humans. Havelock Ellis said that there are certainly more rapes
committed in marriage than outside it. On many issues, same country in
different times, have the opposite cognition, let alone different countries.
What explains the huge change of human value preference depending on time and
space? Similarly, there is a greater difference between men and women than
between savage and civilized men, because men are only interested in something
which is useful to them, while women are only interested in something which
they like, so people believed that men are from Mars, and women are from Venus.
If we look at sexual relationship with calm and disinterested eye, it seems, at
first, to show us only the violence of men and the oppression of women. The
mind is shocked at the blackness of the one, or is induced to lament the
blindness of the other; and as nothing is less permanent in society than those
relationships without any interest exchange, which seem at first glance to be
founded merely on banks of shifting sand. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Do not
stand in your equilibrium to evaluate the human rights problems in the former
equilibrium blindly. It's so childish and
ridiculous like I use my identity of the Savior to judge the woman rights in
P-V model, because in my eyes, any P-V model is just a sort of sex invasion
regardless of whether women are willing or not. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">What the West showed the Middle
East through its telescope is a fata morgana as same as utopia, and not the paradise,
because there is no paradise at all in the world. What has always made the
Middle East a hell on earth has been precisely that West has tried to make it
so-called heaven. Different people face different budget lines due to different
wealth, and different races have different have different behavior preferences
due to the inertia of their own convention, so their points of tangency must be
different, therefore different races need different laws, as thresholds, to
maintain social equilibrium. The spread of the truth during different
civilizations also inevitably has the problems of lag and confusion. For
example, in Western Civilization people already have all kinds of hardware and
software to accept the cruel truth, according to some news, one third of men
would be OK having sex with a robot in German, and women are economically
independent and men are willing to respect women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s rights to say no in the legal and
contract society with perfect pension system, so when the truth about female
orgasm comes out western society can immediately enter the new stable state.
The truth of female orgasm is very complex involving many aspects, such as
female economic independence, social legal system, reproductive problems and
pension system so on and so forth. In other words, west can bear the
consequences of the truth, but other civilizations would fall into chaos after
the truth. In China, despite the economic independence of women, women still
need the protection of man in the brutal society, so you would find that
phenomenon that leftover women are in Beijing and Shanghai and there is no
leftover woman in rural courtside because lack of legal system where violence
is still in a dominant position, therefore the truth of female orgasm must lead
to some kind of chaos. In Middle East, most women can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t go out to work, so women have to survive
by marriage, therefore the truth has nothing to do with them. Similarly, in
primitive Africa, rape must be still everywhere because lack of legal system
regardless of the truth of female orgasm. That is why you would find an
interesting thing that all kinds of lies about female orgasm only exist in
society of women's economic independence, because there is no need to have any
lies in barbaric civilization but female circumcision only. No matter the truth
or lies can not change the barbaric civilization (E<sub>0</sub>). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Similarly, legality is a false proposition
as well. As you know, different countries have opposite laws, because there is
no unified opinion to the rightness or wrongness of actions in the world, so a
nation regards an action as evil while another nation as a virtue. For some
examples, Muslims can neither eat pork nor drink alcohol. Their aversion to the
flesh of the "unclean beast" is resembling an instinctive antipathy.
Drinking and eating pork is popular in the West. Gambling is legal in many
Western countries, but illegal in China. Why? In fact, China also has a lottery
which, in essence, is also a form of gambling. I think there two reasons why
the government prohibits gambling. One reason is that the government wants to
monopolize the interests of gambling, because gambling is a zero-sum
proposition-players trading stakes, less the house cut. In other words, only
the market maker can reap risk-free profits. Do you think a selfish government
would give arbitrage opportunities to someone else? Definitely not. It is more
reasonable to suppose a law to have been invented by those to whom it would be
of service, than by those whom it must have harmed. The other reason is that
Chinese are irrational groups, and losers must resort to violence because they
would gamble beyond his economic power. The authorities do not want to see the
escalation of violence threatening themselves. Except the legalization of
gambling, different countries hold the opposite attitudes about the issue of
the legalization of prostitution. I have seen a news that Cambridge students
are working as prostitutes and strippers. The students claimed they sell their
bodies to pay for tuition fees and living costs. Many feminists oppose the
legalization of prostitution, because they think legalization has only resulted
in “the explosive growth of legal brothels” and did not succeed in making the
industry “safer” for women but rather resulted in an increase of trafficking in
order to fill the demand. Anti-prostitution feminists hold that prostitution is
a form of exploitation of women and male dominance over women, and a practice
which is the result of the existing patriarchal societal order. These feminists
argue that prostitution has a very negative effect, both on the prostitutes
themselves and on society as a whole, as it reinforces stereotypical views
about women, who are seen as sex objects which can be used and abused by men.
In my opinion, these objections are totally illogical. I have two reasons
against them. First reason is trafficking of women is the result of lack of
legal system, have nothing to do with whether legalization of prostitution or
not. In China, where prostitution is prohibited, but trafficking of women is
very rampant. Here I recommend you a good movie called “Blind Mountain”
which tells about women trafficking in China. Second reason is doing the same
job on the bed, apparently, the charge strictly dominates free of charge for
women. With the same services on bed, anything is better than nothing, and
prostitutes are better than free prostitutes. I had given the reason why the
government prohibits prostitution, the main reason is to cater to the broad
masses of poor men, and the legalization of prostitutes must eliminate the free
sex-service as soon as possible, because rational strategy is looking at a
game, figuring out which strategies are dominated, deleting them immediately. Generally
speaking, our society makes it illegal for people to sell their organs or
blood. In essence, in the market for organs or blood, the government has
imposed a price ceiling of zero. The result, as with any binding price ceiling,
is a shortage of the good. Rationally speaking, no one should donate blood or
organs based on Economics. However, fact is not like what economists expect. In
order to increase blood supply, some western countries have ever changed unpaid
blood donation into paid blood donation, but the result was not satisfactory. On
the contrary, more and more people chose to exit the supply. Why is that? There
is a key difference between unpaid blood donation and paid blood donation: one
is an act of charity, and the other an act of commerce. When people are
instilled with this concept that unpaid blood donation is equivalent to nobility,
fraternity, morality and honor, any of which hard to value belongs to the</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">imaginary axis, they make irrational
decisions under utopian communism. When all of these auras are gone, people are
entering computational capitalism, as a result of which people begin to count
gains and losses pragmatically based on real axis and realize as soon as possible
that selling blood is no more than a profession and people with lower
opportunity costs will become a professional blood donor. Unpaid blood
donation, as a strictly dominated strategy, would be eliminated by paid blood
donation. Reason leads to bad outcomes. Of course, the blood of the fool is not
enough. Blood trading on the black market, as an underground economy, still
exists as a kind of compensation. Where there is a demand, there will always be
a supply. The same logic also can apply to sex-service market. If one day prostitution
is legalized, unpaid sex-service, as a strictly dominated strategy, would be
eliminated by paid sex-service. As a result, more and more women, as unqualified
sellers in sex-service market, will choose to exit the supply. Although prostitution
is illegal in many countries, including U.S., prostitution never ever really
disappeared. Such paid markets would lead to an efficient allocation of
resources, but some critics worry about fairness. Markets for blood, organs and
sex-service, they argue, would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor
because blood, organs and sex-service would then be allocated to those most
willing and able to pay. Isn't this the essence of market economy? Unpaid
market merely transfers costs, not eliminates them. It is an eternal theme in
the violent civilization that let the weak be more unfortunate, while the
eternal theme in the contract civilization is that let the fool be more unfortunate.
So, Feminism is a false proposition too. What kind of behavior should be
banned? There is no such law good or bad, only suitable or inappropriate. No person ought to be punished simply for being
drunk, but must be punished for drunk driving. When your actions affect others,
or you pass on the cost or risk of your actions to someone else, such
behaviours should be prohibited, including drugs and drunk driving. Suitable
laws are good at internalizing costs in order to prevent</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> u</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">nrestrained
bullying. The law of the Lombards15 has a
regulation which ought to be adopted by all governments. “If a master debauches
his slave's wife, the slave and his wife shall be restored to their freedom.”
An admirable expedient, which, without severity, lays a powerful restraint on
the incontinence of masters! </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Order matters a lot in evolution<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Here I intend to use the electron
configurations in The Periodic Table to illustrate the importance of orders in
evolution, and then I will end up with an important conclusion that there is no
problem called “Human Rights”. The following figure 6.6 is social stability
configuration table, I inspired by the electron configurations in Chemistry. As
our story begins, first of all, you must admit that a closed civilization must
be in a stable state as same as the example of Isolandian textile market in
Microeconomics written by N. Gregory Mankiw. In any isolated system, domestic
interests of all parties must reach an equilibrium state without any
international communication. What is human civilization? It is a series of
discontinuous stable states. Why discontinuous? The answer is simple: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">segregation by environment
like I said before</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">. If without segregation, the two systems
must be combined together to form an only one equilibrium. Everyone knows the
most stable electron configuration is when the entire shell is full (noble gas
configuration). In the case of noble gases there will be eight electrons in the
valence (outer most) shell (with the exception of He which has two electrons).
All atoms would like to attain electron configurations like noble gases, i.e.,
have completed outer shells. Atoms can form stable electron configurations like
noble gases by losing electrons, gaining electrons and sharing electrons. For a
stable configuration each atom must fill its outer energy level. Atoms that
have 1, 2 or 3 electrons in their outer levels will tend to lose them in
interactions with atoms that have 5, 6 or 7 electrons in their outer levels.
Atoms that have 5, 6 or 7 electrons in their outer levels will tend to gain
electrons from atoms with 1, 2 or 3 electrons in their outer levels. Atoms that
have 4 electrons in the outer most energy level will tend neither to totally
lose nor totally gain electrons during interactions and thus they tend to share
electrons. What can we get from chemical world? Different civilizations, as
stable configurations, must stay in Group 18 (noble gas configurations). For
example, maybe African civilization stays in Argon with 18 (2+8+8) electrons,
and Middle east civilization stays in</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Krypton with 36 (2+8+8+18)
electrons, and Oriental civilization stays in Xenon with 54 (2+8+8+18+18)
electrons, and Western civilization stays in Radon with 86 (2+8+8+18+18+32)
electrons. Have you considered the problem that the evolution of human beings
is a ladder type, but time is continuous, and how does it work? The answer is
simple too: In the Periodic Table, atoms choose to achieve stable
configurations by gaining or losing outer electrons, and similarly in human
evolution, authorities choose to achieve stable states by resorting to violence
and lies. The law of monogamy belongs to violence, while love and G-spot belong
to lies. Notice here: Each atom in Group 18 is in a stable configuration but
with different electrons configurations. In other words, you have to fill
different electronic orbits when you want to be different position in Group 18,
although their outermost layers are all the P orbits which hold total of 6
electrons. In any isolated system, all parties reach an equilibrium state, and
because of no comparison there is no human rights issues. Now suppose that, in
an election upset, Isoland elects a new president. The president campaigned on
a platform of “open” and promised the voters bold new ideas. With the opening
of the country, the troubles followed. Someone says, “I require monogamy
because western countries are monogamy, and it's not fair to me.” Someone says, “I require fertility subsidy because
Western governments subsidize fertility, and it's not fair to me.” Someone
says, “I require election because western countries are elected, and it's not
fair to me.” When there is a comparison, all people want the government to make
policies towards his/her own advantage but forget to consider whether the new
equilibrium can be maintained. In this mess, the government is also muddled, so
the whole people entered the utopian communism, and no one can judge by reason,
and no one can put himself/herself into other people's shoes. Everyone restrains
himself/herself according to the standard of a bitch but others according to
the standard of a saint! Let's go back to Group 18. Let's suppose one
civilization stays in Neon equilibrium where full electronic configuration is
1s2 2s2 2p6, because their material civilization and spiritual civilization can
only fill orbits of 1s, 2s and 2p; another civilization stays in Krypton
equilibrium where full electronic configuration is 1s2 2s2 2p6 <u>3s2 3p6 4s2
3d10</u> 4p6; a third civilization stays in Radon equilibrium where full
electronic configuration is 1s2 2s2 2p6 <u>3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10 4p6 5s2 4d10 5p6
6s2 4f14 5d10</u> 6p6. Under the guise of fairness, justice and human rights,
everyone in Neon equilibrium tried to gain the electrons from 4p6 or 6p6. Do
you think it's possible? Of course not. There is basic rule for filling
orbitals: Lowest energy orbitals fill first which is a general role and also
can be applied in evolution. According to this principle, the electrons will
first occupy the orbitals that have the lowest energy. This means that the
electrons enter first orbital and then enter the orbitals which have higher
energy but only when the lower energy orbitals are completely filled. What does
it mean? It means you can't get the electron from 4p6 without completely
filling these orbitals of <u>3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10</u>, or you can't get the
election from 6p6 without completely filling these orbitals of <u>3s2 3p6 4s2
3d10 4p6 5s2 4d10 5p6 6s2 4f14 5d10</u>. There is no short-cut in evolution,
and order matters a lot in evolution, and we have to evolve step by step. Please
be patient. Once you make mistake in orders, you must pay a heavy price to get
back to the right path. Direction is more important than effort. Here is an
example: Pollution and becoming rich. Environmental pollution is inevitable for
any country to become rich. To tolerate pollution is a necessary condition for
China to become rich. It is impossible to get rich and clean environment at
same time. The poor have low evaluation of the environment while the rich have
a high evaluation of the environment, so the poor are willing to exchange goods
and services with clean environment, but the rich are not. Any country on its
way to rich must experience pollution first and then control. There is no
industrial pollution in Africa so they are still in primitive civilization. For
the same reason, there is no short-cut in intellectual property, piracy and
fake goods in China. There is an old saying in China, “You can know honor or disgrace
after you get rich in materials.” When you are hungry, you don't deserve any
courtesy and dignity. Your position in evolution determines all strategies you
could have like the position of an atom in the periodic table determines all
its properties. Fluorine is destined to be an electron acceptor because i</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-no-proof: yes;">t is really
happy taking an electron</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> from another atom or taking a free
electron. That is very favorable for fluorine. On the contrary, sodium is
destined to be an electron donor because it is really happy giving an electron
away. That is also very favorable for sodium. The essence of Western ignorance
is forcing fluoride to lose electrons and forcing sodium to get electrons. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cnyCXCPSiBY/XGaa91guvmI/AAAAAAAAClo/Q9m8ABKWMuQjbhX5eR3LRcqs4gH65bhwgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%2585%2583%25E7%25B4%25A0%25E5%2591%25A8%25E6%259C%259F%25E8%25A1%25A86.6-2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="1600" height="128" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cnyCXCPSiBY/XGaa91guvmI/AAAAAAAAClo/Q9m8ABKWMuQjbhX5eR3LRcqs4gH65bhwgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%2585%2583%25E7%25B4%25A0%25E5%2591%25A8%25E6%259C%259F%25E8%25A1%25A86.6-2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">There is another principle called Pauli
exclusion. In my word, Pauli exclusion means the advanced material civilization
is incompatible with the lower spiritual civilization. I am not going to trot
out the catalogue, but will mention just a few my experiences. There is a
garden in front of my apartment where all kinds of trees are planted. I know
from the good intentions of the government, in order to make people rest
better, government built some stone tables and stone benches. I tell you the
beginning, but I promise you can't guess the
end. Two years later, all the stone tables and stone benches were destroyed.
Why is that? Are there too many bad guys in China? No. The real reason is
someone howled loudly on the stone benches and playing cards on the stone
tables at night even whole night until to sunrise, and the use of electricity
magnifies this confusion. I bet the destroyer must live nearby because that's
the last straw. The chaos of the world comes from the broadcasting of zero
thresholds, and the result of blind equality is many people get the freedom
that they should not have. Similarly, the Chinese have already lived the
building, but they do not have the spiritual civilization of living the
building, so falling objects from high building and noise nuisance happen every
day. In Switzerland, there are rules that govern the use of the communal
laundry room and taking a bath or shower at night, and many apartment blocks
have their own rules on toilet flushing after a certain time, noise, jumping up
and down on floors (must be difficult if you have got children), and other
“minor” rules aimed at making the apartment block peaceful for everyone. Local
police regulations in most areas call for peace and quiet between 10pm and 7am,
and keeping a dog or cat, for instance, will make you ineligible for many
rented apartments. These are spiritual civilizations which Chinese are lacking
of, so Chinese has been in a variety of chaos where the Westerners must go
crazy if live in. Additionally, low quality population are everywhere, such as
a full professor, who bought a table tennis table and put it in his apartment,
played ping-pong every night. In order to deal with the noise from upstairs,
people from downstairs evolved a counter-strategy that a kind of oscillator was
invented for revenge. Essentially, we can regard oscillator and poisoning dog
as hedging means, aiming at transferring the cost of doing evil back to the
perpetrator. Trust me, there is no other way because Tit for tat is the last
way. It is true that because of too loud and too rude almost whole world hate
Chinese tourists. Jeremy Clarkson, a famous British media man, posted a video
on the TV presenter's Instagram where Clarkson mouthed 'shout up' to the camera
on Chinese train because a guy was chatting loudly on the phone "for
hours". Suddenly, I know the reason why there was a sign at the entrance
to the Huangpu Park in Shanghai 100 years ago supposedly announced: "No
Dogs or Chinese Allowed." A hundred years have passed, and the Chinese
people have not changed anything. A German fashion store, called
Blutsgeschwister, posted a Chinese notice</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> i</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">n
January 2019 to warn the Chinese not to eat or drink, or spit, or shout in the
store. Among the grievances, voiced from Thailand to Paris to New York, are
Chinese tourists' tendency to spit, to speak loudly indoors, and to have no
concept of how to form or respect a line. Specific recent transgressions that
sparked outrage both domestically and abroad include Chinese tourists
inadvertently killing a dolphin and a Chinese youth carving his name into an
ancient Egyptian relic. Those habits of lower civilizations are incompatible
with the modern civilizations of higher order. Chinese mourners have been
burning joss paper – known as “ghost money” – for centuries. This is largely
due to a folk belief in China that if you burn paper money and make offerings
at the graves of your ancestors, the deceased will receive them and benefit
from a happy and prosperous afterlife. But this ancient custom which makes the
whole community smoky is incompatible with Chinese modern civilization. Moreover,
burning paper causes forest fires every year. Many Chinese people live in
high-rise apartments, but they did not learn the rules of high-rise housing. In
reality, high-altitude parabolic cause damage occurred from time to not only
difficult to stop, and more frequent. I don't
have a license, nor do I buy a car, nor do I want to associate with lawless
Chinese, because I don't want to be dragged into quagmire. Those people who
have not been trained by modern traffic rules must inevitably appear to be out
of order in modern traffic civilization. In addition, driverless technology is
not suitable for low civilization at all because there are always pedestrians in
front of the car regardless of green light or red light. They look like a
locust plague. Safety hammers are often lost on buses because social and
private incentives differ. Shared bikes are badly damaged because of the
tragedy of the commons. Here is a new report: The Chinese simply love IKEA!
Millions visit the company's mainland stores every year, but only a few of them
actually end up buying something, as many just come to enjoy the
air-conditioning on a hot summer day and take a nap on the comfy furniture on
display. According to several reports, and photos, many Chinese people plan out
day at IKEA. They drive to a store from miles away, eat, drink and nap in
public, enjoying the cool air on a hot summer day, and a lot of male visitors
were topless while sleeping. Scenes inside Chinese IKEA store make people
speechless! In addition, in order to enjoy free air conditioning, the Chinese
also occupy the library and subway passageway. The counter-strategies of
western advanced civilization cannot deal with the people of low civilization,
but that of low civilization can. Recently, I saw a funny short video, which
showed that a group of old men and women dance in the lobby of a hotel which provide
free air conditioning inside. The staff consulted with them and they refused to
leave. Apparently, western preaching doesn't work. Guess what the staff did to
get rid of them? The staff turned up the air conditioner to 30 degrees, and the
old people fled. Western material civilization air conditioning does not match
the status of Chinese, because Chinese people already have the desire to enjoy
western material, but they are reluctant to bear the cost. West Metro Automatic
Check-in does not match the Chinese because no one will buy tickets in China; automatic
coin parking in the United States does not match the Chinese either because it
is common for many drivers to beat toll collectors in order to escape the
charges in China; self-service supermarket does not match the Chinese either
because there are many thieves in non-self-service supermarket, let alone in
self-service; mix room does not match the Chinese either because Chinese poor
men like to shoot and harass the women in mix room. Democracy makes no
exceptions. These self-service systems are the product of contract civilization
and are not suitable for violent civilization. There is a very big misunderstanding
in the world, namely regard freedom as civilization. On the contrary,
civilization is the containment of freedom. There is principle of freedom</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">—<span lang="EN-US">no harm principle which they cannot abide by, so they don't deserve that freedom. Now, the Chinese also
have the inability of the proletariat, but they have the desire of the
bourgeoisie, so the imbalance and chaos are inevitable. 40 years of reform and
opening up have given them desire, but not ability. They all want to get
products and services as many as possible but at expense of nothing as same as
proletarian men who want to get sex-services for free. Similarly, women don't
have the ability of men, but have the desire of men, so the imbalance and chaos
are inevitable. Just as God treats women, God's strategy is to cast off your
desires when you are</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">capable of reaching the next
equilibrium. Chinese don't deserve sympathy
or helping, so do women. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The
World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are more than 200 million
stray dogs worldwide and that every year, 55,000 people die from rabies, while
another 15 million receive post exposure treatment to avert the deadly disease.
95% of these cases occur in Asia and Africa, and 99% of the fatalities are
caused by dogs. The stray dog-driven rabies crisis in Bali is hardly unique:
India culls as many as 100,000 strays at a time, while attacks by marauding
packs of dogs in Baghdad have led to a reinstitution of the same eradication
program that was operated under Saddam Hussein. Its goal: the culling of over
one million stray dogs. In Bangkok and many other Asian and African locales,
living with strays and rabies is just an accepted fact of life. An estimated
200 dogs per square kilometer occupy Bangkok, fouling sidewalks and streets,
causing traffic accidents and serving as vectors for rabies and other diseases.
Incomplete statistics show that there are 40 million stray dogs in China now,
and this number increases at a rate of 1.5 times a year. Stray dogs can be
found in every corner of every city. In an egregious act of animal cruelty, a
city in China has opted to kill 36,000 stray and pet dogs. The motivation
behind the killings was the elimination of rabies. The eradication measures
employed by third world countries</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">—</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">poisoning
and shooting strays</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">—</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">spark
sensational headlines and searing criticism in the West. A nip on the ankle by
a stray dog in any of these developing countries quickly jolts Western tourists
into the life and death reality of the situation. “Thankfully” the stray dog
overpopulation crisis has earned the attention of Western humanitarians, animal
welfare organizations and businesses. Not only did these Western holy mother
bitches save the refugees, but they started to save the stray dogs as well.
Lots of ignorant and naive Chinese (women in particular), under the
brainwash of the Western holy mother bitches, begin to be the Savior of stray
dogs. The slaughter of cats and dogs for meat is not outlawed in China. These
lunatics are starting to stop culling of stray dogs and
eating dog meat. Vietnamese also love dog meat very much, which does
not cause any confusion in Vietnam. Not only that, but the Vietnamese love to
eat cats. Do cats have cat rights? What about chickens, ducks, pigs, cows and
sheep? The superposition of multiple civilizations makes it impossible for
Chinese people to reach consensus on the issue of stray dogs. It reminds me of
a recent news story: A vegan activist group still hasn</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t
let up on protesting outside of local Toronto restaurant Antler Kitchen &
Bar. Protesters hold a large black-and-pink banner that reads “MURDER” in front
of the window. Some protesters hold a sign reading 'in memory of the animals
who didn't want to die'. To be honest, I don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t
want to die either, but I have to. What surprised me more is, in northern Europe,
not only do people eat meat, but they don't drink milk either. They do believe
that drinking milk is an immoral act because only after forced mating are cows going
to produce milk. Milk has been replaced by Oat Milk in many places in northern
Europe. No! Are you kidding me? So far, women still have been tricked into P-V
model by love, but you now tell me P-V model is immoral for a cow. Are you
insane or crazy? Do you think it is ridiculous and absurd? These Communist
hooligans have become a thorough public hazard in the world. Let me say it
again: The rules of higher civilization can never restrain the beings of lower
civilization. First, I would like to focus on raising dogs in China. The
raising of dogs was banned under the rule of late Chinese leader Mao Zedong and
considered a bourgeois pastime. It was only after the reform and opening up
that raising dog was acquiesced in but with Zero-threshold. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Chinese have already begun to breed dogs, but
they do not have the spiritual civilization of keeping dogs. They refuse to
leash their dogs in the public area and leave dog shit everywhere and bites
happen every day, and roaming dogs are considered outlaws almost everywhere in
each city. Dogs create a negative externality because neighbors are disturbed
by the noise. Dog owners do not bear the full cost of the noise and shit,
therefore, tend to take too few precautions to prevent their dogs from barking
and off leash. In West, the signs of “you dog must be on leash” are visible
everywhere. Germany has 8 million dogs without any stray one. They are living
in the shelter with well protection, or home with care. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Dog
owners must keep their dogs on a leash while walking them on public streets in
housing areas. In all other areas, dogs must be automatically put on a leash
when other people approach. Violators may be punished with fines up to €5,000.
Dog owners need to make sure that their pets don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t
bark and whine during quiet hours: 1 to 3 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Outside
these hours, dog owners must ensure that dog noises do not last longer than 10
consecutive minutes (or more than 30 minutes cumulatively per day). Each dog
must be implanted a microchip and has dog liability insurance as same as
Compulsory Traffic Insurance, which protects you from financial
responsibilities if your dog injures a person or causes property damage. There
are many breeds of dogs that are considered aggressive by nature, but all dogs
have the potential to cause harm unintentionally. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In America, "Vicious dog" or
"dangerous dog" laws impose special restrictions on dogs that are
officially labeled dangerous or potentially dangerous. All of the above
measures in the West do not exist in China, but Chinese people want to keep
dogs, do you think it is possible? To be honest, because of the huge
population, the population density of the city is very large, so raising dogs
have serious negative externalities, as a result of which Chinese cities are
not suitable for raising dogs. In Japan, stray dogs are allowed to live for up
to 1 months and nearly 30,000 stray dogs and 70,000 cats are euthanized by the
government according to law. There is a Japanese movie called Kono Machi no
Inochi ni (</span><span style="background: white; font-family: 等线;">この街の命に</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">), which tells how a Japanese animal protection
center slaughter dogs and cats that are abandoned and how to reduce killing. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Enforced
in 2000, the “Cruelty against Animals act” was a groundbreaking law. According
to Article 2, considering that animals are living creatures, no person should
kill animals without due cause hurt them, or torment them. We should give
consideration to the co-existence of humans and animals and in view of that
nature, we should treat them fairly. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">It's a good movie, and I set my mind at ease after I
see Japanese are fret and dwell on disposing of cats and dogs. I reckon that if
World War III breaks out, China must be able to wipe out Japan. The reason is
the Japanese are totally different from the Japanese 80 years ago, but the Chinese
are the same as the Chinese 80 years ago. How can the Japanese kill people when
they don't even want to kill dogs? Higher civilization is doomed to perish.
Japanese </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">heart
of glass </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">amused
me, and they even give a dog artificial respiration. Frankly speaking, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">China
should not set up stray dog shelter at present. The reason is simple: you can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t
keep the balance of human </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">baby
hatch, let alone stray dog shelter. You can't
even deal with animals under the guise of human skin, how can you deal with the
real animals? Either euthanasia or shelter has a cost anyway, and the key
problem is who will bear these costs? How many taxpayers in China are</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">
willing to waste their money on stray dogs? Human rights are a false
proposition, let alone dogs</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> rights. Some holy mother bitches claimed that
dogs should have the same rights as humans, and they even believed that
neutering is a violation of dogs</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> rights. Are they insane? Dog can already give
birth at age 7 months. And they give birth twice a year. If left unchecked, they
will rapidly increase in population. Recently, I saw a news that, according to
Reuters, Thailand has started sterilizing hundreds of monkeys in a city famous
for its macaque population, as the coronavirus pandemic leaves them hungry,
aggressive and wrestling food from terrified residents. "They're so used
to having tourists feed them and the city provides no space for them to fend
for themselves," said Supakarn Kaewchot, a government veterinarian.
"With the tourists gone, they've been more aggressive, fighting humans for
food to survive," she told Reuters. "They're invading buildings and
forcing locals to flee their homes." Unlike monkeys in the wild, city
monkeys need not hunt for food, giving them more time and energy to reproduce
and cause trouble, Supakarn said. The government aims to sterilize 500 of the
macaques over the next two months. Supakarn said the sterilization would pose
no threat to the monkey population and the aim was just to slow down the rate
of its urban growth. "We're not doing this in the wild, only in the city
areas." Fortunately, there is not so many money's bitch to stop this
sterilization in Thailand. I deeply felt that two-legged bitches are more
difficult to deal with than four-legged bitches. Using the words of hero Carter
in the movie of <i>Deep Blue Sea</i>, “How
much dynamite do you have to set off in your ears before your head clears? You
have knocked us to the bottom of the goddamn food chain.” Chinese people are
always short-sighted, and they could not reasonably predict the subsequent
costs of the whole event. China raise dogs as well as children: Raise them when
they are useful and abandon them when they are useless. I refused to wipe their
butts. Different external environments choose different characters, as a result
of which rogue environment creates rogue people. Why don't you believe that
rogue people can only raise vicious dogs as well? As same as people, western
dogs and Chinese dogs are totally different products of different environments.
You put them together and you will get it. Let's see what Mahatma Ghandi said
on stray dogs, “A roving dog without an owner is a danger to society and a
swarm of them is a menace to its very existence... If we want to keep dogs in
towns or villages in a decent manner no dog should be suffered to wander. There
should be no stray dogs even as we have no stray cattle... But can we take
individual charge of these roving dogs? Can we have a pinjrapole for them? If
both these things are impossible then there seems to me no alternative except
to kill them... it is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him.
Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilization in society; they betray
instead the ignorance and lethargy of its members... that means we should keep
them and treat them with respect as we do our companions and not allow them to
roam about.” It also costs money to kill stray dogs. What is the best strategy
in China? Westerners have money, so they can choose to euthanasia, while
Chinese are poor, so we need to turn the waste into profits. The best strategy
in China is dog-eating festival. The government should stipulate three points:
(1) All dogs without leash are called stray dogs; (2) Anyone has the right to
kill a stray dog; (3) It</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s legal to eat dog meat in China. This is a way
to kill two birds with one stone. Private motives begin to work, and the
government does not need any input. In short, raising a pet, which belongs to
higher civilization, is incompatible with lower civilization. Unfortunately,
under the interference of the Western cult of dogs</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">
rights, the Chinese government has become timid. I don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t
know when the ignorant Chinese were indoctrinated by capitalism into the view
that dogs are human friends. Your dog may be your friend, but it's not mine. You
must have seen such a news: North Korean official Jang Sung-taek was executed
by being thrown into a cage with 120 starved dogs. If this news is true, I'm
sure these dogs are not Jang</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s friends. On August 1<sup>st</sup>, 2020, in
Guizhou Province, China, a three-year-old boy had half his half face ripped off
by his family own dog. Don't tell me that this kind of tragedy only happens in
China. According to a latest news, Bridger Walker from Wyoming, United States
rescued his little sister from a dog and ended up battered and bruised with 90
stitches on his face. I was shocked by the news and moved by the courage of the
little boy after seeing the news. Apparently, this dog is not a friend of the
brother and sister. It is not a unique tragedy in West Countries. New
Zealanders experienced almost ten thousand dog-related injuries in 2010,
according to ACC. In April 2011,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">in
Auckland a seven-year-old boy had a quarter of his face sewn back on following
a dog attack and a three-year-old boy also sustained facial injuries from a
stranger's dog outside a shop. In May 2011, the eight-year-old Dunedin boy who
had half his ear ripped off by a dog. Who can forget the terrible case of
little Carolina Anderson in 2003 who was the victim of a vicious dog attack
while playing in an Auckland park? Carolina, now aged fifteen, still undergoes
facial surgery following this shocking mauling. According to the latest news
reported by New York Post, a 20-year-old Russian beautician is fighting for
life after a pack of wild dogs gnawed her face off during a frenzied attack.
Tatyana Loskutnikova, a nail artist, was savaged by a pack of 10 dogs as she
walked through Ulan-Ude city, in far eastern Siberia, on the morning of
December 23 2020. A pack of 10 dogs savaged Ms Loskutnikova - tearing her
clothes off in -22C (-7.6F) temperatures, biting her down to the bone and
gnawing the skin off her face. When the rescuers were finally able to get to
Loskutnikova, they found her face was 'damaged beyond recognition' with even
her eyelids removed. Now, where are those dog bitches? Can the entertainment of
the rich ignore the lives of the poor? Can capital put dog rights over human
rights? Is this what you call human rights? All bullshit! The chaos of the
world is caused by the West. It is because the Western civilization attempts to
use contractual civilization to restrain the survival machine in violent
civilization.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Westerners
have gone too far on this evil road because their mediocrity is not only
limited to dogs but also to some ferocious animals. More and more ridiculous
things happened in recent decades. Not along ago, I saw a new from BBC that a
man who lived in the eastern Czech town of Zdechov has been killed by the pet
lion he kept in his family home for breeding purposes, having gotten locked in
the big cat</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">s cage. Prasek used the animals for breeding and
his business had reportedly drawn numerous complaints from neighbors. He
deserves no sympathy, but the lion deserves praise for not hurting others. This
is not a unique instance, but there are some more absurd. <i>Grizzly Man</i> is
a 2005 American documentary film by German director Werner Herzog. It
chronicles the life and death of bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell. The film
includes some of Treadwell's own footage of his interactions with grizzly bears
before 2003, and of interviews with people who knew, or were involved with
Treadwell, as well as professionals dealing with wild bears. He and his
girlfriend Amie Huguenard were mauled, killed and eaten by a grizzly bear on
October 6, 2003. I should congratulate him because finally he died as he said
in his video, “I would never, ever kill a bear in defense of my own life. I
bleed for them. I live for them. I die for them.” What surprised me most was he
said he wanted to be a bear and no longer human being. To be honest, it's a kind
of disease, cognitive disorder, or holy mother bitch disease, or Virgin bitch
disease, or something, but Treadwell is a little better than these bitches
because did not transfer the cost to others but to himself only. This disease
is a sort of cult, which will pull us back to the bottom of the food chain. The
retarded are trying to make friends with them, but they're trying to make use
of you to survive and reproduce better. When human has replaced God as the
creator, unfortunately the new creator is mentally retarded, who forget
Churchill's famous saying, “There are no permanent friends or permanent
enemies, only permanent interests.” There are no forever friends between
people, let alone between people and animals. In his video, the most words Treadwell
said was, “I love you,” but he forgot what Dawkins said, “Universal love and
the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make
evolutionary sense.” The retarded view those big and ferocious bears as pets,
and attempt to use the rules of contractual civilization to restrain the
survival machine of violent civilization. If one day Treadwell really became a
bear in future, he should abide by the rules of violent civilization instead of
instead of vice versa. It's him, not the bear, who needs to change. Keep in
mind that it's a different world that bears live in than we do because one
belongs to the category of violent civilization while the other contractual
civilization. Segregation is the best strategy. The bears avoid us and we avoid
them too. We don't invade on their territory and they do not invade on my space.
They are not habituated to us and vice versa. There is an unspoken boundary, an
unknown boundary, between the wild animals and human beings. If we look at it
from my culture, Treadwell crossed a boundary that we have lived with for 7000
years. Once we have crossed it, we pay the price. Frank speaking, during
violent civilization, compared with those bears, people need more protection. Similarly,
during violent civilization, compared with refugees from the Middle East, White
Europeans need more protection. The world today is dominated by a cult that I'm
always right just because I'm weak. Unfortunately, under human intervention,
natural selection is replaced by artificial selection gradually. It's
well-known that the panda is China's national treasure. Isn't it funny that a
failed survival machine has been protected by human beings? Conversely, a
successful survival machine like a mouse or a cockroach are wiped out by
humans. As a new Creator, human beings are not qualified enough. I've read such
a piece of news in 2019: Malaysian-Born panda cub moves back to China because
we can't afford to raise it. </span><span style="font-family: 等线;">“<span lang="EN-US">If we wanted to keep it, we would have to expand the Giant Panda
Conservation Centre at Zoo Negara, on top of the yearly US$600,000 (RM2.5
million) fee and other expenses,”</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Malaysian officials said. It is not a unique
instance, but has its counterpart. Canada's Calgary Zoo returns two pandas to
China in 2020 due to high rents and subsequent holding costs. It is truth that
the mediocrity of capitalism adorablized these cruel survival machines, which
come equipped to exploit you and kill you and eat you, in order to cater to
irrational women and ignorant children for making money. When revenue cannot
cover cost, rational people naturally give up. Under the guise of any
protection, it's just a business. I cannot imagine those people like Treadwell who
enslaved women every night called for the rights of animals during the day.
Isn't that ridiculous? Don't you think he's schizophrenic? Human beings have
been bewitched to an absurd situation by mediocrity where people pay much
attention and investment on other creatures than on ourselves. So far, the
mediocre masses had a mysterious savior plot from nowhere, and they tried to
domesticate any creature in the world. In the movie of <i>Jurassic Park</i>, naïve
people tried to tame Dinosaurs. Needless to say, there are only two outcomes:
failure or exploited. Grizzlies example belongs to the former, while panda
belongs to the latter. The laws of nature cannot be violated. The ignorant
tried to conquer everything, including the nature, as a result of which nature
taught them a good lesson. For example, Meili Snow Mountains of which the
highest peak, Kawagbo, is 6740 meters above sea level, gave human a lesson. In
1991, 17 mountaineers from China and Japan lost their lives while trying to
reach the peak, a tragedy which is amongst the worst ever in history of
mountain climbing in China. Up to now, there have been 10 climbing Meili mountains
in the past 15 years. Among them: China and Japan jointly climbed four times,
Japan alone climbed one time, the United States team climbed four times, and
China alone climbed one time. They have all failed. The foolish man tries to
replace the Almighty God and conquer everything with his limited knowledge and
ability. The mob is always obsessed with the fact that humans and all living
things are close relatives. Yes, according to some genetic researches, our DNA
is 99.9% the same as the person next to us, and we're surprisingly similar to a
lot of other living things. For example, chimpanzees, our closest living
evolutionary relatives, are 96% genetically similar to humans; 90% of the genes
in the Abyssinian domestic cat are similar to humans; mice are 85% similar to
humans; domesticated cattle share about 80% of their genes with humans; while
the egg-laying and feathered body are pretty different from a human's, about
60% of chicken genes have a human gene counterpart; even bananas surprisingly
still share about 60% of the same DNA as humans! They only see similarities but
selectively ignore differences. All of these stem from the homology of genes,
and I am sure banana and I have a 100% different behavior pattern even though we
share 60% of the same DNA. The mediocrity caused by capitalism attempts to
unify all human beings and all non-human beings with Western thresholds and
rules, as a result of which the world falls into chaos. Additionally, short-sighted
people are so mediocre that they fear the disappearance of any species, as a
result of which they begin to protect dogs, pandas, grizzlies, snakes, crocodiles,
maybe Neanderthals and dinosaurs if they are alive. Throughout the 4.6 billion
years of Earth's history, there have been five major mass extinction events
that each wiped out an overwhelming majority of species living at the time.
These five mass extinctions include the Ordovician Mass Extinction, Devonian
Mass Extinction, Permian Mass Extinction, Triassic-Jurassic Mass Extinction,
and Cretaceous-Tertiary (or the K-T) Mass Extinction. Permian Period is the
largest of all known mass extinctions with a massive 96% of all species on
Earth completely lost. Have you ever thought that one of the reasons for the
existence of all present species we can see should be attributed to those
extinct species? Evolution is like a pyramid that all present living species
exist on the bones of other species. If those extinct species existed, there
would no human beings as we are now. In fact, the mediocre fell into the broken
window fallacy because they only see the species that have disappeared but
don't see the species that would appear.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US">What
is the root of the lawlessness of the Chinese people? As I mentioned before, which
curve moves first is very important. Directional errors are fatal, and
direction is more important than effort. China used to be in a Communist
society for decades where there is no individual freedom, individual
consciousness, social rules or judicial system, but only Juche Idea and
General-will. Mao was a kind of religions. After Mao died in 1976, China
entered a period of reform and opening up under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping
from 1978. Reform and opening up is also known as the primary stage of
socialism. What is the essence of reform and opening up? Capitalization reform.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">let me put it another way, from 1978 China began
the capitalist privatization reform. China's
chaos stems from the transformation from General-will's order to Self-interest's
order. Before the reform and opening up, personal activities are totally
prohibited, and you should do whatever the Party tells you to do and can't so
anything the party didn't tell you to do. At that time, Chinese society was
highly ordered, and all people were controlled by General-will. The government
controlled everyone from birth to death, but the economic situation has
returned to primitive civilization. After the reform and opening up, the greed
of human nature was released. When previous equilibrium state has been broken
but the next one has not yet been established, the situation is most chaotic at
this time. In other words, people are the most chaotic and crazy in the change
from one equilibrium to another. For example, there was no market in China 40
years ago, but after reform some smart people suddenly became nouveau riche by
occupying market first because market was vacuum. Less smart people followed
closely, but they don't know where the equilibrium state and equilibrium price
are. Following a major environmental change there may be a brief period of
evolutionary instability, but this brief period may be not short. After the
disillusionment of altruism, Chinese began to enter the stage of fighting for
their own interests but without any rules, so Chinese society has entered a
chaotic situation where they only know the first principle of Game theory that
people only care about their own payoffs and costs, but they don't know the
second principle putting myself in my opponent's shoes.</span><span lang="EN-US"> The
intense transformation after the wrong direction must lead to more imbalances
and mismatches. In this short 40-year transition from socialism to capitalism
almost with Zero threshold, all desires of 1.4 billion Chinese people were
suddenly released and exaggerated by capitalism, which were in serious conflict
with the low scarce resources created by socialism. The low ability caused by
socialism does not match the high desire released by capitalism. To be honest,
religion is necessary because it is to curb endless desire and greed,
especially in the fragile contractual civilization. Darwin once said the value
set on animals even by the barbarians of Tierra del Fuego, by their killing and
devouring their old women, in times of dearth, as of less value than their
dogs. For the same reason, in the eyes of Chinese hegemonism, they view the
value of other people is not higher than their dogs. </span><span lang="EN-US">Before the reform and opening up, Chinese could
not move from one place to another freely, China was in an acquaintance
society, so people achieve equilibrium in a small range. Additional, neighbors
are from the same company, and people can still make a concession to each other
due to multi shot game, so the contradiction between people has not
deteriorated too much. Some range reached the stable point of the mixed
strategy (Always Cooperate and Tit for Tat) where local people were simple,
honest and mutually beneficial; some range reached the other stable point of
Always Defect where local clusters of Always Defect individuals, far from
prospering by each other's presence, do especially badly in each other's
presence. Under the premise of isolation, both were in</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">their
own equilibrium, </span><span lang="EN-US">but
after reform and open-up, Chinese people are free to flow from one place to
another, so China is in stranger society now, due to the lack of law and
zero-threshold of entry, Chinese start to unleash their own evil. Similarly,
when the national mobility threshold was broken, some nations were invaded by
another one. Even I can assert arbitrarily that from the whole world, all
immigrants are intruders, cheaters, aggressors and fraudsters, while all the
indigenous people are suckers. Now China has entered the age of strangers
because of the emergence of commercial housing, people must choose to
completely release evil in a one-shot game without any punishment or reward. There
is an old saying in China: People, who have property would trade off in
long-term. You can find a common phenomenon in city that the community, where
external population stay, is particularly dirty and messy. The influx of
outsiders has indeed broken the balance of the original ecology. </span><span lang="EN-US">Now, Chinese are in Always Defect stage where
they only want to gain but without any pay, so I don't want to associate </span><span lang="EN-US">with Chinese because all are alike swindlers,
because </span><span lang="EN-US">once an ESS is achieved it will stay: selection
will penalize deviation from it. </span><span lang="EN-US">Fight terror with terror, and fight scoundrel
with Gallagher style. </span><span lang="EN-US">Let it always be our maxim: Better alone than amongst
traitors. I tell you a trick from my experience that “Never be entangled with
people of low level.”</span><span lang="EN-US"> I recommend you w</span><span lang="EN-US">atch this TV of <i>Shameless</i>. To be honest, Chinese society is a big gutter where i</span><span lang="EN-US">n a
population that has already come to be dominated by Always Defect, no other
strategy does better. Let's take a look back at Dawkins's comment in <i>The Selfish Gene</i>: </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Axelrod
recognized that Tit for Tat is not strictly an ESS, and he therefore coined the
phrase 'collectively stable strategy' to describe it. As in the case of true
ESSs, it is possible for more than one strategy to be collectively stable at
the same time. And again, it is a matter of luck which one comes to dominate a
population. Always Defect is also stable, as well as Tit for Tat. In a
population that has already come to be dominated by Always Defect, no other strategy
does better. We can treat the system as bistable, with Always Defect being one
of the stable points, Tit for Tat (or some mixture of mostly nice, retaliatory
strategies) the other stable point. Whichever stable point comes to dominate
the population first will tend to stay dominant…. But what does 'dominate'
mean, in quantitative terms? How many Tit for Tats must there be in order for
Tit for Tat to do better than Always Defect? That depends upon the detailed
payoffs that the banker has agreed to shell out in this particular game. All we
can say in general is that there is a critical frequency, a knife-edge. On one
side of the knife-edge the critical frequency of Tit for Tat is exceeded, and
selection will favour more and more Tit for Tats. On the other side of the
knife-edge the critical frequency of Always Defect is exceeded, and selection
will favour more and more Always Defects. We met the equivalent of this
knife-edge, you will remember, in the story of the Grudgers and Cheats in
Chapter 10…. It obviously matters, therefore, on which side of the knife-edge a
population happens to start. And we need to know how it might happen that a
population could occasionally cross from one side of the knife-edge to the
other. Suppose we start with a population already sitting on the Always Defect
side. The few Tit for Tat individuals don't meet each other often enough to be
of mutual benefit. So natural selection pushes the population even further
towards the Always Defect extreme. If only the population could just manage, by
random drift, to get itself over the knife-edge, it could coast down the slope
to the Tit for Tat side, and everyone would do much better at the banker's (or
'nature's') expense. But of course populations have no group will, no group
intention or purpose. They cannot strive to leap the knife-edge. They will
cross it only if the undirected forces of nature happen to lead them across….
How could this happen? One way to express the answer is that it might happen by
'chance'. But 'chance' is just a word expressing ignorance. It means
'determined by some as yet unknown, or unspecified, means'. We can do a little
better than 'chance'. We can try to think of practical ways in which a minority
of Tit for Tat individuals might happen to increase to the critical mass. This
amounts to a quest for possible ways in which Tit for Tat individuals might
happen to cluster together in sufficient numbers that they can all benefit at
the banker's expense.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Apparently,
Chinese whole society is in the stable point of Always Defect where niceness and forgivingness are both dominated strategy.
In this climate, Tit for Tat can't win either. In China, now, honesty and
responsibility have become a strictly dominated strategy. Here I am going to
tell you about my personal experience. Once I accidentally broke a bottle of
acetic acid in the corridor on the third floor. Because of the strong smell,
many colleagues are complaining about who did it. I, as a new socialist
citizen, I volunteered to clean the corridor and admit my mistake, and voluntarily
buy an ice-cream for each of them on the third floor as compensation. Trouble
has come. Some other colleagues from 4, 5, 6 and 7 floors who claimed to have
smelled it demanded an ice-cream as a compensation too. There is an old saying
in Chinese The Analects of Confucius: Inequality, rather than want, is the
cause of trouble, which give me a lesson. I am a nice person with nice strategy
instead of nasty strategy, but a nice strategy means I never the first to
defect instead of never defect. Never defect is a strictly dominated strategy. In
China, the cost of honesty and trustworthiness is too high. I can understand
why people don't dare to help them up when old people fall down in China. It is
because it could be a trap. I can also understand why Chinese insurance
companies are rogues. It is because their opponents are rogues too. They will
go bankrupt immediately if they are not scoundrels. One of the economics
principles is people response to incentives. Honest strategies will soon be
eliminated. I have no sympathy for the demolished residents either. Chinese don't
know when enough is enough. Give him an inch and he will take a yard. Honest
strategies will soon be eliminated instead of vice versa. Honesty tactics
cannot be tolerated in a rogue environment. What causes this confusion? Evolved
too fast. Enclosure movement, which was the starting point of Britain's
determination of private ownership and the starting point of establishing
property rights system, began in British in fifteenth Century and lasted for
300 centuries, but in China began in 1978 and lasts for 40 years; we took 40
years to complete the road of the capitalist countries walking in 300 years. To
put it another way, Chinese have completed the leap of wealth from third world
to first world in a single generation during 40 years, but they haven't made
the change in habits and ideas. This “lag” leads to mismatches and disorder,
which is equivalent to the overlap of multiple civilizations. The Chinese now
have more freedom and material civilization than the British five hundred years
ago, but they still did not establish the boundaries of freedom and clear
proper Bourgeois desire rights, so Chinese social contradictions are more
intense now than the British five hundred years ago, which stem from the
mismatch of material civilization and spiritual civilization. Let me put it
another way, some Chinese has completed the transition from </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">third
world to first world in a single generation during 40 years in mater</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">ial civilization, but some Chinese still keep
various behaviors in lower civilizations. This “lag” leads to mismatches and
disorder, which is equivalent to the overlap of multiple civilizations. The
Chinese now have more freedom and material civilization than the British five
hundred years ago, but they still did not establish the boundaries of freedom
and clear proper</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Bourgeois desire rights, so Chinese social
contradictions are more intense now than the British five hundred years ago,
which stem from the mismatch of material civilization and spiritual
civilization. Interpersonal conflict due to this lag becomes important relative
to interpersonal cooperation in China. This overlap has caused the Chinese
people to fail to reach consensus on many issues, such as dogs. It is difficult
even to imagine a relationship when such mutual agreement is wholly absent.</span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span></span></div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">On
freedom<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US">The struggle between
Freedom and Limit is the most conspicuous feature in the history of human
beings. Individual freedom cannot be unbounded because unbounded freedom has a serious
negative externality in contract civilization which are reciprocal. It is so
evident that people with the plague virus are not free to walk around because this
freedom has a serious negative externality. Man's universal thirst for freedom
is a fact of history, but do they really care about the so-called freedom? In a
strictly personalized sense, any person's ideal situation is one that allows
him full freedom of action and inhibits the behavior of others so as to force
adherence to his own desires. That is to say, each person seeks mastery over a
world of slaves, so one that man can recognize as being within the realm of
plausibility, the anarchistic regime of free men, each of whom respects the
rights of others, becomes the utopian dream. Any consumer wants free products
and services, but this is impossible to achieve because the key problem is who
will sell them for free. Everyone tends to sacrifice others for his own
benefit, and this reality must be squarely faced. In the process of pursuing
the maximization of personal interests, which is economically rational for the
individual, everyone tend to create a “public bad” instead of “public good.” Absolute
freedom is advocated by the devil only who with sinister intentions can take
advantage of these ignorant and short-sighted people because the collective
power is enormous, especially in a violent civilization. The common ground
between people from Socialism and Capitalism is that people are both selfish,
but the difference between them is that people from Socialism require others to
be selfless while people from Capitalism allow others to be selfish. Social
strife might arise in paradise. As John Stuart Mill said in his work of <i>On Liberty</i>, “In many cases, an
individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore
legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had
a reasonable hope of obtaining. Such oppositions of interest between
individuals often arise from bad social institutions, but are unavoidable while
those institutions last; and some would be unavoidable under any institutions.
Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination;
whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire,
reaps benefit from the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their
disappointment.” Apparently</span>,<span lang="EN-US">conflicts of interest are universal
and unavoidable. In any world that we can imagine, potential interpersonal
conflict will be present, and, hence, we need rules and orders to limit
unbounded freedom. Total absence of conflict would seem to be possible only in
a setting where individuals are wholly isolated one from another, or in a
social setting where no goods are scarce and where all persons agree on the
precise set of behavioral norms to be adopted and followed by everyone. In a
self-sufficient agricultural civilization with backwardness of transportation, there
is not much intersection between people, so social rules and orders seem
unimportant, but in the modern trading civilization with convenient
transportation, so social rules and orders are extremely important. As
resources become less scarce, the economic conflict becomes less acute; as the
population density increases, potential interpersonal conflict may have
increased substantially. What is the limit of freedom? No-harm principle. As John
Stuart Mill said, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he
must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” Our
objective should preserve the maximum degree of freedom for each individual
separately that is compatible with one man's
freedom not interfering with other's freedom. In
my words, when the results of your actions don't
have negative externalities, or in other words when you bear the full cost of
your actions, you have the freedom to do it. Otherwise you must be deprived of
this freedom because you would pass the costs on to others. The greatest
mistake of our human beings is to pursue the nonexistent absolute freedom.</span> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">As a compromise,
people want freedom from constraints, while at the same time they gradually
recognize the necessity of order. In order to resolve the conflict and mutual
hurting to each other, people begin to call for order. Order is a public good;
disorder is a public bad. In a private, personal utility sense, any limits on
individual behavior are “bads.” But rational persons accept such limits in
exchange or trade for the “goods” which law-abiding on the part of others
represents. The most serious problem of social order and progress is the
problem of having the rules obeyed. Precepts for living together are not going
to be handed down from on high. We start from where we are, and not from some
idealized world peopled by beings with a different history and with utopian
institutions. No anarchistic order can survive in the strict sense of the term
because those people who are the losers of the contract civilization must
choose to resort to violent civilization in order to maximizing their payoffs. Government
is indispensable in contract civilization aiming at preventing degeneration. As
John Stuart Mill said, “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple
principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the
individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be
physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public
opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted,
individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any
of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can
be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to others.” Of course, the freedom of government
should also be limited by a system of checks and balances because government is
essential both as a forum for determining the “rules of the game” and as an
umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. Otherwise, any government
try his best to rationalize almost every conceivable
intervention. The scope of government must be limited. Its major
function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates
and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private
contracts, to foster competitive markets. Then, how the government protect
contractual civilization, or how the government resolve such conflicts among
the freedoms of different individuals? </span><span style="font-family: 等线;">①<span lang="EN-US">Clear
property rights; </span>②<span lang="EN-US">Contract transaction. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">An important prerequisite for the market
economy to work is an economy-wide respect for property rights. Property rights
refer to the ability of people to exercise authority over the resources they
own. Sometimes, we can regard property right as an initial assignment,
basically inherited from ancestors. The most classic example is the competition
of countries for the ownership of land resources. It is taken for granted that
that country who owns this land has all the resources on the land as an initial
assignment without any costs, and other countries can only take possession of
their resources through transactions. The competition for initial assignment is
the most intense, such as Kuril Islands dispute between Japan and Russia, Kashmir
dispute between India and Pakistan and the Falkland Islands dispute between
Britain and Argentina. All the vested interests will do everything to protect
the immediate vested interests, while the former vested interests will do
everything to restore the past interests, while the losers always think to
benefit from the reshuffle. Here I give you a personal experience. I
occasionally take part in a day tour in the suburbs, and the bus pick up people
from south to north, I must be the last to get on the bus because I live in the
north of the city, and as a result, there is no good seat for me. As not a
vested interest, I advocate to grab seats again every time I get off the bus
and get on again, and as vested interests, those people who had already occupied
good seats in the morning want to keep their good seats all day, and advocate to
take the original seat all day for the convenience of counting people. Which
side is just? Neither. Everyone is fighting for their own interests. No matter what
kind of distribution principles is adopted, there will be winners and losers. Losers
always want to change their initial position by reshuffling, while winners
always want to maintain the existing order to protect their initial position. The
essence of shuffling is to redistribute the initial assignments. When the
contract civilization cannot reach an agreement, it must resort to violent
civilization to divide the ownership. The essence of proletarian violent
revolution is to seize the initial wealth by violence. When they become
property owners, they must prohibit the new proletarian violent revolution. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">I want to introduce an old
concept to you: Coase theorem which was put forth by Ronald Coase who received
the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1991. The theorem states three
points: First, externalities are reciprocal; second, externalities persist only
if transactions costs are high; finally, if transactions costs are low, market
processes will lead to the same efficient outcomes, irrespective of the
assignment of property rights. If trade in an externality is possible and there
are sufficiently low transaction costs, bargaining will lead to a Pareto
efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property. Coase</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s main point, clarified in his article “The
Problem of Social Cost,” published in 1960 and cited when he was awarded the
Nobel Prize in 1991, was that transaction costs, however, could not be
neglected, and therefore, the initial allocation of property rights often
mattered. I can</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t agree with him more. Here,
I would like to extend this Coase theorem. Under a perfect contractual society,
in the absence of transaction costs, both would strike a mutually advantageous
deal. It would not matter which one had the initial right to the property;
eventually, the right to the one would end up with the party that was able to
put it to the most highly valued use. From the macro level of society, social
efficiency has not changed, but (there is a big but here.) the initial
allocation of property rights often mattered because initial allocation
determines whether you are a seller or a buyer. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">After
the property rights are determined, the transaction will take place, such as
the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. A mining company will not
make the effort to mine iron ore if it expects the ore to be stolen. The
company mines the ore only if it is confident that it will benefit from the ore's subsequent sale. For this reason, courts serve
an important role in a market economy: They enforce property rights. Through
the criminal justice system, the courts discourage direct theft. In addition,
through the civil justice system, the courts ensure that buyers and sellers
live up to their contracts. There are many ambiguities, uncertainties, and
conflicting sets of expectations about individual spheres of allowable actions
in China legal structure, so the first step in the legalization of China is
aimed at the resolution of such ambiguities and conflicts, namely, clarity of
property rights. Individuals find themselves in conflict over the use of scarce
resources, with results that are desired by no one because there is no
agreed-on and enforced set of rights. Anarchy necessarily fails when there
exists no “natural” or mutually acceptable dividing lines among spheres of
personal individual interest. The main reason of the interventions of
government is because of ambiguities in the definition of individual rights. For
example: Single footbridge, given by James M. Buchanan in the book of <i>The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and
Leviathan. </i>Robin Hood and Little John meet squarely in the center of the
one-man footbridge. What “natural” rule is there to determine who shall be
entitled to proceed and who shall withdraw? This can serve as an illustration
for the multifarious set of interactions where conflict rather than implicit
agreement seems characteristic if without an order. The logical foundation of
property rights lies precisely in this universal need for boundaries between
“mine and yours.” Escape from the violent civilization requires an explicit
definition of the rights of persons to do things. The genuinely anarchistic
world becomes a maze of footbridges, and conflict rather than universalized
cooperation is its central feature. A single footbridge exists; either Robin
Hood or Little John must be granted some right of priority in its usage. Both
men cannot simultaneously possess such a right, which would, of course, be
equivalent to the abolition of all rights, from which the Hobbesian conflict
emerges once again. A well-defined set of individual rights is the cornerstone
of contract civilization. “Equal freedom,” as a norm or rule for social
intercourse, has little or no meaning until and unless individuals are first
identified in terms of acknowledged limits to behavior. Persons are defined by
the rights which they possess and are acknowledged by others to possess. If
Robin Hood and Little John know, and in advance, which one has the “right” to
cross the bridge when potential conflict emerges, and, furthermore, if they
know that this “right” will be effectively enforced, they can go about their
ordinary business of life without detailed supervision and control. What, then,
is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Those
people in developed countries tend to take property rights for granted, and
those living in less developed countries understand gradually that a lack of
property rights can be a major problem. China's chaos stem from the lack of
clear property rights. For example, lots of Chinese don't have concept of the
right-of-way which is the right that people have to use the roads, so they
still follow the law of the jungle in traffic. In many countries, the system of
justice does not work well. Contracts are hard to enforce, and fraud often goes
unpunished. In more extreme cases, the government not only fails to enforce
property rights but actually infringes upon them. Who owns the children's
property rights? If the father owns the property, he has the right to dispose
of his child in any way he wants. Thus, economic prosperity depends in part on
political prosperity. When the political system changed (The Disintegration of
Patriarchy), the father lost the ownership of his daughter, so it is natural
for him to refuse to raise a girl. The essence of the collapse of patriarchy is
that the government infringes on the property rights of the father to his
daughter. Who owns the pets' property rights? If I own the property, I have the
right to dispose of my pet in any way I like, including beating my horse,
shooting my dogs and killing my pigs. No one else has the right to interfere. In
that period, did Chinese government have the right to exercise family planning
for citizens? Is reproduction a private right? It depends on who bears the
growth costs of this child. It is not private right when the taxpayers bear the
costs, and it is private right when an individual bear the costs as same
non-human animals which have the right to have many babies they want. Before
social pension, children were at one time the major
means whereby people provided for their own old age, so father had ownership of
children. Ambiguity of property rights is a common problem in socialist
countries where there was no private property and which all property belongs to,
and society is maintained by lies and morality. In my eyes, morality and lies
are equivalent. In China, old people often complain that young people do not
give up their seat on buses. In my opinion, it is no less than </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">moral kidnapping. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The
ambiguity of behavior boundary is the inevitable result of moral governance
which must lead rogues everywhere because morality is little more than a fig
leaf for rogues. Once individual rights are acknowledged, contractual
negotiations become possible. With such defined limits, regardless of the
sources of their derivation, an individual is clearly an entity distinct from
his fellows. Equipped with this set of rights, informed about them, and
similarly informed about the rights held by others, the individual is in a
position to initiate agreements with other persons, to negotiate trades, or, in
more general terms, to behave as a free man in a society of men. If little John
is given ownership rights in the footbridge, Robin Hood can use the facility
only after obtaining Little John's
permission through trade or otherwise. Do I have the property right of my own
vagina and uterus? If I have, I have the right to rent them to anyone. If I
haven't, please tell me who has the property right of my vagina and uterus? If
the limits to individual behavior are well defined, voluntary social
interaction can proceed in an orderly fashion under any structure. Once the
limits of each person's rights are defined by agreement, economic interchange
becomes almost the archetype of ordered anarchy. Individuals can deal with one
another through wholly voluntary behavior without coercion or threat. Interpersonal
dealings can take place under any agreed-on assignment. Apparently, the
definition and assignment of individual rights are ahead of or prior to
exchange. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent
physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts
voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private". So long
as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the
market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from
interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is
protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers
with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer
because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from
coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and
so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.
When contractual civilization cannot dominate society, society will inevitably
degenerate back to violent civilization because contradictions are always to be
solved. This is the basic reason why Chinese people often fight to each other. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Whether clear property rights or
contractual transactions belongs to the category of contract civilization, and
what if people do not obey these orders? All theories of economics are based on
the perfect trading model, what if people resort to violent civilization? Rationality
precepts, strictly interpreted, suggest efforts toward maximizing “law-abiding”'
by others and toward minimizing “law-abiding” by the party in question. But for
each person, there will be an advantage in breaking the law, in failing to
respect the behavioral limits laid down in the contract. The evil consequences
of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the
protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him
for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be
sufficiently severe. The necessity for law enforcement must be squarely faced,
regardless of our romantic yearnings for an imaginary paradise. As John Stuart
Mill said, “The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to
society for his actions, in so far as these concerns the interests of no person
but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if
thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which
society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct.
Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others,
the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to
legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is
requisite for its protection.” In classical electromagnetism, there is a
concept called magnetization. All materials are made up of magnetic domains. In
an unmagnetized object, all of the magnetic domains point in different
directions. We can call it disordered state. When a material is placed in a
strong magnetic field, these dipoles become aligned in a single direction, the
material exhibits magnetic properties. We can call it ordered state. In the
absence of an external magnetic field or electric field, magnetic domains can't change from disorder to order. Magnetization is
a process from disorder to order. Notice here, some substances demagnetized
gradually after they leave the magnetic field and magnetic domains return back
to disorder from order, which is called demagnetization. How to keep order for
a long time? Permanence of an external magnetic field or electric field is
necessary. We can call this external magnetic field or electric field
punishment in sociology. The principal objects which human punishments have in
view are undoubtedly restraint and example. With respect to what is said of the
necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the
vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a
pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity
to the wrong-doer. Almost any person will “voluntarily” comply with dictated
patterns of behavior if he knows that departure from these patterns will be
punished with sufficient certainty and severity. Enforcement is essential, but
the unwillingness of government to punish those who violate it, and to do so
effectively, must portend erosion and ultimate destruction of the order that we
observe. Is it ironic that contract civilization needs to be guarded by violent
machines all the time? Not everyone can benefit from contractual civilization, so
the necessity for an enforcing agent arises if people want to maintain
contractual civilization. The enforcing role for the state involves the
protection of individual rights to do things and carrying out of valid
contracts. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others is the rule. Based
on the principle of Tit for Tat, despotism is a legitimate mode of government
in dealing with barbarians. According to game theory, if you want to change a
person's choice, you have to change his payoffs. Severe law is such a negative
feedback to change people's bad behavior. 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.' You can't
do whatever you want to do because you may not have the resources to afford it.
The government should play the role of adjudication and enforcing agent role
well, and well-defined rights require enforcement; violations must be policed
and violators punished even according to the rules and orders. Enforcement has
two components. First, violations must be discovered and violators identified.
Second, punishment must be imposed on violators. In the absence of effective
enforcement, external or internal, persons are always motivated to violate the
standards laid down. From this base, individuals are free to negotiate any and
all mutually beneficial exchanges among themselves, and agreed-on terms will be
effectively enforced by the agency. China has all kinds of laws, but they cannot
be effectively enforced. Because of the incompetence, inept and inaction of
public power, the law cannot punish numerous offenders, as a result, rules and
orders are in vain. Apprehension rates and severity of punishment are two very
important factors in striking a balance. Only the fear of punishment can stop
people from doing evil. Inept law enforcers only care about what to be done to
minimize their trouble, instead of executing their duties according to the
laws. In organic chemical reactions, there are similar rules to follow. The
potential outcome of a reaction is usually influenced by two factors:</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">the relative stability of the products (i.e.
thermodynamic factors) and the rate of product formation (i.e. kinetic factors).
Kinetic control will lead to a faster reaction since it has a lower energy transition
state, and therefore a lower activation barrier. Thermodynamic control will
lead to a slower reaction since it has a higher energy transition state, and
therefore a higher activation barrier. As a result, the product can be obtained
quickly by kinetic control but unstable; while the product can be obtained
slowly by thermodynamic control but stable. Needless to say, activation energy,
as a cost, falls on law enforcers, who must choose kinetic reaction to minimize
their own costs. As a result, society becomes an unstable product. What will
happen? Lynching is rampant. For example, in recent years, the events of
killing dogs by poisons have occurred frequently in China. Why is that? This
result met my expectations because the incompetence and omission of public
power must only lead to the spread of lynching because this is not a balanced
state without punishment for defection. Most of the civil offences now
committed, are committed in consequence of the inefficiency of our judicial
system; “For sparing justice feeds iniquity.” It is the difficulty that he
knows there will be in convicting him which tempts the knave to behave
knavishly. When public power does not act, lynching is a supplement. The
emergence of isoniazid has become such a supplement. Only when costs are
transferred back to them will they cease the infringement. Don't forget the strategy of “Tit for tat” is not
nasty but nice strategy. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">If my neighbor operates his stereo loudly
in the wee hours, and does this repeatedly, I should be prompted to try
deliberately to annoy him with my</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">oscillator. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">They
deserved that. Free entry and exit in a competitive market can be regarded as a
kind of retaliations, which is a powerful force shaping the long-run
equilibrium. The threat of retaliation must always be there. There is no doubt
that the government will prevent lynching because the escalation of
contradictions will affect the rule of the authorities, so the authorities must
intervene in contradictions not from the perspective of equilibrium but from
the perspective of which side is more beneficial to themselves or which side is
more harmful to themselves. As the saying goes, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, so in China, proletarian
scoundrels always the winners. Generally speaking, under this system, self-defense
is strictly prohibited, as a result of which the whole society falls into a
dilemma of the inaction of public power and the prohibition of self-defense. Here
I give two ridiculous news in China. A widely viewed traffic cam video shows
what happened the night of August 27, 2018 in the Chinese city of Kunshan, west
of Shanghai. Yu, a 41-year-old electrician, was waiting at a stoplight on his
e-bike when 36-year-old Liu, driving a BMW, approached from behind. Liu swerved
toward Yu, who was in a dedicated bike lane, and nearly hit him. The two sides
quarreled before Liu pushed and kicked Yu. Liu retrieved a 59-centimeter-long
knife from the car later and slashed it at Yu several times. Suddenly a
dramatic scene happened. Due to drunkenness, the knife flew out of his hand and
fell to the ground. Yu got to it first and turned it on Liu, stabbing him at
least five times. Liu was brought to a hospital but later died of his wounds,
which included ruptured veins and intestines. By the way, Liu, covered with
tattoos, has been in jail four times, and is a member of criminal syndicate. At
first, the police detained Yu for intentional homicide. The video went viral on
Chinese social media, sparking a debate on whether justifiable self-defense or excessive
self-defense. Finally, under the great pressure of public opinion, police and
prosecutors said that the man's behavior constitutes justifiable self-defense
and should be exempted from criminal responsibility. Legal experts said it
could be considered a milestone case in China as in the past, such cases were
usually considered as excessive self-defense in which those who fought back
should bear criminal punishment. Frankly speaking, Yu should thank the Internet
and the support of netizens who reversed events successfully, otherwise he will
become a victim. Similarly, absurd farce is still on in China again and again. On
June 1 2020, Hu, 18, argued with Lei, 54, in a shopping mall after Lei acted
indecently toward a female friend, 17. Lei denied misbehaving, and the three
went to the mall's monitoring room to watch surveillance video. While watching
the video, Lei fled to a mall parking lot and Hu ran after him. Hu tried to
kick Lei two times but failed to connect. A third attempt succeeded, fracturing
Lei's right leg and causing him to fall to the ground. By the way, shopping
mall video showed that Lei molested women on that day more than once. Later,
local police decided to criminally detain Hu, 18, on suspicion of intentional
injury. With the exposure of the video and the denouncement of netizens, police
cancelled the criminal detention of the man, surnamed Hu, and it would now
reinvestigate the case. By the way, private detectives are also illegal for the
same reason. Such a country which confuse right and wrong! It's not hard to
imagine why China's emerging middle class wants to emigrate abroad because the
immigration is the only way for them to get rid of the proletarian scoundrels
and inept government. This is a kind of Nimby(not
in my backyard), which means avoiding not only those incompetent people but
also those inept governments. It is a very singular country in which
every member of this country wishes to get out of the country ... as soon as he
can, and to whose interest, the day after he has left it and carried his whole
fortune with him, it is perfectly indifferent though the whole country as
swallowed up by an earthquake. This is the true picture of China at present. The
broken windows theory is a criminological theory states that visible signs of
disorder and misbehavior in an environment encourage further disorder and
misbehavior, leading to serious crimes. The principle was developed to explain
the decay of neighborhoods, but it is often applied to work and educational
environments. The broken windows theory argues that no matter how rich or poor
a neighborhood, one broken window would soon lead to many more windows being
broken: “One unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so
breaking more windows costs nothing.” Disorder increases levels of fear among
citizens, which leads them to withdraw from the community and decrease
participation in informal social control. Who created the broken windows
theory? Inactive law enforcement agencies. What would happen next? These
so-called crimes will also be professionalized. For example, if my legitimate
rights have been violated, but authorities choose to ignore, what is best
counter-strategy? Here are two cases. One is my opportunity cost is very small
and I choose to poison the stray dogs by myself; the other is my opportunity
cost is big and I choose to hire someone who has very low opportunity to poison
the stray dogs. Deal can make both better off, right? In my eyes, they are all Spiderman
who maintain the balance because they did the work for free. Some Chinese
leader put forward the slogan like “Harmonious Society” which is fundamentally
wrong because the Western advanced civilization is the result of draconian laws
instead of harmonious society. The word “harmony” was not originated by Chinese
leader, but by Robert Owen who is one of the most influential early 19<sup>th</sup>-century
advocates of utopian socialism. Owen had envisioned a utopia sprung full-blown
into the world, but it did not and could not succeed. The nature of “Harmonious
Society” is to compromise with barbarians by passing the costs on to other
victims. You can't be generous at expense of others. Due to being threatened by
the violence of the majority, the government force the general taxpayer to
subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. The incompetence of the
regulators inevitably leads to social chaos, regardless of the regulated. Based
on my experience, when I was in England YHA, I can see the sign like “Quiet
hours 10pm to 8am otherwise you get kicked out,” and almost all customers, regardless
while, yellow or black, would keep quiet between 10pm to 8am; but the situation
is quite different when I was in Thailand YHA, and the white women, maybe from
Australia, made a lot of noise during 12am. In short, what is more harmful is
the dictator's inaction and abuse of power, not the dictatorship itself. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The lynching caused by the inept
government's inaction happens not only in developing countries, such as China,
but also in so-called developed countries. Here I give a very famous example. Dieter
Krombach was found guilty by a French court for unintentionally killing Kalinka
Bamberski in Bavaria in 1982, which was one of the most bizarre cross-border
judicial disputes in European legal history. The story roughly goes like this. It
was in 1982 that Krombach tried to rape 14-year-old Kalinka Bamberski and then
killed her with an injection of lethal drugs. But a German court ruled in 1987
that there was insufficient evidence to charge Krombach, and extradition to
France was refused. Despite this, a French court convicted him in absentia in
1995, before the conviction was annulled on procedural grounds. However, Andre
Bamberski, Kalinka's 74-year-old natural father, never gave up the struggle to
bring to justice a doctor he always believed was a sexual deviant. In 2009 he
paid professional Russian kidnappers £18,000 to beat up Krombach, bind and gag
him, put him in the boot of a car, and then drive him to France. There was
quite a bit of a dispute between France and Germany as to whether Krombach
should be sent back home, and they also demanded that Bamberski be extradited
to be charged with the kidnapping. European Court of Human Rights, what's more,
rejected the results of French trial and condemned France. France in the end
refused, Bamberski was release on bail, and Krombach was sentenced to 15 years
in prison for “deliberate violence leading to involuntary death” in the Kalinka
case. In the end Bamberski got a 1-year suspended prison sentence for his role
in Krombach’s abduction, but he also gained peace of mind and the satisfaction
that justice had finally been done for his daughter. All because he refused to
let the case be swept under the carpet and did what no one else would. By
comparison, Kirsty Jones is not so lucky. In August of 2000, 23 year-old Kirsty
Jones, who enjoyed a gap year after graduating from Liverpool University, was raped
and strangled in Chiang Mai. During the early hours of August 10, after
enjoying an evening with friends, Kirsty was attacked and murdered in her room.
Her body was discovered the next morning, sparking an investigation that would
span 20 years and two continents. Despite several arrests, no-one was ever
charged for Kirsty’s murder. In 2001 British Police successfully lobbied to get
the case re-opened by the Thai Attorney General after it was closed due to
insufficient evidence to mount a successful prosecution. British Officers travelled
to Thailand several times in the years that followed to discuss the
investigation, hold press conferences and bring exhibits from the case back to
the UK for detailed forensic examination. Kristy’s mother even has offered a
£10,000 reward for leads to capture her daughter's killer. Unfortunately no-one
has ever been prosecuted for Kirsty’s murder and the Thai Department of
Specialist Investigations has now closed the case, meaning a permanent end to
the investigation. This Monday (August 10, 2020) the Thai 20-year Statute of Limitations
in this case expires, and no-one has ever been brought to justice. The search
for justice for murdered Welsh backpacker Kirsty Jones is over after the case
was finally closed on the 20th anniversary of her death. Similarly, a Korean
film named <i>Conference of mu</i>rder (</span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">내가 살인범이다<span lang="EN-US">,2012) told us how incompetent the law is. We like to think that the
laws of society will protect us, and that those who do bad things will be
punished for it. We like to think that the system is working in our favor and
that we will be protected and looked after, that those who have wronged us will
face justice and get what is coming to them, and in most cases, this is perhaps
true. Yet, there are some people who have been forced to take matters into
their own hands, and take care of the business when they encounter inept or
corrupt authorities. Only in this way, the equilibrium state can be struck. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Apparently, those people who resort to
violent civilization or do not follow the rules, should be deprived of their
freedom because they are barbarians. Then, who can't have freedom either, or who can't have property rights and free trading
rights either, or what kind of people should be deprived of their freedom even under
the contract civilization? Freedom is a tenable
objective only for responsible individuals. We do not believe in freedom for
madmen or children. Underlying most arguments against the freedom is a
lack of belief in freedom itself. The necessity of
drawing a line between responsible individuals and others is inescapable, yet
it means that there is an essential ambiguity in our ultimate objective of
freedom. Paternalism is inescapable for those whom we designate as not
responsible. For them, compulsory means should be used instead of voluntary
means. To be honest, almost all the chaos in contract civilization stems
from the fact that some people have the freedom they should not have. In short,
those people who are considered ignorant, incompetent, inferior or fool should
be deprived of their freedom because they are lack of the intellect and
judgment of mankind which ought to be cultivated at expense of time. They need
guardians, so they should be under paternalism which is defined as the exercise
of power over an individual and an interference with an individual's free will.
I also agree with paternalism because immature people can interfere with the
market economy by passing on the costs to others. I oppose laissez-faire
because the contract civilization can only guarantee the elimination of
violence but cannot guarantee the elimination of deception or fraud. Freedom
belongs to those people who can use observation to see, reasoning and judgment
to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to
decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his
deliberate decision. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care
of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against
external injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those
backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its
nonage because they are just giant infant. For some examples. Children can't
have freedom because they are ignorant and incompetent. Even in democratic
countries, voting qualifications are set at the age of 18 or older. Obviously,
everyone admits that children don't have enough judgment, so the protection
against themselves is necessary. I once saw such a news that a 14-year-old
Australian boy named Patrick Mitchell has changed his mind two years after he
began gender transition into a woman with female hormones at age 12. How
unreliable children are! According to recent reports on Chinese media, a young
man, now 25, sold his left kidney in China when he was just 17 years old. The
teenager wanted an iPhone and iPad desperately in order to prove to his
classmates that he was trendy, but his cash-strapped parents could not afford
them. He immediately bought an iPhone 4 and an iPad 2 after being paid £2,528,
but he is now disabled, bedbound and needing constant care. If protection
against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not
society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally
incapable of self-government? Children need guardians, and so do women and
Chinese. Under patriarchy, fathers are their guardians. The vast majority of
women can't have freedom because they are still ignorant and credulous, and
they have neither knowledge nor identity to resolve the gender conflict. They
made a directional error, and can't recognize P-V model as an infringement of
their legitimate liberty. The biggest stupidity of women is to put cost items
in the income category, so they should be protected under the Patriarchy
because they interfere with normal market economic order by offering free sex
services. Ignorant women cannot distinguish the good from the bad; hence it is
needful that the choice should be made for them. Some anti-patriarchal people,
who are actually the beneficiaries of women's abuse of freedom, argue that
women have human rights to dispose of their bodies, and as long as the losers
by the contract do not invoke assistance from other communities, other people
have no right to interfere. Is father entitled to use coercion to prevent
daughters from providing free sex-services? The answer is yes because he bears
the production costs of the uterus and vagina instead of girls themselves. I
have already observed that, owing to the absence of property right, liberty is
often granted where it should be withheld, as well as withheld where it should
be granted. The authorities do not limit incompetence and abuse of power.
Allowing the ignorance and incompetence women to exercise so free power in
whatever way they want would be dangerous. There are also many female fools in
the West. The most classic example in the West is Jihadi bride Shamima Begum
who is a British-born woman who left the UK in February 2015, aged 15, to join
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria, who recently says in 2019
she is 'in a really bad way' in Syrian camp and wants 'to return home' because
her mental health is suffering and she now “hates” the terror group after the
death of her three babies. Unfortunately,
the Home Secretary responded bluntly to her plea, saying: “No way, no way.” I
support the British government's decision because women have always been so
ignorant and foolish that they have always been exploited for free. Ignorant
women cannot</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">
bear </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">the consequences of abuse of freedom. Those
ignorant who possess the freedom they should not possess, are just being used
by those vicious in order to achieve the purpose of profitability. You must
have seen such a famous news from China: Dramatic video footage captures the
middle-aged woman flouting the warnings by getting out of the car, and she was
killed instantly after she followed the younger woman out of the car at the
Badaling Wildlife World, near the Great Wall of China. Both had ignored
repeated warnings to stay inside the vehicle, according to local media. They
don't deserve any sympathy because it's
their choice, they asked for trouble and had it coming. There's always news
like this: A woman in the countryside signed a guarantee and was eventually
sentenced by the court to repay 2 million Yuan.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">She
had no idea what guarantees meant. To be honest, I fear men in violent
civilization and women in contract civilization. The vast majority of Chinese
can't have freedom because they have the
incompetence of the proletariat (Lower orbit) but the desire of the bourgeoisie
(Higher electronics). Like I said before, lower orbit and higher electronics
are incompatible, and the result must be chaos. Mao Zedong was right raising
dog is indeed a bourgeois pastime because any pastime has a price which the
Chinese are unable or unwilling to pay. You know, the most terrible thing is
not that the bourgeoisie raise dogs, but that the proletariat raise dogs.
Poverty and evil are twins. It is Chinese should be deprived of the freedom of
raising pets because they are incompetent and impose the costs to the
neighbors. Einstein once
described the Chinese as “industrious, filthy, obtuse people.”
He was right. These dogs and their owners are not only irreligious, but
unchaste, indecent, gross, disgusting. According to the definition of American
psychiatric association, they have the characteristics of antisocial
personality disorder. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Antisocial personality disorder signs and
symptoms may include: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">a pattern of disregarding or violating the
rights of others; disregard for right and wrong; arrogance, a sense of
superiority and being extremely opinionated; hostility, significant
irritability, agitation, aggression or violence; failure to consider the
negative consequences of behavior or learn from them; being consistently
irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations;
destruction of property; deceitfulness; serious violation of rules. To be
honest, most of Chinese have these symptoms. Chinese freedom degenerates into
license and irresponsibility, should be governed because they would impose the
negative externalities to others by abusing the freedom. Noise and flash are
the direct reasons for O'Sullivan's unwillingness to play snooker in China. The
retarded also like to shine a laser pen into the eyes of others. One news goes
that, some hikers and adventurers are trapped illegally crossing unmanned areas,
and the government had to waste taxpayers' money to search and rescue. Their
behavior has serious negative externalities, so they do not deserve this
freedom. There is another way to call them: Giant infant who should be avowedly
treated as children or savages, and placed under an education of restraint, to
fit them for future admission to the privileges of freedom. As the Scots say:
The father buys, the son builds, the grandchild sells and his son begs. Late
Hong Kong actress Lydia Shum has previously reached an agreement with her
daughter, Joyce Cheng, not to use her 60-million-dollar inheritance before Cheng
turns 35. The rich set up trust fund to prevent their children from squandering
their heritage because they know the essence of capitalism is cheating. There
is a 10% limit on the rise and fall of Chinese stocks, but western stock
markets have no such restrictions. Why? Because the Chinese people are
irrational, irrational people should be restricted freedom. The Chinese think
10% limit is restricting their freedom, on the contrary, this restriction is
protecting them. On January 17, 2019, a stock code 02768 fell 80% in the Hong
Kong stock market, and on the next day, the stock rose 60%. I dare not imagine how
many people will be ruined overnight without this 10% limit. People in
different levels should enjoy different freedoms. For example, when I travelled
in Canada, I saw a lot of casino, in Niagara Falls and Notre Dame island in
Montreal. This is because Canadians can control the freedom of gambling, but
Chinese don't deserve this freedom because they can't face gambling rationally.
The essence of lottery is gambling. It aims to help the poor. As a result, all
lottery tickets in China are bought by the poor. Similarly, according to The
Cannabis Act, cannabis has been legalized. To buy, possess or use cannabis and
cannabis products, you must be of legal age 18 older. Cannabis should be banned
in China because Chinese with low ability will cause more negative
externalities after smoking cannabis. The Opium Wars arose from China’s attempts
to suppress the opium trade, which had led to widespread addiction in China and
was causing serious social and economic disruption there. British traders were
the primary source of the drug in China. In spring 1839 the Chinese government
confiscated and destroyed more than 20,000 chests of opium—some 1,400 tons of
the drug—that were warehoused at Canton (Guangzhou) by British merchants. Although
drug trafficking does not violate the civilization of trade, it is still prohibited
in many countries so far. For example, under Singapore law, trafficking more
than 15 grams of heroin brings a mandatory death sentence. Why? The vast
majority of people do not have the ability to master this freedom. Similarly, Chinese
people do not have the ability to control the freedom of drugs either. To be
honest, 20 years ago, I would have taken drugs if drugs were legalized in my
youth, but I don't take drugs now even if they're legal. The thing is many
Chinese people can't reach my level. The elderly in China should not be free
either. You can often see news like this: Some old people were deceived of all
their savings by cheaters because of the greed for a kilogram of free rice. What
a money-hungry public this must have been to swallow such a barefaced fraud! The
outright fraud can be packaged as “enterprise”; the gilded extravagances of the
age as colorless “consumption.” Indeed, the world was so scrubbed as to be
unrecognizable. China is now full of Ponzi schemes because the mentality of the
Chinese people now is the same as that of the Americans in the 1920s, and irrational
people are tempted by interests to forget the most basic common sense. Anyone
who has rich investment experience and financial knowledge will never take a
second glance at a project which promises to recover 50% interest within three
months. Like I said before, there is no short-cut in evolution. Ignorance doesn't mean innocent. The contract civilization
dominated by capitalism can only guarantee to sell you what you like, but not
what is really useful to you, because that is question you should judge. Although
those cheaters are hateful, the old are not only greedy but also incompetent. Advances
in technology have given cheaters more convenient, and as a result, these fools
are in a more dangerous position. The Chinese always try to get something for
free that doesn't belong to them, so they are always short-sighted and can only
see the gains and losses in short-run but can't see them in long-run. In the
absence of estimation of subsequent costs, they rushed to buy high-rise
apartments and cars, raise dogs and have babies and so on and so forth. After
they have used cost-benefit analysis rationally, they will withdraw from the
market because the cost is too high and the benefit is too low. It turns out
that they can't afford the elevator fee, parking fee, vaccine fee and growth
costs because they are short-sighted and didn't take the subsequent cost of
holding into account. It still remains unrecognized, that to bring a child into
existence without a fair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for
its body, but instruction and training for its mind, is a crime, both against
the unfortunate offspring and against society. In recent years, with the development
of the Internet, net loans are also overwhelming overnight in China. I have a
neutral attitude towards the problem of net loans as same as raising dogs. Unfortunately,
the Chinese people cannot control such a simple contract civilization product. A
lot of money-strapped college students had pseudo-exquisite life by loans, but they
don't have ability to afford these usurious loans at all. Eventually, the
lenders have to resort to violence to collect money back. Have you ever
wondered why usurers like to target College students? They are adult giant
babies. On the one hand, they have the right and freedom of 18+ adult to get
loans, but on the other hand, they lack enough judgment and the ability to
weigh the pros and cons. Minors are deprived of their freedom to borrow money
by law. Can you say that the government is harming them? The incompetent
proletariat has fallen into the capitalist consumption trap because the
short-sighted Chinese giant babies do not understand the nature of loans which
is that you borrow money from yourself in the future rather than others. Credit
card and Internet loan which are typical products of capitalism are very common
in China now. The issuing banks think adults have the ability to manage their
own credit cards, but they don't have the ability. As the result, the snowball
of loans will get bigger and bigger because they are all incompetent and don't
know how to calculate the interests, service charges or penalty for breach of
contract. In short, they know nothing about the consequences. The result of the
incompetent proletariat being implanted into the desire of the bourgeoisie is
inevitably chaos. Capitalism opens up the Pandora Box of Chinese desire and
brings them into the consumption trap. Through the advertising of stars and
some successful people, capitalism has planted the illusion to the superficial
public that some products represent the symbols of identity and status, and you
will join these upper-class societies after you use them. The rhetoric,
sophistry and stories derived from capitalism will interfere with the crowd's
normal rationality and make them make irrational consumption decisions. These
ads are not selling the goods themselves, but a utopian imagination,
impractical fantasies or unrealistic illusions. When advertising evokes your
peak experience, you make radical buying decisions. The lower-class is also
trying to get something beyond their ability and their status. They don't know
it's all a capitalist conspiracy. In China now, the lower orders aped their
betters to drink Starbucks. The common folk seemed to prefer Pizza to their
traditional steamed bread! The Chinese government has to intervene in this
market behavior. I think they should give up the pretense of being rich
guys and make a trade-off according to budget line. When we compare the strange
respect of mankind for liberty, with their strange want of respect for it, we
might imagine that a man had an indispensable right to do harm to others, and
no right at all to please himself without giving pain to anyone. Chinese people
are used to everything for free under the socialist system, and this is the
cancer left by communism. These old scoundrels have become obstacles to trading
civilization. These incompetents do need guardianship and control. This is main
reason why some the western developed countries can adopt the policy of
visa-free to Chinese group-tourists instead of individual-tourists. Like I said
before, which curve move first very important. Once you make a mistake, you
will pay a huge price to correct it. This is the main reason why I think China
is not suitable for democracy, otherwise, it would be another proletarian
revolution, namely, the tyranny of the majority. Like country's standard of
living depends on its ability to produce goods and services, a country's
standard of freedom depends on its ability to manage the freedom. Only a
self-disciplined person deserves freedom. The fundamental relationship between
freedom and ability is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If
ability is the primary determinant of standard of freedom, other explanations
must be of secondary importance. The basic principle of “Everything has a cost,”
can be applied here. Freedom also has a cost. The price an electron has to pay
for breaking away from the bondage of the nucleus is called ionization energy. When
your ability is very low, you only deserve low-electron orbits. Yet the real
villain was not dictator from dictatorial system but low self-ability of
Chinese. If you don't understand women very well, you can't see the fact how
stupid they are; if you don't understand Chinese very well, you can't see the
fact how evil they are. Stupidity is the greatest evil. Being enslaved is the
inevitable result of their deep-rooted stupidity. They do not deserve freedom
and truth because a despicable soul will oppress others when it gets rid of
oppression. One of the greatest evils of the crowd is that they try their best
to embarrass others after gaining some power. To be honest, Sharon Stone was
right it is Karma because they are not people but beasts actually. I don't want
to see these lower beasts get rid of slavery in my life. Slavery is an
important part of their biological chain. This is the fundamental reason why I
oppose Westerners' donation to people of lower civilization. It is because you
are just transferring costs, not eliminating them. Public resource must
inevitably lead to the tragedy of commons because you consider long-term
interests while others only take short-interests into account, resulting in
destructive development. For example, in recent years due to overfishing,
extinct fishing and unsustainable fishing practices like trawling, the number
of fishes has obviously decreased in China's seas, so the Chinese fishermen had
to fish in the high seas or in other countries' coastal domains. Many nations
have taken steps to impede bottom trawling, largely because it is a disaster
for marine ecosystems, but Chinese fishermen still choose the trawling, a
practice in which fishermen drag long nets along the ocean floor and kill
practically any living thing in their path. The public sea area inevitably
leads to the tragedy of the Commons. Poor countries face lower opportunity
costs than rich countries. I can understand why people in the world do not like
Chinese people, and I don't like them either because they are lawless and so
short-sighted. Due to the lack of severe laws and ambiguity of property rights,
China's rapid development is based on unsustainability because everyone only
weighs their his interests between long-run and short-run instead of between
his own interests in short-run and interests of others in long-run. Destructive
mining, destructive logging and destructive everything is being put on in
China. China is developing too fast, but there is no short-cut in evolution.
Similarly, sharing economy and self-service supermarket are both not suitable
for Chinese because perfect contract civilization cannot restrain inferiors at
all. There are also cases of deprivation of liberty in special circumstances.
Every adult has the freedom to drink, but you don't have the freedom to drive after
drinking because you would hurt others after losing control. For the same
reason, lots of government have legislated against taking drugs, including
China. It is illegal to put skylights near airports because you will disrupt
civil aviation. I respect the freedom of any fool as long as it does not
involve me. I refuse to pay for anyone's stupidity. Keep in mind please:
Freedom is not free. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">There is a very big misunderstanding in the
world: Freedom VS Orders. In general, people are under the delusion that
all rules under dictatorship are bad and breaking the rules is equivalent to progress.
People who have this idea are very naïve, shouldn't traffic rules under Autocratic system be obeyed? Frankly speaking, not
every variation is progress. More precisely speaking, most variations are
harmful so the existence of threshold is necessary to absorb those harmful variation.
As Milne Edwards said, “Nature is prodigal in variety, but niggard in
innovation.” This principle also can be applied to human society. To be honest,
order is more important than innovation because abuse of liberty is more
harmful than dictatorship. Even in Democratic countries, there are two parties:
a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, both as
necessary elements of a health state of political life. How to make a society
be both orderly and progressive? As I mentioned in Figure 6.1, thresholds are
necessary to prevent degeneration, whose function is to absorb any deviations
less than the value because most variations are not enough to bring society to
the next equilibrium. A system can neither be worked nor preserved without
rules and orders, while a system cannot progressive without any variation. Any
society must strike a balance between freedom and order, people should behave
like a pendulum swings between freedom and orders. My advice to future
generations is to maintain ongoing balance before you have enough ability to
reach the next balance because I am a conservative. Any government should take
an appropriate strategy which lies in somewhere between anarchy on the one hand
and Leviathan on the other hand based on its own ecological environment. I
advocate freedom of thought but self-discipline of action, but Chinese are just
the opposite now. Heresy is the perfect combination of liberalism and low IQ
groups. When you can't improve their IQ in short-run, they have to be deprived
of their liberty. Only self-discipline can give human freedom. A man without
self-discipline doesn't deserve freedom because their freedom has a serious
negative externality at the expense of others. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Should
the pendulum clock be biased towards order or freedom in China now? Apparently,
the answer is order. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Due to the lack of orders and the
incompetence of law enforcement, the biggest problem for Chinese people at
present is non-professionalism which is incompatible with the perfect trading
civilization. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">How
to get order? Democracy must definitely not work because the evolution is so
fast in China that people from different eras and different regions even have
opposite values. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Chinese people are in the
middle of ideological transformation from utopian socialism to pragmatic
capitalism. A stable and democratic society is impossible without a minimum
degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens and without
widespread acceptance of some common set of values. In order to stabilize,
society needs common values, but now the Chinese cannot reach a consensus even
on the issue of stray dogs or how to drive at a crossroads without a traffic
light. No society can be stable unless there is a basic core of value judgments
that are unthinkingly accepted by the great bulk of its members. Similarly, the
major problem in the United States in the 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup>
century was not to promote diversity but to create the core of common values
essential to a stable society. Great streams of immigrants were flooding the
United States from all over the world, speaking different languages and
observing diverse customs. How to deal with this chaos in Chinese Society? China
need to be ruled by law which should be enacted by a wise strong agent rather
than the foolish public. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">I think there are two ways: One is colonization
and the other is dictatorship. Apparently, the former is better than the
latter, because the former can </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">learn many experiences and
lessons in the process of advanced civilization development, and avoid the same
mistakes. Look at Hong Kong and you will see the benefits of British
colonialists to Hong Kong. The British colonists turned a desert island into a
modern financial center during 100 years. The abilities of the colonists were
different. Frankly speaking, being colonized, as same as being fucked, by whom
is more important because it determines what you get at the same price. Apparently,
it is also benefitable to be a concubine to the rich than to be a wife to the
poor. Lee Kuan Yew gave the colonial regime measured praise, and said that before
the British arrived, “there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless
a fishing village can be called a society.” Unfortunately, most people don't
have his intelligence, vision and insight, so most nationalists are against
colonialism and regard colonialism as national humiliation because they are not
professionalized. What I want to say is that it is normal thing to get some
return they deserve after they help the nation to next equilibrium state by
establishing social order, judicial system and so on and so forth. I do not
deny that there is a lot of killing in early colonization. You don't expect
colonists to come to the colonies for charity, do you</span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">? <span lang="EN-US">I quite agree with Darwin’s saying, “What natural selection cannot
do, is to modify the structure of one species, without giving it any advantage,
for the good of another species.” Similarly, what I cannot do, is to pay any
price, without giving me any advantage, for the good of another one. Do you
deem that those isolated societies without colonists were living the communism?
Love each other, orgasm together? Too young too naïve. I recommend you a good
Korean film named <i>Bedevilled</i> (</span></span><span style="font-family: "Batang",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Batang;">김복남</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family: "Batang",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Batang;">살인사건의</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family: "Batang",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Batang;">전말</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Batang",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;">,</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">2010).
There is no heaven in this world, and the entry of colonists only changed the original
pattern of interests. Regarding to this matter, Darwin made a similar statement
in his book of </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;">On the Origin of Species:</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Thus out of twenty species growing on a
little plot of turf (three feet by four) nine species perished from the other
species being allowed to grow up freely. The amount of food for each species of
course gives the extreme limit to which each can increase; but very frequently
it is not the obtaining food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which
determines the average numbers of a species. Thus, there seems to be little
doubt that the stock of partridges, grouse, and hares on any large estate
depends chiefly on the destruction of vermin. If not one head of game were shot
during the next twenty years in England, and, at the same time, if no vermin
were destroyed, there would, in all probability, be less game than at present,
although hundreds of thousands of game animals are now annually killed. On the
other hand, in some cases, as with the elephant and rhinoceros, none are
destroyed by beasts of prey: even the tiger in India most rarely dares to
attack a young elephant protected by its dam…. Many cases are on record showing
how complex and unexpected are the checks and relations between organic beings,
which have to struggle together in the same country. I will give only a single
instance, which, though a simple one, has interested me. In Staffordshire, on the
estate of a relation where I had ample means of investigation, there was a
large and extremely barren heath, which had never been touched by the hand of
man; but several hundred acres of exactly the same nature had been enclosed
twenty-five years previously and planted with Scotch fir. The change in the
native vegetation of the planted part of the heath was most remarkable, more
than is generally seen in passing from one quite different soil to another: not
only the proportional numbers of the heath-plants were wholly changed, but
twelve species of plants (not counting grasses and carices) flourished in the
plantations, which could not be found on the heath. The effect on the insects
must have been still greater, for six insectivorous birds were very common in
the plantations, which were not to be seen on the heath; and the heath was
frequented by two or three distinct insectivorous birds. Here we see how potent
has been the effect of the introduction of a single tree, nothing whatever else
having been done, with the exception that the land had been enclosed, so that
cattle could not enter…. Not that in nature the relations can ever be as simple
as this. Battle within battle must ever be recurring with varying success; and
yet in the long-run the forces are so nicely balanced, that the face of nature
remains uniform for long periods of time, though assuredly the merest trifle
would often give the victory to one organic being over another. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Without colonists, there would no heaven either.
The emergence of colonists only changed the pattern of interests. Nevertheless
so profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we are so indignant
and cynical when we hear of the colonization; and as we do not see the cause,
we blame our misfortune on the colonists. You are indeed unfortunate under
colonial rule, but without colonists you are as same as unfortunate, or more. I
advise you to weigh the pros </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">and cons. Negative 10 is
better than negative 100 because there is no positive 100 in your options. Have
you ever heard of The Butterfly Effect? This term is often used to emphasize
the outsize significance of minute occurrences. A minute occurrence can make an
outsize significance, let alone colonization. It is irrational to compare the
living state of the colonized with the state of Utopia. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">The
essence of modern colonization is transnational corporations. A country, like a
large company, in order to maximize the shareholders' profit, can employ foreigners, or foreign organizations to be the chief
executive officer and other managers. In this trade, both the colonists and the
public can benefit, but at the expense of incompetent dictators. They will not
willingly withdraw from the stage of history. An irrational nation is doomed to
be enslaved as same fate as the group of women. By whom is more important. The
crowd always cannot judge whose interests are in line with himself/herself. For
example, some professors as dissidents from famous university have criticized
China's authoritarian system and some dead leaders, as a result of which they
are deprived of her retirement benefits. What strikes me is that the Internet
is full of the voice of schadenfreude. Frankly speaking, the interests of these
old professors are consistent with those of the Chinese Communist authorities,
but they still want to speak out based on their conscience, aiming at democratizing.
Finally, contrary to their expectations, those animals who they fight for bit them
back. What a desolation! Lao Liang, a famous news media man, always criticizes
the students of Peking University for being too selfish and neglecting the
national cause. I support the selfishness of students graduated from Peking University.
Should they bleed for a bunch of stupid crowd? This phenomenon usually occurred
in history that the elite died for the crowd but the crowd ate steamed buns
with their blood. Towards this, I have experienced deeply, so I'm not willing
to sacrifice myself for animals under human skin. They don't deserve it. I will
not sympathize with anyone because the blisters on their feet are all made by
themselves. There are some reason why they are enslaved. The greatest evil in
the world is ignorant stupidity. Some utopian critics criticized that Singapore
is done with colonialism, but decolonisation of our intellectual and
psychological sphere has yet to take place. The essence of evolution lies not
only in non-random elimination of genes, but also in non-random elimination of language
and lifestyle. You can't get them both unless you evolve on your own and don't
count on overtaking on a curve. Dictatorship is the other way. Lucky enough, if
you encounter a dictator who has the ability and conscience, he could lead the
country to accomplish "corner overtaking." Unfortunately, dictators
are always adopt the strategy of crossing the river while feeling the stones,
which essence is a process of trial and error. This process is rather slow,
repetitive and costly, and you have to experience all the hardships in the path
length. To be honest, food safety, milk products and plasticizer issue and
so forth Chinese are experiencing now happened one hundred years ago in the
United States. The Japanese asset price bubble was an economic bubble in Japan
from 1986 to 1991 in which real estate and stock market prices were greatly
inflated. In early 1992, this price bubble burst and Japan's economy stagnated.
The bubble was characterized by rapid acceleration of asset prices and
overheated economic activity, as well as an uncontrolled money supply and
credit expansion. From 1991 through 2001, Japan experienced a period of
economic stagnation and price deflation known as "Japan's Lost
Decade." Equity values plunged 60% from late 1989 to August 1992, while
land values dropped throughout the 1990s, falling an incredible 70% by 2001. I
am sure that the ignorant Chinese will soon experience all this because there
is no short-cut in evolution. Only after the tulip bulb market bubble, can the
Dutch be rational. Similarly, only after the same bubble, can the Chinese be
rational. Only pain can make people grow. Dictatorship has made it impossible
for us to avoid these troubles because people are always short-sighted and there
are many vested interests in the path. Compared with dictatorship, colonization
has the advantage of reaching the equilibrium state more quickly and less
amplitude, because human evolution has obvious second-mover advantage. Amplitude
means bubbles. How profitable it is when it is rising is equivalent how
wretched when it is falling. The key problem is who's going to end up with the
costs. In short, the more irrational people participate in the market, the
greater the amplitude there will be. The more bubbles there is, the more
unemployed there will be when squeezing bubbles, the more </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Luddites there will be, the tougher
central government has to be or more and more bubbles there will be. A wise and
far-sighted ruler cannot be led by s bunch of scoundrels. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">I'll
talk about the amplitude of evolution in a later chapter, so I won't go into it
here. But it is impossible that you wouldn't
pay anything if you want to make a leap-forward development in short time from
the third world to first world. Every coin has two sides, and you can't get
everything at the same time. Why didn't American democracy find its way to
success in the Middle East? Answer is very simple: it is because America only
wanted to fill the outermost orbit, but neglected there are many inner layers
left without filling. It is doomed to failure whenever anyone tries to restrain
violent civilization with contract civilization. In my opinion, I think the
Chinese have at least two inner layers to fill: One is to put yourself in
others' shoes; the other is to consider the problems in the view of sustainable
development. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Inept government is more harmful than
dictatorial government. A property of typical inept government is inaction. Presumption
of guilt is a typical manifestation of inaction by transferring costs to
individuals from itself. China need neither democracy nor harmonious society at
present, but a powerful and capable dictator, like Lee Kuan Yew who was the
first Prime Minister of Singapore, governing for three decades and recognized
as the nation's founding father. Severe
punishment is his main strategy, and he argued that such disciplinary measures
were necessary for political stability which, together with rule of law, were
essential for economic progress, famously saying, “Anybody who decides to take
me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I
can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society.” One
of Lee's abiding beliefs was in the efficacy of corporal punishment in the form
of caning. Today, Singapore still retains Caning as a legal corporal punishment
which </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">can
be divided into several contexts: judicial, prison, reformatory, military,
school, and domestic or private. These practices of caning are largely a legacy
of, and are influenced by, British colonial rule in Singapore. Two lashers took
turns to wield the bamboo cane. Blood spurted, bits of flesh flew and the
prisoner screamed in pain. Many people from different countries sentenced to three
strokes of the cane. The famous case is the case of Michael Fay, an American
teenager convicted of vandalism in March 1994 and sentenced to four months</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> imprisonment, a S$3,500 fine, and six
strokes of the cane. This incident attracted worldwide publicity and sparked a
minor diplomatic crisis between Singapore and the United States. Under pressure
from U.S. President Bill Clinton, Singapore</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">s then President Ong Teng Cheong reduced
Fay's sentence from six to four
strokes. Fay was caned on 5 May 1994 in Queenstown Remand Prison. This inhumane
use of flogging as a mandatory punishment matches the today's Chinese people very well, because
fight terror with terror and fight barbarian with barbarism. It should be
stipulated as follows: Those people whoever runs a red light were sentenced to four
strokes of the cane. Not only this, the government can also earn money to
supplement tax revenue by broadcasting live online. It's the best strategy of killing two birds with one stone, I
think. In Victorian era, British civilians were also willing to pay for good
places to watch the hanging execution in Lant Street. The Chinese mentality is
at the same level as that of the British 200 years ago. China does not need “Harmonious
society” which is just a product of Utopian cults as same as “Orgasm together.”
Only in this way can we transition from the third world to first
world in a single generation. Contract civilization is a strict and orderly
social form, but Chinese are now in a state of disorder, and only severe laws
can turn this disorder into order. As a leader wolf, he must be ruthless and
smart instead of inept and feeble. To be honest, Lee's judgment of the Chinese people is very accurate, and I can't agree more. Apparently, Singapore
adopted the strategy of hard landing in evolution by draconian laws, and
instead, China adopted the strategy of soft landing by every generation paying
a price. Like Hong Kong, my feelings for Singapore are complex. On one hand, we
share the genes from same race; on the other hand, they don't recognize themselves
as Chinese. By the way, colonial lease is more troublesome than colonial
cession, as a result of which someone asks for Hong Kong's independence after return
back. Why? They are obviously made of Chinese genes. The profound reason lies
in the fear and scorn from higher-level civilization to lower-level
civilization, so they want to resort to segregation in order to void degeneration
and being assimilated. A child of the poor was adopted by the rich from his
born, when he grow up but look down on his biological mother. Anyway, hope them
get better and better. Here I share you another my experience. I was
naughty when I </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">was a child, so my knees were often bleed,
but every time before my new meat comes out I can't wait to uncover the scab, and it turned out to be scabby again. Every
time I did a vicious circle, and I have to suffer the pain time and time again.
In my theory, the scab is the dictator, and the new meat is the rational and
capable mass. More haste, less speed. 99% of the bad things are done from good
intention. Either they were destroyed, or awakened, but the anxious American
chose neither. An egg is a life if opened from the inside, and a food if opened
from outside. When power and ability cannot keep up with your ambition, God
chooses to castrate your desires. Material civilization and spiritual
civilization should be co-evolution together. Dictators are shameless, but very
useful for Barbarian because the power ought not to fall into the hands of the
vulgar. Maybe dictators </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">are not gods but the people are definitely
beasts.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">As
a capitalist conservative, I object to any revolution under the guise of
liberating the whole mankind. To be honest, I am afraid to hear the word
“liberation”, because I know there is no such thing called liberation. I know
behind every liberation there must hide an ulterior plot. I am not a feminist
because God isn't either. The
blind and radical revolution will only bring mankind into degeneration when
other factors are not ready, because the cognitive power of the public is so
limited. I find a common phenomenon, the more advanced organisms are, the more
likely they become extinct. You can easily find bugs in rotten apples, or
cockroaches in your kitchen, but you cannot find a dinosaur in any place. We
can draw a general conclusion that the more backward the civilization is the
more invincible it is. Afghanistan is unconquerable. The most powerful
countries on the planet had tried to conquer Afghanistan, including Britain,
the Soviet Union and the United States, but all of them all failed. The main
reason why they all failed is that they want to conquer it instead of
eliminating it. On the contrary, higher civilization tends to become extinct. A
thousand years ago, the Song Dynasty of China, as a highly developed
civilization in that time, was also eliminated by the barbaric Mongols. Like I
said before, violent civilization is the eternal ground state. Never forget the
rule: Fight terror with terror and fight violence with violence. We need to
evolve step by step, and radicalism and utopian perfectionism are bound to
bring us to degeneration. Victims are necessary in each step. Any radicalism or
utopian perfectionism is based on zero threshold which is anti-natural. My
conservative advice is that please keep current equilibrium when you don</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">t know where the next equilibrium is,
otherwise you will make yourself in a worse situation. That is to say, a great
many bad things, and a very few good ones. Order matters a lot in evolution.
Once the order is reversed, society must suffer the degeneration. The Chinese
ruling class now is not good, but I know the next one is worse, and after the
trade-off, I decide to stand with the former because I need time and peace to
think and write. “Timing” is also important in evolution. There is an old
saying in China to describe a successful revolution: “You are with right
timing, right place and right people.” I evolution, there is no short-cut,
bearing and waiting is always good strategy. You who act a step early are a
pioneer; you who act two steps early are a forerunner; you who act three steps
early are a martyr. No one can stop the changes of the times, and similarly no
one can speed up the changes of the times. It's not a good thing to evolve too
fast. Take decompression sickness for example. Decompression sickness, also
called generalized barotrauma or the bends, refers to injuries caused by a
rapid decrease in the pressure that surrounds you, of either air or water. It
usually occurs in deep-sea divers who ascend to the surface too quickly. To
prevent decompression sickness, most divers make a safety stop for a few
minutes before ascending to the surface. This is usually done around 15 feet
(4.5 meters) below the surface. If you</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">'</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">re diving very deep, you may
want to ascend and stop a few times to ensure your body has time to adjust
gradually. In short, evolution needs to be slow because death can solve all
troubles. Thresholds are always necessary in human evolution.</span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">On Democracy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">It's
really hard to give an exact definition of the word “Democracy”. It is
generally accepted in the West that universal suffrage represents democracy. I
assume this definition is correct, and then let's take a brief look at the short
history of democracy according Wikipedia. In France, the Convention assembly
was elected by all males 25 and over in 1792, and universal male suffrage was
given in 1848, with the exception of the military who obtained the right to
vote in 1945. At the formation of the federal state and with the Constitution
of 1848, Switzerland became the first modern state to introduce universal male
suffrage; this has continued unbroken since its adoption. In America, after the
American Revolution (1775 – 1783), the Constitution did not originally define
who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In
the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult
property owners to vote (about 6% of the population). Over subsequent decades,
voting rights expanded to include more of the population. Vermont,
Pennsylvania, and Kentucky were the three states to have full adult suffrage
for white males before 1800. In the United Kingdom, universal suffrage was
granted to all men by the Representation of the People Act 1918. Generally, universal
suffrage in the western world became widespread since the 1920s, and the
history of women's universal suffrage is even shorter. In France, universal
female suffrage was introduced in 1944. In Unite States, the 19th Amendment
extended the franchise to women in all states in 1920. In UK, the Representation
of the People Act 1918 granted some women the right to vote for the first time
in national elections. Switzerland gave rights for women to vote just very
recently in 1990. Apparently, not only that the time of universal suffrage is different
in different countries, but women's suffrage is far behind male suffrage in all
countries. Have you ever wondered why the birth of universal suffrage was so
late, and why female universal suffrage came later? There's only one reason the
Crowd don't have the correct judgement, neither do women. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">We can regard
universal suffrage as a typical kind of affirmative action. Let's take a look
at what our fathers of sociology say about democracy which are basically
theories, starting from </span><span lang="EN-US">the 16<sup>th</sup> century and
ending up in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century. (Unfortunately, they are all
fathers right no mothers, I will be the first mother.) Thomas Hobbes was an
absolutist, a conservative and absolutist, and thought democracy doesn’t work. John
Locke was the first to propose the concept that men are born free and equal,
and then he proposed the principle of separation of powers, but he did not
advocate suffrage. Rousseau, who was one of the path-breakers on the French
Revolution, believed that public affairs have to be done by the majority of
men, and he actually was not advocating voting rights for women yet, but at
least voting rights for all men. Montesquieu distinguishes between legislative,
executive and juridical. His ideas are close to the idea of universal suffrage,
and he proposed all citizens should have the right to vote, except whose estate
is so humble that they are deemed to have no will of their own. In order to
have a will you better be a rational property owner. Apparently, fathers had
reservations about universal suffrage. Strictly speaking, in fact
today, the United States is not a universal suffrage system yet because the
presidential election is really decided by the votes of the Electoral College,
so in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, more Americans voted
for Hilary Clinton, but Donald Trump actually won the presidency because he was
awarded the majority of Electoral College votes. Why? Why did the fathers of
the United States distrust the universal suffrage either? I think it stems from
their distrust of the masses or the crowds. Next, let's take a look at what did
Adolf Hitler say about democracy in Mein Kampf, who are called historical
sinner:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">The Western
democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be
thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs
can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity
of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me
at the moment to be burned out….</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">The parliament arrives at some decision
whose consequences may be ever so ruinous-nobody bears any responsibility for
this, no one can be taken to account…. Can a fluctuating majority of people
ever be made responsible in any case? Isn't the very idea of responsibility
bound up with the individual?... And thereby every practical responsibility
vanishes. For responsibility can lie only in the obligation of an individual
and not in a parliamentary bull session. Such an institution can only please
the biggest liars and sneaks of the sort that shun the light of day, because it
is inevitably hateful to an honorable, straightforward man who welcomes
personal responsibility. And that is why this type of democracy has become the
instrument of that race which in its inner goals must shun the light of day,
now and in all ages of the future…. The majority can never replace the man. It
is not only a representative of stupidity, but of cowardice as well. And no
more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will a heroic decision arise
from a hundred cowards….</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">At first I could not help but be amazed at how short a
time it took this great evil power within the state to create a certain opinion
even where it meant totally falsifying profound desires and views which surely
existed among the public. In a few days a ridiculous episode had become a
significant state action, while, conversely, at the same time, vital problems
fell a prey to public oblivion, or rather were simply filched from the memory
and consciousness of the masses….</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Thus, in the course of a few weeks it was
possible to conjure up names out of the void, to associate them with incredible
hopes on the part of the broad public, even to give them a popularity which the
really great man often does not obtain his whole life long; names which a month
before no one had even seen or heard of, while at the same time old and proved figures
of political or other public life, though in the best of health, simply died as
far as their fellow men were concemed, or were heaped with such vile insults
that their names soon threatened to become the symbol of some definite act of
infamy or villainy….In every case it does nothing but carry out the momentary
will of the majority….</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Its political ability can only be judged according to
the skill with which it understands how either to adapt itself to the will of
the majority or to pull the majority over to its side. Thereby it sinks from
the heights of real government to the level of a beggar confronting the
momentary majority. Indeed, its most urgent task becomes nothing more than
either to secure the favor of the existing majority, as the need arises, or to
form a majority with more friendly inclinations. If this succeeds, it may
'govern' a little while longer; if it doesn't succeed, it can resign. The
soundness of its purposes as such is beside the point….</span><span lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">The internal composition of the
five hundred chosen representatives of the people, with regard to profession or
even individual abilities, gives a picture as incoherent as it is usually
deplorable. For no one can believe that these men elected by the nation are
elect of spirit or even of intelligence! It is to be hoped that no one will
suppose that the ballots of an electorate which is anything else than brilliant
will give rise to statesmen by the hundreds. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk487034503">Altogether
we cannot be too sharp in condemning the absurd notion that geniuses can be
born from general elections. </a>In the first place, a nation only produces a
real statesman once in a blue moon and not a hundred or more at once; and in
the second place, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk487036444">the revulsion of the masses for every
outstanding genius is positively instinctive.</a> Sooner will a camel pass
through a needle's eye than a great man be ' discovered' by an election…. In a
mass meeting of all classes it is not that speaker who is mentally closest to
the intellectuals present who speaks best, but the one who conquers the heart
of the masses…. It was evident that this new movement could gain the public
significance and support which are necessary pre-requisites in such a gigantic
struggle only if it succeeded from the very outset in awakening a sacrosanct
conviction in the hearts of its followers, that here it was not a case of
introducing a new electoral slogan into the political field but that an
entirely new world view, which was of a radical significance, had to be
promoted…. One man proclaimed a truth somewhere and, calling for the solution
of a definite question, fixed his aim and founded a movement for the purpose of
carrying his views into effect…. Of course, it is quite a mistake to suppose
that those who show a very intelligent grasp of the theory underlying a
movement are for that reason qualified to fill responsible positions on the
directorate. The contrary is very frequently the case. Great masters of theory
are only very rarely great organizers also. And this is because the greatness
of the theorist and founder of a system consists in being able to discover and
lay down those laws that are right in the abstract, whereas the organizer must
first of all be a man of psychological insight. But it is still more rare to
find a great theorist who is at the same time a great leader. For the latter
must be more of an agitator, a truth that will not be readily accepted by many
of those who deal with problems only from the scientific standpoint. For an
agitator who shows himself capable of expounding ideas to the great masses must
always be a psychologist, even though he may be only a demagogue…. For to be a
leader means to be able to move the masses. The gift of formulating ideas has
nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity for leadership…. The propagandist
aims at inducing the whole people to accept his teaching…. Put in another way,
this means that in every great revolutionary movement that is of world
importance the idea of this movement must always be spread abroad through the
operation of propaganda. The propagandist must never tire in his efforts to
make the new ideas clearly understood, inculcating them among others, or at
least he must place himself in the position of those others and endeavour to
upset their confidence in the convictions they have hitherto held. I saw that the
Socialist-Marxist organizations mastered and applied this instrument with
astounding skill. And I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a
true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties…. What
gave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was not that formal
printed work which sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous
oral propaganda carried on for years among the masses…. There seems to have
been no clarity on the very first question: Is propaganda a means or an end? It
is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must
consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves. It is
also obvious that its aim can vary in importance from the standpoint of general
need, and that the inner value of the propaganda will vary accordingly…. If the
so-called responsible authorities had been clear on this point, they would
never have fallen into such uncertainty over the form and application of this
weapon: for even propaganda is no more than a weapon, though a frightful one in
the hand of an expert. The second really decisive question was this: To whom
should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or
to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the
masses. All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be
adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to.
Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its
purely intellectual level will have to be. The receptivity of the great masses
is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is
enormous…. Already at that time I took up my stand on those important
fundamental questions where public opinion had gone wrong as a whole. I opposed
these wrong notions without regard either for popularity or for hatred, and I
was ready to face the fight…. Their brilliant knowledge of the primitive
sentiments of the broad masses is shown by their atrocity propaganda, which was
adapted to this condition. And in England they understood one more thing: that
this spiritual weapon can succeed only if it is applied on a tremendous scale,
but that success amply covers all costs. The right of personal freedom recedes
before the duty to preserve the race. There is no freedom to sin at the cost of
posterity and hence of the race…. While both denominations maintain missions in
Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-an activity which
can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan
faith in particular right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of
inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their
own ways. The consequences, particularly from the moral point of view, are not
favorable…. Also noteworthy is the increasingly violent struggle against the
dogmatic foundations of the various churches without which in this human world
the practical existence of a religious faith is not conceivable. The great
masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses,
faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes
have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be
regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if
religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the
unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all
efficacy. What the current mores, without which assuredly hundreds of thousands
of well-bred people would live sensibly and reasonably but millions of others
would not, are for general living, state principles are for the state, and
dogmas for the current religion. Only through them is the wavering and
infinitely interpretable, purely intellectual idea delimited and brought into a
form without which it could never become faith. Otherwise the idea would never
pass beyond a metaphysical conception; in short, a philosophical opinion. The
attack against dogmas as such, therefore, strongly resembles the struggle
against the general legal foundations of a state, and, as the latter would end
in a total anarchy of the state, the former would end in a worthless religious
nihilism…. For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated
less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As
long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by
fools or criminals…. Not the smallest blame for the none too delectable
religious conditions must be borne by those who encumber the religious idea
with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus often bring it into a
totally unnecessary conflict with so-called exact science. In this victory will
almost always fall to the latter, though perhaps after a hard struggle, and
religion will suffer serious damage in the eyes of all those who are unable to
raise themselves above a purely superficial knowledge…. Worst of all, however,
is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political
ends. In truth, we cannot sharply enough attack those wretched crooks who would
like to make religion an implement to perform political or rather business
services for them. These insolent liars, it is true, proclaim their creed in a
stentorian voice to the whole world for other sinners to hear; but their
intention is not, if necessary, to die for it, but to live better. For a
single-political swindle, provided it brings in enough, they are willing to
sell the heart of a whole religion…. Any crossing of two beings not at exactly
the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This
means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent,
but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the
struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of
Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not
lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the
former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus
sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel,
but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not
prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be
unthinkable…. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in
Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but
their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a
goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the
varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc.,
of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner
attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as
similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice…. The
fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but the means
to an end…. Its end and its purpose is to preserve the existence of the race….
On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially
since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of
our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native
country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories
that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign
blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete
assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued
steadily…. If the development of France in the present style were to be
continued for three hundred years, the last remnants of Frankish blood would be
submerged in the developing European-African mulatto state…. It would be absurd
to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time
to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without
being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Let me
sum up some of Hitler's points of view: (1) the masses would not take the
responsibility for the decisions what they made together; (2) the masses
represent stupidity and geniuses can never be born from general elections; (3)
propaganda is a form of deception aiming at building false beliefs; (4) the masses,
with limited understanding and shortsighted, must be bewitched and used; (5)
personal freedom must submit to the continuation of the species; (6) humans
need religion because there is no substitute; (7) political swindle is an abuse
of religion for their own interests; (8) racial hybridization is contrary to
the will of Nature, and the stronger must dominate and not blend with the
weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness; (9) all men are not equal. </span><span lang="EN-US">I don't want to defend Adolf Hitler, but frankly speaking, I think his
understanding of democracy is profound and correct much better than current
German politicians, but the question is how to recognize genius from the
masses. The idea of genius must be different from that of the masses, but most
of the different views from the masses are wrong. Unlike Hitler, I don’t love
war, but here I hope I can provide a new perspective on the role of death in
evolution. Next, I will illustrate my point of views by analyzing the problems
which the West and East are facing now. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Most advanced societies rely on democratic
principles to set government policy. Why is that? I think it is because most of
Westerns believe democracy represent the embodiment of justice, much better
than dictatorship. But, is that really so? I don't think so. What so-called
“Justice” or what so-called “Equity” in masses’ minds are a distortion of
reality. John Stuart Mill pointed out that voting gives rise to a tyranny of
the majority. As Milton Friedman eloquently put it in 1962, “the characteristic
feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or
enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market is that it permits
wide diversity. if he is in the minority, submit.” One of the major evils of a
mass democratic society is a tyranny of the majority. If we can say dictatorship
is tyranny of the minority to the majority, the essence of universal suffrage
is the tyranny of the majority to minorities. The Game Theory has proved that Median
theorem can explain why the parties in a two-party system are similar to each
other: They are both moving toward the median voter. The logic of democracy is that
minority views are not given much weight. Isn't that the real genius of
democracy? The voters are ultimately the blame because we voters were too
shortsighted and stupid. For example, monogamy is not democracy, it is sexual
bribery and placebo. This kind of democracy will be a very strong tendency to
suppress dissent and to create conformity with the majority views. The biggest
mistake the West made is that democracy is equated with civilization. I can
imagine how depressed and angry Churchill was when he defeated 1945 election. Frankly
speaking, in my opinion, democracy is not the best system and dictatorship is
not the worst. You must admit that the precursors of any democratic system were
dictatorships. Democracy is a double-edged sword, depending on the timing
(Tipping Point) when society changes from dictatorship to democracy. This
should not be done in haste, or it must cause social degeneration. The more
stupid people are, the more dictatorship they need, otherwise they must harm to
others and themselves. When the masses get some rights beyond their power, they
would be doomed to be used by some shameless hustlers. We must bear in mind
that the only motivation why all parties propose or change their political
programs is for the next election. Universal suffrage would not apply to the
“Pyramid” of social strata, or it is indeed the proletarian revolution. We
could have rule of law without democracy. The rule of law precedes over
democracy and more important than democracy because the order matters a lot.
God liberates human beings in order as well. The first problem for China is to
establish a legal society and cultivate a large, rational and responsible
middle class, instead of voting. It is terrible when democracy becomes a trend,
and equal rights become a fashion that caters to people who are unqualified. When
I was a kid, I really enjoyed watching TVB, but I gave it up after 1997 because
he started to cater to ignorant masses for money. Like I said, order matter a
lot in evolution. In inheritance, who died first very important. There is an
old saying in China “Three lucky things for a man: promotion, fortune, dead
wife.” You should think about the logical sequence in it. I am not entirely
denying democracy, but order matters a lot both in evolution and social
transformation, otherwise, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't
deny that democracy means inefficiency and dictatorship means efficiency, like
the subway and road traffic. The subway is an absolute dictatorship, under one planned
center, without any freedom but efficiency; on the contrary, road traffic is an
open system, under all people's minds, with absolute freedom but inefficiency. So
before you open the road, you have to make rules and educate people to follow
the traffic signals first, or road traffic immediately falls into chaos. The
first task about China is to become rich and establish rules, which are more
important than democracy, or election is only another proletarian revolution. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Let's review a classic example in The Game
Theory from Yale University open course: Number game. The rule is without
showing your neighbor what you are doing, put it in the box below a whole
number between 1 and a 100, we will calculate the average number chosen in the
class, and the winner of this game is the person who gets closest to two-thirds
times the average number. It turns out, 1 would have been the winning answer,
but not actually, because not everyone is rational. It is asking a lot to get
to 1. If let the same students repeat the game again, they all choose lower
numbers than last time because they are approaching reason, so the result
converges to 1. We can know that the consequence of rationality really matters
in playing games. I need to be rational myself, and I need to know that others
are rational. I need to know that people know that people are rational. The
technical expression of that in philosophy is common knowledge. I am a rational
person and I choose 1 as my result, but I am not the winner, because others are
irrational. So as a rational person, how can I win the game? Two ways: One is
to pander to irrational crowds deliberately; the other is to wake up the
ignorant masses. Shameless politicians, as pretty sophisticated game player, would
choose the former, and the Saviors, as special mission takers, would choose the
latter. That is the difference between politicians and Saviors. Democracy has
nothing to do with truth, and is a kind of freedom, the more foolish and
irrational nation, the more unsuitable it is. Among the benighted nations, the
victor in election must not be the truth, but agitators. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">On threshold<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The word </span><span lang="EN-US">“</span><span lang="EN-US">threshold</span><span lang="EN-US">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> can be used in a
variety of industries. It means the point that must be exceeded to begin
producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response: a low threshold of
pain. Threshold is widespread in nature, and the existence of cell membrane plays
a threshold role. According to Wikipedia, the cell membrane is a biological
membrane that separates the interior of all cells from the outside environment
(the extracellular space). It consists of a lipid bilayer with embedded
proteins. The basic function of the cell membrane is to protect the cell from
its surroundings. The cell membrane, as selectively permeable, controls the
movement of substances in and out of cells and organelles, which means that it
will only let certain things (such as water) enter the cell, and certain things
(like wastes) leave. I learned this term for the first time in nerve
conduction, here I want to tell you how important threshold is from the views
of Economics and Evolution. In my opinion, there are two meanings of threshold
in sociology: One is entry requirement to prevent the entry of unqualified
persons; the other is protection width to absorb all deviations which are
smaller than the value of threshold. Apparently, the danger of zero threshold
is very serious. In terms of cell membrane, zero threshold means it lose its
selective permeability and permits transport of all molecules but not certain
molecules. In short, the cells are dead when suffering cell membrane's zero
threshold. In my opinion, lowering the threshold is a very short-sighted
strategy which only bring short-term prosperity, a kind of irrational
exuberance, but </span><span lang="EN-US">store </span><span lang="EN-US">up trouble for the future.
A typical case of economics is the subprime mortgage crisis in the United
States. </span><span lang="EN-US">God never chose the mode of love, but from the
beginning he chose the model of reproduction. Why many marriages are painful? I
think it is because of the spread from Elitism to Egalitarianism with zero-threshold.
In savages' times, Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much death of
individuals who can't adapt to the environment very well. Darwin wrote that in
his <i>Origin of Species :</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">In looking
at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations always in
mind – never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to
be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle
at some period of its life…. Battle within battle must ever be recurring with
varying success…. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high
geometrical ratio of increase which is common to all organic beings. But the
struggle almost invariably will be most severe between the individuals of the
same species, for they frequent the same districts, require the same food, and
are exposed to the same dangers.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">As the individuals of the same species come
in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will
generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between
the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of
the same genus…. As species of the same genus have usually, though by no means invariably,
some similarity in habits and constitution, and always in structure, the
struggle will generally be more severe between species of the same genus, when
they come into competition with each other, than between species of distinct
genera…. Sexual Selection depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a
struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not
death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection
is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection. Generally, the most
vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will
leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory will depend not on general
vigour, but on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless
stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving offspring. Sexual
selection by always allowing the victor to breed…. With animals having
separated sexes, there will be in most cases a struggle between the males for
the possession of the females. The most vigorous males, or those which have
most successfully struggled with their conditions of life, will generally leave
most progeny. I think this cannot be disputed. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">What can we get from Darwin? The God
set a threshold for both survival right and reproduction right, especial for
males, and everyone has to encounter a severe struggle for survival and
reproduction. In the war-ridden years and polygamy, survival and
reproduction rights are luxury goods for each man as same as in animal world. How
about now after the spread from Elitism to Egalitarianism? Each man takes intercourse
right and reproduction right for granted. In the time of peace, survival right
first spread out with zero-threshold over the world, especially in West where
so-called “human rights” became most popular pet phrase. Of course, the spread
of survival right is accompanied by division of labor, and lots of bottom men have
a chance to survive by taking comparative advantage and trade. After the crowed
getting survival right, they inevitably ask for intercourse right because
sexual release is a necessity for a normal human being. Monogamy irresistible rises
at expense of women's interests. You have to admit that monogamy is the biggest
affirmative action in the world, much more big than Anti-racism. As a result, reproduction
right with zero-threshold is a follow-up, and monogamy must lead to the change of
sexual selection in nature. In my view, zero-threshold is a very horrible
thing, and must lead to chaos. Many people who are not qualified in China
choose to reproduce for the sake of their old age. I feel that everything between
sexes become zero-threshold now under so-called “Human rights” and “Love”. Love,
such a noble thing, becomes a cheap good with zero-threshold. You can find that
everyone on the street, with two shoulders and one head, can talk about love,
which is a luxury even for genius. In animals' world, inferior genes become rarer
and rarer and finally disappearing according to the principle of “let the strongest
live and the weakest die”. On the contrary, in human world, inferior genes are
more likely to spread in country with high social welfare. All
chaos is caused by the lowering of standards. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Threshold
plays the role of doorsill as same as equilibrium prices in economic markets. The
essence of equilibrium price is a threshold which kicks unqualified buyers and
unqualified sellers out of the market. Here, I give you a familiar example:
Visa. Everyone knows when you're leaving for an international trip, a passport
is the single most important thing to double-check. Passports are powerful, but
not all are created equal. Whether you'll need a visa to get into different
countries depending on what passport you own. According to the information on
the internet, Germany is the most powerful passports in the world, and 176
countries can be visited without a visa. In second place is Sweden, which both
give access to 175 countries. Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain
and United States tied as the third most powerful group, which have 174
visa-free countries on list. Chinese passport tied for 43<sup>th </sup>place.
Have you ever wondered why Germans can go 176 countries without a visa, but
Chinese people need to apply a visa wherever they go? Is there a human right on
this issue? Now, I still can clearly remember my application for an American
visa in American Embassy in <st1:chmetcnv hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="2012" tcsc="0" unitname="in" w:st="on">2012
in</st1:chmetcnv> Beijing. I was waiting in the line for an interview like a
lamb to be slaughtered, and I nervously and stammered told the interviewer that
I had a good job and a good salary, and I was raised up by my single mother, so
I wouldn't stay in America. During this period, I need to press my handprint to
prevent me from doing bad things. Is the visa necessary? Of course, yes. The
essence of the visa is the threshold to kick the unqualified applicants out of
America. The United States government inspects me from the following aspects:
Property, job, domestic relatives, and the result of the survey is that I am a
qualified tourist. Why does the United States establish a threshold? It is
because there are a large number of unqualified people who want to enter in,
and the United States was forced to establish threshold screening. Visa is
necessary because people should be divided into different ranks with different
treatment forever. Visa with Zero threshold inevitably leads to confusion. Before
17 August 2015, Thai tourist visas for Chinese are almost zero-threshold. I
have applied for a Thai visa through an online travel agency in 2015. It is
very convenient for me, until bomb attack happened
at a shrine in central Bangkok in 17 August 2015. A 25-year-old Uyghur jihadist terrorist from
Xinjiang, an Islamist hotbed region in western China, is the prime suspect,
Thai authorities have said. What is the counter-strategy of the Thai
government? Raise the visa threshold. All network agents are not allowed to
apply for visas for people born or licensed in Xinjiang. In fact, the Thai
government wants to crowd out the Uygurs, but he is afraid that the world will
blame him for racial discrimination because geographical discrimination is much
lighter than racial discrimination. As a result. I became a victim, killed by
mistake. The only way I can go to Thailand now is Visa on arrival. I can't
imagine what would happen if the United States had zero Visa thresholds for
Chinese people. Here I give you another classic example: Television
content rating systems which are systems for evaluating the content and
reporting the suitability of television programs for children, teenagers, or
adults. Many countries have their own television rating system and countries’
rating processes vary by local priorities. According to Wikipedia, In America,
television programming would continue to fall into one of the six ratings
categories (TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 or TV-MA), but content descriptors
would be added to the ratings where appropriate, based on the type(s) of
objectionable content included in the individual program or episode: D
(suggestive dialogue), L (coarse language), S (sexual content), V (violence)
and FV (fantasy violence: a descriptor exclusively for use in the TV-Y7
category).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Wrong cognition in the West, that everyone is born equal, inevitably leads to zero-threshold, which means the loss of rank. Egalitarianism with zero-threshold must cause social chaos. Everything should have a threshold, because there is no such thing as a free lunch in the world. Zero-threshold is very harmful and contrary to God's will. Sub prime mortgage crisis in America was triggered by lower standards, and let unqualified buyers into the purchase market in order to make the illusion of a real estate boom. Even some people can zero down payment for housing, and it means buyers passed all the risk of house prices down to the bank. Rank is really important, and the consequences of zero-threshold are very serious. Banks can't distinguish low-quality from high-quality borrowers if they don't divide people into the ranks by credit histories. Credit history is a very important threshold in Western countries. In mass spectrometry, resolution measures of the ability to distinguish two peaks. When the threshold is zero, it means that all ions pass through completely, and you can't</span> get target ions through a quadrupole mass filter. As same as education, when everyone can get Yale degree, the Yale degree doesn't work any longer, and in fact, Yale University divided the students into more than five grades: A+, A, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, F, depending on their grades. Different letters represent different signals which are aimed at distinguishing between good and bad. Lowering standards is just a kind of short-termism, and only can solve the immediate problems by leading to irrational prosperity, and in the long run, it will inevitably lead to confusion, such as subprime mortgage crisis. Because the female driver cries, if you sympathize with a female driver, who is crying there because didn't pass driving test, to reduce the standard to issue the driving license, you are murdering innocent passers. Low intelligence is most harmful. On the surface, China is already the second-biggest economy, but all these are irrational exuberance brought by zero-threshold, including unqualified buildings, poisonous foods, irrational citizens and even unqualified education. To be honest, China has a lot of trouble in future, and I guess the government will solve the problem by printing money to continue to make bubbles, because the authorities are afraid of these unqualified people. Let's wait and see. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Any life with a high threshold thing, must obtain the survival right by competition from the very beginning. Sperm is typical example. A mature man, normally, can expel about 200 million sperms at one ejaculation, but most of them die out in the acid environment of the female reproductive pathway, and then only 1%-5% sperm can reach the uterine cavity, and in the end only one sperm has qualification to fuse with an egg. How fierce the competition between sperm is! The probability of winning is equal to 1/200 million = 5×10-9. There should be a threshold for survival right. If not, the wanton spread of the right to life can lead to a series of unexpected consequences. Survival right must be a rare right with high threshold that I stress that again crocodile mother will lose 90% of their children in the first week after breeding. When you rescued a boy in Africa, you gave him survival right, but this right must draw some followed-up questions. He would probably be a rapist when he grows up in Arica environment, because rape is his best strategy. Saving a boy means you are the culprit of some rapes. All confusion in human world is due to the zero-threshold spread of the survival right, because some physiological needs accompanied by living. In the animal kingdom, the right to live is a luxury, but in human world, No one I think can have marvelled more at death, than we have done. On the question of death, Rousseau said, “Fear of death is not natural. In nature, one accepts it.” He agreed with Hobbes that We are indeed driven by the fear of death. We are being sort of indoctrinated to fear death, and have anxieties in my life. I have to get out of those silly ideas from people’s mind what society put in there. Life is temporary, and death is eternal. Rousseau, like all his contemporaries, was strongly opposed to the war. I am neither opposed nor supported the war. War is a sudden event that some people must benefit from while others must lose from. The biggest difference between modern war and ancient war is that the modern war ends in declaration of surrender by failed party but the ancient war ends in all death by failed party. An old saying: all the troubles come from you can’t completely eliminate them. Not only that, but the winners of the war will still have to feed them, otherwise will be accused of abuse of prisoners. In other words, the losers of the war get rewarded instead of any punishment. I am neutral in the problem of death because that is a part of God's strategies. I don't believe that people will live forever because it can not keep equilibrium if there are childbirth everyday everywhere but no death at all. Do you think it's possible? This should be called creative destruction. Ignorant people think that war is cruel, but the truth human beings are also in cruel world without war. I support abortion girls in India and China, because the only purpose of their survival is to serve as a comfort woman for men. Peace is not the best outcome, and war is not the worst. Rational view of war and peace, God will choose a suitable balance. Any event that appears or disappears will change the original pattern of interests by creating new victims and beneficiaries. Because at any cross section of evolution, the number of products and services is constant, subject to the productivity of society, so the change of rules necessarily means that the original distribution principle has been changed. God has his own purpose why survival machines have to die, and genes can be eternal. I still believe that segregation is the best strategy, because when you can't lead them into the next equilibrium, please don't break the current equilibrium easily, for the outcome could be worse for both of you two. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The spread of survival right with zero-threshold
inevitably leads to the spread of mating right with zero-threshold. Keep that
in your mind in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, physiological needs are basic
needs for survival, sex included in this basic level. God adopted the strategy
of winner-take-all in non-human animals, so mating right must be a rare right
with high threshold that I stress that again 4 per cent of the male elephant
seals accounted for 88 per cent of all the copulations observed, and in many
others, there is a large surplus of bachelor males who probably never get a
chance to copulate in their whole lives. Generally, in animal's world, males
have to fight for possession of the females, because the most vigorous males,
those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most
progeny. With the progress of tools and division of labor, these large surplus
of bachelor males got bargaining chips more and more in the negotiations with
authorities. After weighing their own pros and cons, authorities had to make a
compromise, so the law of monogamy was promulgated. No one I think can have
marvelled more at inequality in mating right, than we have done. But in sex
trade, they are still unqualified consumer must lead to a series of subsequent
confusion during sexes. These unqualified consumers choose to resort to
violence to satisfy their basic physiological needs in contract civilizations.
Check out the news about Cologne sexual assault in Germany in 2016. This is not
only the impact of a disorderly world to an orderly world, but also the impact
of violent civilization to contract civilization. To be honest, I don't
sympathize with the European continent because maybe everything is not what you
want but it must be the result of your choice. Like women, ignorance does not
mean no-fault. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The mating
right and the reproductive right are bound together based on God's reproductive
strategy in non-human animals, so the high threshold of mating right inevitably
leads to the high threshold of reproductive rights, but they are different in
human animals. In other words, in animals, reproduction is the purpose and
mating is the means, but mating (Orgasm) is the purpose and reproduction
becomes a by-product in human beings. The spread of mating right with
zero-threshold inevitably leads to the spread of reproductive right with
zero-threshold. Sexual selection by always allowing the victor to breed in
animals, but mandatory monogamy in human beings, however, has changed the
sexual selection of nature. There should be a threshold for reproduction. If
not, bad gene drives out good. The spread of mating right with zero-threshold
inevitably leads to the spread of reproduction right with zero-threshold. A
Japanese writer once said, “How horrible it is to think of being a parent
without having to pass an exam!” China is now in such a terrible situation. Why
are Chinese people generally poor in quality? It is because a series of
unqualified descendants trained by a series of unqualified parents. Unqualified
parents will not be laid off once they get on the job and must create
irrational children. Under the instigation of so-called “equality”, some people
with genetic defects and illness of every kind take the reproductive right for
granted. In my opinion, many parents in China are not qualified, but they are
constantly breeding because of negative externalities. In fact, the government
should ban them from breeding who has a genetic defect, but no one I think can
have marvelled more at inequality in reproductive right, than we have done.
Fortunately, God began to control human reproduction that there are more and
more infertile patients in China, and the high price of Tube baby plays the
role of a threshold. Eventually, how does human eliminate bad genes? I think it
should depend on the separation of reproductive rights and mating rights, and
that would be the final result of the social division and specialization in
women’s revolution, which requires women to be rational to know that the farmer
is an alliance and the latter is a trade.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">You are stupid if you think that love is free. There
should be a threshold for love. If not, you love is worth nothing. Love is the
mutual appreciation between two souls, but become so cheap goods that everyone
can own love. In fact, most of crowds don't have anything to do with love in
their whole lives because they don't even have souls. Principle 2 of
Microeconomics: The cost of something is what you give up to get it. In my
theory, the value of anything in imaginary axis depends on what you are willing
to give up in real axis, so their love is worthless in my eyes because they
don't have any opportunity cost in their real axis to loss. Most people don't
have anything in imaginary axis, and only the Savior has a reputation after
death. When a motley crew are no longer rushed all day for survival, how to
kill leisure became their biggest problem. Their only purpose of falling in
love is to kill time; the love fantasy is invented to mask their horrible
idleness. There is a strange phenomenon in China: The wealthier you are, the
more pragmatic you are; the poorer you are, the more imaginative you are. The
greatest religion in the world is love, aimed at brainwashing women. Any lie
must lead to false prosperity. The emergence of love leads to zero threshold of
mating rights and the false prosperity of Monogamy. Monogamy originated from
ancient European aristocracy, but you can count how many illegitimate children
they have. Monogamy is always deceptive because it is non-natural. In animal's
world, female sits by, an apparently unconcerned beholder of the struggle, and
then retires with the conqueror. I think the only reason is female animals
don't believe in love, but female human does. Finally, imaginary love made
women be free prostitutes while men be free whoremasters. female who sits by,
an apparently unconcerned beholder of the struggle, and then retires with the
conqueror. The love, as imaginary axis, seriously reduces women's ability to
make rational judgments, because they begin to introduce the imaginary love
into the sexes trade and can't get the real payoffs using backward induction.
Westerners have created refugee mess as same as women has created mess between
the sexes, because any free goods and services must interfere with the normal
market economy. To be honest, the human species is very old, but people are
immature. We are experiencing irrational prosperity. The imaginary axis is the
bubble, and we would return to real equilibrium after the bubble collapse, that
is to return to the real interests of the game. By the way, the poor are not
suitable for love, but only for trading because of the very high cost of living. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Zero
threshold is bound to cause confusion. Credit consumption has become very
popular at this moment in China, in order to stimulate consumption, and many
manufacturers have to choose zero down payments to buy a car. Credit consumption
is very short-sighted with two major disadvantages: One is to put unqualified
people into the market; the other is to overdraw the future spending power. Many
unqualified consumers were put into the market, and the result must be illegal
parking everywhere creating traffic chaos because they are too poor to pay for
parking fees. How to deal with it? Let's draw some lessons from our neighbors. To
buy a car in Japan, you must be able to prove that you have
a parking space reserved for that car. There is Proof-of-parking's
twin: a ban on overnight parking in the streets. Beware, the police tolerates
free parking in the evening (parking meters stop working at night), but after 3
am, ALL vehicles parked in parking meter car parks will be towed away. In Singapore,
the government adopted the system of The Certificate of Entitlement, which is
the quota license received from a successful winning bid in an open bid uniform
price auction which grants the legal right of the holder to register, own and
use a vehicle in Singapore for a period of 10 years. When demand is high, the
cost of a COE can exceed the value of the car itself. The only purpose of COE
is to endow the driving power, as a scarce resource, to a small amount of the
richest persons by the high threshold. In exchange, the government can raise
enough money from the rich to build public transportation for the poor. That keeps everyone happy:
The rich get the right to use the road, and the poor get the cheaper traffic. This
strategy applies to all countries with a large population density.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Not only should
there be a threshold, but also multi-level thresholds, dividing all area into
different grades. Like Rome's Colosseum, people in different rank would sit in
a different location. It's called order. In ancient Babylon, <i>the Code of Hammurabi</i> tole people a lot
of truth. Its three most important principles are Tit for Tat, inviolable
private property and dividing people into three categories. The lack of these
three principles is the main reason for today's social chaos. Because of the
lack of threshold, lots of old people in China like to trudge on Expressway,
and finally are hit by cars. Any confusion stems from there is no strict
segregation. Government should establish strict orders to separate pedestrians,
motor vehicles, non-motor vehicles, planes and trains. The poor and the rich
should be separated, because they are willing to pay different money to buy
different community services. Lowering standards inevitably results in
confusion. The final evolution of society must be the establishment of a strict
hierarchy, but there are strict standards and thresholds between these different
levels. You can't flow freely, until you reach the strict threshold, and on the
contrary, when you lose this qualification, you also have to go down to the lower
level. Moreover, everyone must recognize your identity and accept the fact that
you are an unqualified consumer or supplier at any given threshold by the
market; otherwise it will inevitably cause confusion. The reason why social
stratification is full of contradictions is that people have too much desire
and too little ability. Stratum solidification is a very normal phenomenon, and
you can only get chaos instead of Utopian prosperity if you cancel all the thresholds.
The concept of multi-level thresholds can also be applied to food safety
issues. Everyone knows the Chinese style looting on highway. There was a news
that villagers looted industrial salt for eating after the truck overturns. The
police and local officials tried to stop the crowds but ultimately failed.
Apparently, industrial salt is inedible, but still why? In recent years,
especially after China joined the WTO, the Chinese government is increasingly
pandering to Western values, including food safety thresholds, so enacted food
safety laws as the same high threshold as West, and as a result, only a small
quantity of expensive goods enter the market. According to principle 1 of
Economics: People face trade-offs. The West set the food safety threshold with 90,
but there are lots of food are located between 60 and 90 in China squeezed out
of the market, not up to Western standard, but higher than industrial salt. High
standards are bound to lead to high prices, which makes a lot of unqualified
consumers. People should be divided into various grades and ranks, and the
inequality of status replaced by the inequality of wealth is definitely an
improvement. According to Western food safety requirements, China does not have
so much food at all. Low standards can be widely covered. Let's see how many
Chinese will grab cheap and expired food in supermarkets. You told them the
food were expired but they still chose to eat. Zero-threshold does more harm
than this. Everyone knows that regional discrimination is very serious, especially
in big cities. Beyond our condemnation, we should think about why. Before</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">reform</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">and</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">open-up period, Chinese
people were not free to flow from one place to another, so China was in an
acquaintance society, despite the lack of law, Chinese had to control the evil
of human nature; but after reform and open-up period, Chinese people are free
to flow from one place to another, so China is in stranger society now, due to
the lack of law and zero-threshold of entry, Chinese start to unleash their own
evil. There is an old saying in China: People, who have property would</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">trade off in long-term. You can find a common phenomenon
in city that the community, where external population stay, is particularly
dirty and messy. The influx of outsiders has indeed broken the balance of the
original ecology. Class hierarchy needs to exist, but without class
solidification, and how to trade between order and freedom is absolutely the
art of compromise, and I think threshold is good strategy because it is chosen
by God. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The threshold is not constant but dynamically changing
over time between countries. For example, the price is a typical threshold. The
function of price is to stop consuming. The price of airplane tickets also
follows this dynamic equilibrium rule: In peak-season, higher price can prevent
some people taking plane; in off-season, lower price can encourage people to
travel by air. Well, think about what happens if the opposite happens. Immediately
lead to imbalances, so threshold should be dynamic in order to main the
balance. When the roadside parking costs nothing, everyone would choose curb
parking to cause congestion; when the roadside parking costs $5, all potential drivers
whose benefit was less than or equal to $5 would be discouraged, while a few
whose benefit was greater than $5 would continue parking. This is a common
sense that the law is far from being respected, but only plays the role of a
man-made threshold in order to maintain social stability. How to choose the
right threshold? It depends on people’s behavior preferences over time between
countries, because we have to find the right tipping point at any given time. The
laws of different countries should choose different values of threshold whether
in productive market or punishment market. The threshold value, as a domestic
equilibrium point, is the result of the interaction of all participants in the
domestic market. Any individual can not affect this threshold, they can only
choose to enter or exit the market according to their opportunity costs. The
United States is the only Western country currently applying the death penalty.
The death penalty is in practice applied only for murder involving an
aggravating factor such as multiple victims, rape, robbery, or a victim under a
certain age. Capital punishment was suspended in 1967, but reinstated in 1976 forced
by the high murder rate. I am firmly opposed to China's abolition of the death
penalty. China now should learn from Singapore to take draconian law,
instead of abolishing the death penalty. Today, Singapore still keeps the caning,
which must be called a </span><span lang="EN-US">medieval penalty by the We</span><span lang="EN-US">st, but I reply
tersely, “A medieval penalty for a medieval deed.” China should now learn to
introduce advanced technology in criminal investigation, in order to eliminate wrongly-charged cases.
Lowering penalty threshold only creates arbitrage opportunities for criminals. Let
me explain it to you in details. The Chinese government takes into account the
cost of pregnant women in prison, so the judiciary generally does not take
coercive measures against pregnant women, but just oral education. It is just
because of this loophole that a woman in China had pregnancies for 14 times in
10 years to avoid punishment. Coincidentally, I saw news: Vietnamese woman
escapes death penalty by getting pregnant. Under Vietnamese law, pregnant women
or those with children under three years of age cannot be executed, so she has
escaped execution after paying a fellow inmate to bring her a plastic bag of
semen and a syringe so that she could become pregnant while on death row. I
once saw a very wonderful American movie named <i>Primal Fear</i>, which told us how the hero uses schizophrenia to
escape legal sanction. Back to nature, why did Roy act? It is because there is loophole
in the law. He just took advantage of the situation for arbitraging, and
cheating became his best strategy. I will always remember Roy's last words, “There
never was an Aaron, counselor.” Who created this arbitrage opportunity? Mediocrity
in the West. I do believe that when Schizophrenia will become a loophole, and
everyone will take advantage of this loophole to arbitrage. Suddenly, I
discovered Schizophrenia is great as same as Love, because it can bring some profits
without any pay. Finally, I find that under the mediocrity of the west, Schizophrenia
has become an umbrella of sin. I’ve read news like this: In a village of Jiangxi
province, a man who has just been released from prison stabs three pupils in October
31, 2014. Even more surprising news is that some people smashed a car to get
into prison for a place to sleep and eat. Why is that? It is because their
freedom is worthless. Under the given prison welfare as a threshold, crime will
be professionalized. Those people who have opportunity costs less than
threshold will choose to get into prison. The higher opportunity cost people
have, the less crime people will commit, namely, their freedom is more
valuable. Similarly, the better welfare the prisons provide, the more people want
to go in, namely, their freedom is worthless. This is a relative concept. Prisons
in developing countries adopt a low welfare to maintain balance and vice versa.
Otherwise, it will inevitably lead to imbalance. Apparently, some Chinese without
any social security are more willing to go to jail because prisons can provide
them with food and shelter. In the end, prisons will eventually become welfare
homes. There is a big “BUT” here, based on the principle of “Everything has a
cost”, they must trade liberty for the welfare of the government. Looking at
this issue from another perspective, it means that all taxpayers pay for a
perfect contractual society without any violence. The most luxurious prisons in
the world are almost located in western developed countries, such as Sollentuna
Prison in Sweden, JVA Fuhlsbuettel Prison in Germany, Justice Center Leoben in Austria,
Bastoy Prison, Norway and so on and forth. I bet I would like to commit a crime
if I will be sent to them. Recently, I saw a news that due to the staggeringly
low rates of crime in the Netherlands, five Dutch prisons are going to be
closed by autumn. The announcement comes not long after the Dutch government
closed 19 of their prisons in 2013. Government officials addressed the closures
by saying that the tiny country simply doesn’t have the capital to maintain
such large, unoccupied facilities. I guess these Dutch prisons will be reopened
after the arrival of the refugees. To be honest, their freedom is worth nothing
compared with survival. They are just making arbitrage by taking advantage of
the shortcoming of law, as same as refugees. Whose mistake? Who should we
blame? Who created arbitrage opportunities? Of course, Arch-criminal is the stupid
laws with wrong threshold. Unrealistic liberalism causes the real madman to be
released from the insane asylum. The cruel murderer is released from prison. Law
is to be used for people, not respect because the law is not worth respecting. The
lower they are, the more they will go against the law, because they have low
opportunity costs. </span><span lang="EN-US">The West has accused China of
capital punishment largely from a humanitarian point of view, and many
Democratic western countries have essentially replaced life sentences with
death penalty. Why? That’s because the west is rich, everyone has universal
health care and a perfect social system, but in China such a poor and weak
country, a large number of people are living below the poverty line, so there
is no extra money for a nefarious bandit. The most useless organization is the
United Nations which leads the world into age of mediocrity by catering to a
motley crew. If I were the ambassador of China to the United Nations, I would
say that to the West, “I can send these death penalty criminals to your country
for free, do you want them?” Everyone knows Murder of James Bulger in UK. James
Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990-12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby,
Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two.
He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert
Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). The case
has prompted widespread debate on the issue of how to handle young offenders
when they are sentenced or released from custody. </span><span lang="EN-US">Speaking of human rights
to the perpetrators is to commit crimes against the victims. Our world has been
destroyed by the two word "human rights". </span><span lang="EN-US">China
is facing a hundred times worse than UK. In recent years, in order to cater to
Western values, the Chinese government blindly studies the West and reduces the
penalty threshold, resulting in </span><span lang="EN-US">a great deal of two injuries, and many wounding cases are related to
commutation release personnel. So, the death penalty is necessary, or more
innocent people will be hurt when he comes out. The </span><span lang="EN-US">Chinese
government should be improved two things: One is the system of lifelong
responsibility for trial cases in order to avoid wrongly-charged cases;
the other is strengthening legal education. In many criminal cases, perpetrators
often cause victims to die. Why? Many Chinese are ignorant of the law, and they
don't weigh problems from backward induction, because they don't know what kind
of punishment he will receive from varying degrees of illegality. You will find
a truth: fight terror with terror, and fight rogue with rogue. So-called the
generosity of the authorities is only an illusion because mercy for someone is
at the expense of others instead of itself. The biggest mistake the West has
made is to try to unify these different thresholds of these different
countries. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Arbitrage<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">According to the investment theory,
as long as there are two kinds of prices in the market, you can get risk-free
profit by buying cheap and selling dear at same time
called arbitrage. Here I give you a classical example: World Cup 2018 Betting
Odds. In one of the highly anticipated matches Germany vs Mexico, a British
Bookmaker William Hill offers 1.5 odds on a German victory, 4.2 odds on a draw
and 7.5 odds on Mexico victory; a Chinese bookmaker offers 1.24 odds on a
German victory, 4.8 odds on a draw and 8.7 odds on Mexico victory. Here are two
questions for you. Q1: Why do domestic bookmaker and foreign bookmaker offer
different odds? The answer is there are much more Chinese bookies who believe
Germany will win than the British bookies, so Chinese bookmaker passively
adjust their odds, otherwise they will face great risks if Germany wins, they
will lose a lot of money. The odds of 1.24, as a result, are just a domestic
equilibrium price, which is determined by domestic aggregate supply and
domestic aggregate demand both, instead of by Chinese bookmaker. Q2: Is there
an arbitrage opportunity? Maybe not, it is because there are some other
problems about taxes and return rates, I have no calculation, but I guess there
is no arbitrage opportunity, because any arbitrage is a loophole in any system,
free entry and exit will gradually swallow up this loophole and pull two prices
into a new equilibrium price as soon as possible. Similarly, the same is true
of the population problem. When the world is in racial segregation, each nation
has its own domestic equilibrium price which is determined by domestic aggregate
supply and domestic aggregate demand both. In different ecological environment,
the same behavior reproduction has negative externalities during one nation while
have positive externalities during another nation. When racial segregation is cancelled,
due to two different price there, the rational people begin to arbitrage. There
are only two results: One is to break the balance of another civilization; the
other is to break the balance of local civilization. Everyone knows that Europe
are suffering the biggest refugee crisis. Why does this happen? Who is to blame
for it? Europe itself. The United States led Europe to overthrow the dictator
in Middle East for human rights. How altruistic that sounds! But the result hurt
Europe. Why did the United States avoid the refugee crisis? Geographical
position. God is an American, two oceans in the East and West, no strong enemy
in the North and South. But Europe is not so lucky that Europe is connected to
Asia on one hand, and one the other hand there is only a calm Mediterranean
between Europe and Africa. Because of the different positions, they should
adopt a completely different strategy. I think Europe would not only send
troops, but also stop the U.S. troops if there is regret medicine.
Unfortunately, there is no regret medicine! There is an old saying in China: 90
percent of all bad things come from good intentions. After the dictator's death,
Europe's nightmare began. Who created arbitrage opportunity? Europe itself. You
can't blame the refugees because they just are arbitrage taking the advantage
of the situation. If you send me 2000 pounds a month, I would go too. You may
say the western environment will eventually change their choice, but most
people are governed by inertia. In other words, there is time lag between the change
of interest and the change of choice, because the consequences of a false
choice will take some time to pass on to themselves. Genes also have this lag,
and for example everyone knows that the human tail gene is no longer
synthesized by wasting amino acids, and this is because the genes of the tail
are already useless to humans from a long-term point of view.
In short, I don't want to waste any amino acids on something useless for me.
The clitoris is useless for women as same as nipple is useless for men, but why
gene chooses to synthesize them? From an interest perspective, this is
definitely a waste, but still why? In gene's long journey down the generations
therefore, an average gene will spend approximately half its time sitting in
male bodies, and the other half sitting in female bodies. In other words, genes
are also governed by inertia and can't figure out very clear which is useful
and which is useless in the short-term. But this lag is fatal for the West,
because population reproduction is an exponential function, it means Middle
East race will grow to a fixed level during time lag in Europe. The only
benefit of the refugees is to lower the equilibrium price of reproduction, and the
government can subsidize less or not subsidize reproduction to maintain a
balanced population. The fatal consequence is the race invasion because the
decline in equilibrium price will push some marginal white people out of the reproductive
market. Unlike other international trade, the special nature of the
reproductive market determines that the supplier of population is equal to the
invaders. As the one nation becomes rarer and rarer, the other becomes more and
more frequent, till the one replaces the other. In short, in the next two
hundred years, whiles will be less and less, while the Middle East people will
be more and more in Europe. Have you ever wondered why blacks always object to
apartheid, and whites always support apartheid? The reason is very simple, nothing
to do with fairness and justice: as same as international trade, the change of
rules must create new winners and losers. In other words, blacks object to
apartheid because most of them would be the new winners of desegregation;
whites support apartheid because most of them would be the new losers of
desegregation. The issue of refugees is essentially a racial invasion in the
guise of “Human Rights”. All of the above are discussing how to break the
balance of another civilization, and next I give you an example in reality to
illustrate how to break the balance of local civilization. Nelson Rolihlahla
Mandela, who is considered by many to be the father of South Africa, was an
anti-Apartheid activist, which means that fought, of course under the guise of
“Freedom, Equality and Justice”, for those who were disadvantaged by the system
of racial segregation. Every revolution is under the guise of freedom and
equality, but the fact is no one under the world, including me, really knows the
real meanings of the freedom, equality and justice. The different between you
and me is I know I don't know, but you don't know you don't know that is the
most lethal. I follow Jacques Monod to say a word, “A curious aspect of the
theory of Freedom, Equality and Justice is that everybody thinks he understands
it.” He was fighting for peace, but it turns out South Africans are worse off
than they were before the end of apartheid, at least as measured by real
incomes, and average incomes of South African men and women fell by about 40
percent between 1995 and 2000, and that there has been little improvement since
then. He liberated the black people, but he also dragged the black people into
a more miserable situation. In 1993 Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
for his efforts to move South Africa away from apartheid towards a multi-racial
democracy. It turns out this prize is worthless. According to latest news,
South Africa white farmer land grabs will be LAW after change to constitution
approved. A politician declared, “Your time is up, white people.” Contract
civilization is at stake in South Africa, and the proletariat has won again. This
time, instead of resorting to violence, they resorted to the Constitution. If
China also practices democracy now, there will be another victory for the
proletariat. What a horrible thing! This is the main reason why
I oppose China's democracy now. I am not a member of the K.K.K. party but I
have to admit Pekingese and Tibetan Mastiff need different environments for
living because they are the result of a long-term election of their own
environment. We must admit we are in different equilibriums and the west
civilization is in a more advanced equilibrium. In order to enjoy the
civilization of the westerners, we must learn the material and spiritual
civilization from the West to filling the gap orbitals between us. There are
only two ways for higher civilization to treat lower civilization in short run:
Massacre and segregation. Before this, segregation is only conservative and
stable strategy ever. Rational choices can lead to bad outcomes because there
is no communism at all. In human evolution history, there is a common mis-cognition
that before you have the ability to bring people enter the next equilibrium you
have already break ongoing equilibrium. The chaos of the world is due to the
overflow of morality and humanitarianism. Universal love and the welfare of the
species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.
Anyway, the west decided to remove the dictator for some certain purpose, but
in a large and complex system of rivalries, removing one rival from the scene
does not necessarily do any good: other rivals may be more likely to benefit
from his death than oneself, so the result is Antistokes degeneration. In other
words, they end up worse off than they were before. Dictatorship is not the
best situation, but it is definitely not the worst. Here I have an opinion
different from Darwin. Darwin wrote the following words in his book of <i>Origin of species :</i></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">In another
and more general manner, new species become superior to their predecessors; for
they have to beat in the struggle for life all the older forms, with which they
come into close competition. We may therefore conclude that if under a nearly
similar climate the eocene inhabitants of the world could be put into
competition with the existing inhabitants, the former would be beaten and
exterminated by the latter, as would the secondary by the eocene, and the
palaeozoic by the secondary forms…. We must believe, that if all the animals
and plants of Great Britain were set free in New Zealand, a multitude of
British forms would in the course of time become thoroughly naturalized there,
and would exterminate many of the natives…. But after very long intervals of
time, and after great geographical changes, permitting much intermigration, the
feebler will yield to the more dominant forms, and there will be nothing
immutable in the distribution of organic beings…. We can understand how it is
that dominant forms which spread widely and yield the greatest number of
varieties tend to people the world with allied, but modified, descendants; and
these will generally succeed in displacing the groups which are their inferiors
in the struggle for existence. Hence, after long intervals of time, the
productions of the world appear to have changed simultaneously…. The
inhabitants of the world at each successive period in its history have beaten
their predecessors in the race for life, and are, in so far, higher in the
scale, and their structure has generally become more specialised; and this may
account for the common belief held by so many palaeontologists, that
organisation on the whole has progressed…. On the other hand, all the chief
laws of palaeontology plainly proclaim, as it seems to me, that species have
been produced by ordinary generation: old forms having been supplanted by new
and improved forms of life, the products of variation and the survival of the
fittest. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The rule, that superiors will generally
succeed in displacing the groups which are their inferiors in the struggle for
existence, does not apply to the present human civilization, because human
beings have human rights, but animals do not have animal rights. In animal
world, the winners don't believe in tears, and the losers are eliminated in the
world forever, but in human world, the winners believe in tears, and the losers
must use their tears to cheat. Western mediocrity must lead to a result that bad
money drives out good. As the environment changes, the higher the organism, the
more likely it is to become extinct. Nuclear weapons can eliminate humans,
dinosaurs, tigers and elephants, but not cockroaches. The survival of lower
organisms is much stronger than higher organisms. Now you could notice that war
is not the worst thing on the world, and peace is not the best thing. Please be
rational to view the relationship between war and peace. Nevertheless so
profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we
hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we
invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the
forms of life! All things have cause and effect while all living beings have
its own lot. Don't try to replace God's role to change another's lot. That is
very stupid and naive. In violence civilization, death was the punishment of
defeat and life the prize of victory, but in modern western civilization, death
is the punishment of victory and life the prize of defeat. Whether human should
artificially put out forest fires has always been a controversial topic so far.
In my opinion, I regard the forest fires as God's will if it is made by nature
instead of human being. Some lives still can benefit from the forest fires
while some lives were eliminated by the forest fires. It was the will of God
who is a pragmatist. Pragmatism has been hailed with approbation as the Western
behavioral characteristic, but they have deviated from this principle. Don't be
foolishly easy to change it, because you don't know where the next equilibrium
is. The West is not aware of the seriousness of the problem because the
refugees want not only the survival rights, but also mating rights and
reproductive rights. From the point of ESS, Merkel's strategy is not an
evolutionary stable strategy because it can be invaded by any nasty strategy. If
Merkel goes on, Germany will change its name to Germanstan and the Germanic
nation will disappear in about two hundred years. I am not alarmist. According
to the report of <i>Islamic Saturation of
Countries: A Critical Point </i>from Center for the Study of Political Islam
(CSPI), historical data suggests that without violence or external forces, no
countries recovered from becoming completely Islamized after crossing this
critical point of 10%. We used this critical point as a metric for the
saturation speed and applied mathematical modeling validated on historical data
to predict near future of a few European countries. This study shows that
throughout history reaching the critical point of 10% Muslim population took
about 100 years. Nowadays this trend is 2.3 times faster. They conclude that
Countries with Muslim community around 5% (Germany, Belgium, UK, Sweden and The
Netherlands) are going to reach this point in 7-17 years from today. Recent
mass immigration excluded. France has already reached this critical point
around 2011. Who is the culprit? These idiots, like Merkels, they just pass on
the costs from one person to another instead of eliminating the costs. There is
another funny news recently: Dresden-based migrant relief organization 'Mission
Lifeline' posted a controversial tweet in January 28, 2019, “You're not married
yet? Maybe you could fall in love with someone who doesn't have the right to
stay here? Could happen, right? Stay open.” Suddenly I found that Germans were
silly and cute. Love is indeed the greatest cult. Because at any point in time,
the total supply of society is certain, depending on its supplies of labor,
capital, and natural resources and on the available technology used to turn
these factors of production into goods and services. These refugees with no
skills, no knowledge, as freeloader, want to get free food and free drink
instead of make contribution. In other words, your irrational interference with
the market will only pass on the costs from new winners to new losers. There
will be more and more people who use humanitarianism to arbitrage until the
profit is zero. The city of Portland in Maine cities confronts loss of aid to
asylum seekers. Without legislative action, Portland's City Council will have a
painful decision to make: either approve a significant tax increase to cover the
full cost of the aid or cut off General Assistance to nearly 1,000 city
residents who cannot otherwise afford housing and basic needs. What poor
taxpayers in Maine! They will become new victims. It depends on the ability of
individuals to pass on costs. There is no so-called strictly win-win game, but only
how to split the surplus or how to pass on the costs to third party. For
example: jump the queue. The essence of jumping the queue is that queue jumper
benefit at the expense of the last person because seats are limited. Here is
another point of view about zero sum and nonzero sum games I disagree with
Dawkins. Dawkins believed that, in the game of Prisoner's dilemma, if the two
players could reach an agreement privately, they would turn the 'zero sum' into
'nonzero sum', and furthermore, many zero sum games, including divorce case and
football relegation, would be turned into nonzero sum games under some certain
conditions. Let's recall some details first in <i>The Selfish Gene :</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Games theorists
divide games into 'zero sum' and 'nonzero sum'. A zero sum game is one in which
a win for one player is a loss for the other. Chess is zero sum, because the
aim of each player is to win, and this means to make the other player lose.
Prisoner's Dilemma, however, is a nonzero sum game. There is a banker paying
out money, and it is possible for the two players to link arms and laugh all
the way to the bank…. In what are called civil 'disputes' there is often in
fact great scope for cooperation. What looks like a zero sum confrontation can,
with a little goodwill, be transformed into a mutually beneficial nonzero sum
game. Consider divorce. A good marriage is obviously a nonzero sum game,
brimming with mutual cooperation. But even when it breaks down there are all
sorts of reasons why a couple could benefit by continuing to cooperate, and
treating their divorce, too, as nonzero sum. As if child welfare were not a
sufficient reason, the fees of two lawyers will make a nasty dent in the family
finances…. In separate chambers but with one voice, the two lawyers immediately
start referring to 'us' and 'them'. 'Us', you understand, doesn't mean me and
my wife; it means me and my lawyer against her and her lawyer. When the case
comes to court, it is actually listed as 'Smith versus Smith'! It is assumed to
be adversarial, whether the couple feel adversarial or not, whether or not they
have specifically agreed that they want to be sensibly amicable. And who
benefits from treating it as an 'I win, you lose' tussle? The chances are, only
the lawyers…. The hapless couple have been dragged into a zero sum game. For
the lawyers, however, the case of Smith v. Smith is a nice fat nonzero sum
game, with the Smiths providing the payoffs and the two professionals milking
their clients' joint account in elaborately coded cooperation. One way in which
they cooperate is to make proposals that they both know the other side will not
accept. This prompts a counter proposal that, again, both know is unacceptable.
And so it goes on. Every letter, every telephone call exchanged between the
cooperating 'adversaries' adds another wad to the bill. With luck, this
procedure can be dragged out for months or even years, with costs mounting in
parallel. The lawyers don't get together to work all this out. On the contrary,
it is ironically their scrupulous separateness that is the chief instrument of
their cooperation at the expense of the clients. The lawyers may not even be
aware of what they are doing. Like the vampire bats that we shall meet in a
moment, they are playing to well-ritualized rules. The system works without any
conscious overseeing or organizing. It is all geared to forcing us into zero
sum games. Zero sum for the clients, but very much nonzero sum for the lawyers.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Football is a zero
sum game. At least, it usually is. Occasionally it can become a nonzero sum
game. This happened in <st1:chmetcnv hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="1977" tcsc="0" unitname="in" w:st="on">1977 in</st1:chmetcnv>
the English Football League (Association Football or 'Soccer'; the other games
called football—Rugby Football, Australian Football, American Football, Irish
Football, etc., are also normally zero sum games). Teams in the Football League
are split into four divisions. Clubs play against other clubs within their own
division, accumulating points for each win or draw throughout the season. To be
in the First Division is prestigious, and also lucrative for a club since it
ensures large crowds. At the end of each season, the bottom three clubs in the
First Division are relegated to the Second Division for the next season.
Relegation seems to be regarded as a terrible fate, worth going to great
efforts to avoid…. May 18th 1977 was the last day of that year's football
season. Two of the three relegations from the First Division had already been
determined, but the third relegation was still in contention. It would
definitely be one of three teams, Sunderland, Bristol, or Coventry. These three
teams, then, had everything to play for on that Saturday. Sunderland were
playing against a fourth team (whose tenure in the First Division was not in
doubt). Bristol and Coventry happened to be playing against each other. It was
known that, if Sunderland lost their game, then Bristol and Coventry needed
only to draw against each other in order to stay in the First Division. But if
Sunderland won, then the team relegated would be either Bristol or Coventry,
depending on the outcome of their game against each other. The two crucial
games were theoretically simultaneous. As a matter of fact, however, the
Bristol-Coventry game happened to be running five minutes late. Because of
this, the result of the Sunderland game became known before the end of the
Bristol-Coventry game. Thereby hangs this whole complicated tale…. For most of
the game between Bristol and Coventry the play was, to quote one contemporary
news report, 'fast and often furious', an exciting (if you like that sort of
thing) ding-dong battle. Some brilliant goals from both sides had seen to it
that the score was 2-all by the eightieth minute of the match. Then, two
minutes before the end of the game, the news came through from the other ground
that Sunderland had lost. Immediately, the Coventry team manager had the news flashed
up on the giant electronic message board at the end of the ground. Apparently
all 22 players could read, and they all realized that they needn't bother to
play hard any more. A draw was all that either team needed in order to avoid
relegation. Indeed, to put effort into scoring goals was now positively bad
policy since, by taking players away from defence, it carried the risk of
actually losing—and being relegated after all. Both sides became intent on
securing a draw. To quote the same news report: 'Supporters who had been fierce
rivals seconds before when Don Gillies fired in an 80th minute equaliser for
Bristol, suddenly joined in a combined celebration. Referee Ron Challis watched
helpless as the players pushed the ball around with little or no challenge to
the man in possession.' What had previously been a zero sum game had suddenly,
because of a piece of news from the outside world, become a nonzero sum game.
In the terms of our earlier discussion, it is as if an external 'banker' had
magically appeared, making it possible for both Bristol and Coventry to benefit
from the same outcome, a draw…. Spectator sports like football are normally
zero sum games for a good reason. It is more exciting for crowds to watch
players striving mightily against one another than to watch them conniving
amicably. But real life, both human life and plant and animal life, is not set
up for the benefit of spectators. Many situations in real life are, as a matter
of fact, equivalent to nonzero sum games. Nature often plays the role of
'banker', an4 individuals can therefore benefit from one another's success.
They do not have to do down rivals in order to benefit themselves. Without
departing from the fundamental laws of the selfish gene, we can see how
cooperation and mutual assistance can flourish even in a basically selfish
world. We can see how, in Axelrod's meaning of the term, nice guys may finish
first. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">I really don't agree with him on this point
and let me give my reasons one by one. In my opinion, whether zero sum game
issue or not depends on the boundaries of your vision or the scope you have. In
the game of prisoner's dilemma. Dawkins believed that, if both choose
cooperation, each one would be better off, so the zero sum game can be turned
into nonzero sum game. Dawkins's mistake is absurd because he did not take into
account the interests of bankers. In other words, if you take into account the
interests of bankers, you will find that the essence of seemingly nonzero-sum
game between two people is a zero-sum game between three people. Their
cooperation, actually viewed as a collusion or a cartel, can really benefit two
of them at the same time, but at the expense of bankers. As same as oligopolies,
this collusion is good for the two players, but it is bad from the standpoint
of society as a whole, and the prisoners' dilemma is a dilemma for the
prisoners, but it can be a boon to everyone else. In the past few hundred
years, laws have been enacted in western legal systems to prevent such
collusion. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914 are
both anti-trust acts, and the former elevated agreements among oligopolists
from an unenforceable contract to a criminal conspiracy, and the latter further
strengthened the antitrust laws. Similarly, the essence of marriage is a
transaction which can make both better off. During any transaction, any seller
and buyer have to cooperate which can be called nonzero sum game, but there is
competition between them how to split the whole surpluses which can be called
zero sum game. The essence of any transaction is how to share the surplus
between buyers and sellers. To be honest, for a family, total income and total
cost are certain. If you do a little more housework, I will do less. The best
strategy for both of them should be to let your partner work more and spend
less. When divorce, the alliance between husband and wife has collapsed. That
is to say, divorce is the last one shot game in which you can no longer get
anything in return from each other in the future. Like that squabbling among
cartel members over how to divide the profit in the market can make agreement
among them difficult, In order to maximize my own interests, I must hire a
lawyer to help me, because I know her lawyer and she would devour some of my
interests if I give up the employment lawyer. Now, the zero sum game between
the two people becomes a zero sum game between four people. Because the number
of property has not changed, they must have less. It is only when both sides
are rational and share common knowledge that lawyers are not introduced to
divide property. The problem of football relegation is more obvious. The number
of relegations is certain, and the only problem is how to allocate. We can only
say that Sunderland did not control his fate in his own hands, and Bristol and
Coventry transfer the costs to Sunderland through collusion. Such tacit
agreement is still on the stage. In the 2018 Russia world cup group H, in the last
round Japan and Poland have reached a tacit understanding after Poland 1-0
leads Japan and both know Colombia's simultaneous 1-0 victory over Senegal in
Samara. What had previously been a zero sum game had suddenly, because of a
piece of news from the outside world, become a nonzero sum game. In the terms
of our earlier discussion, it is as if an external 'banker' had magically
appeared, making it possible for both Poland and Japan to benefit from the same
outcome 1-0. Does the zero sum game become a nonzero sum game magically? Of
course not. The so-called nonzero sum game does not eliminate costs, but
transfers costs to other people. There is an old saying about this collusion, “Don't
tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.” This logic is obvious,
because at a certain point of time, the social aggregate supply, including the
total products and services of society, are fixed, because it depends on its
supplies of labor, capital, and natural resources and on the available
technology used to turn these factors of production into goods and services, so
the only remaining problem is how to divide these fixed products and services
with whom, and then the stage is set for a political battle including lies
which are also a kind of politics. There is a famous saying, “Politics requires
sacrifice; the sacrifice of others, of course.” Deception is an eternal and
stable strategy in human evolution and will run through human history. Just as
polygamy is essentially a zero-sum game between men and men, monogamy, under the
premise that sex ratio is 1:1, becomes a nonzero sum game between men and men
because they do not take into account the interests of women. Do you remember
the case in Microeconomics that good news for farming can be bad news for
farmers? As same as externalities, zero sum game and non-zero sum game are reciprocal.
When analyzing any policy, it is important to keep in mind that what is good
for some people is not necessarily good for society as a whole. The same logic
applies to the revelation of truth. Not everyone wants to see the truth of
female orgasm, because it makes P-V model lose its legitimacy, but it is surely
good for women. Dawkins made a common mistake called the broken window fallacy.
Let's review some knowledge in <i>Microeconomics</i>: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Little in
the literature seems more relevant to contemporary economic debates than what
usually is called the broken window fallacy. Whenever a government program is
justified not on its merits but by the jobs it will create, remember the broken
window: Some teenagers, being the little beasts that they are, toss a brick
through a bakery window. A crowd gathers and laments, “What a shame.” But
before you know it, someone suggests a silver lining to the situation: Now the
baker will have to spend money to have the window repaired. This will add to
the income of the repairman, who will spend his additional income, which will
add to another seller’s income, and so on. You know the drill. The chain of spending
will multiply and generate higher income and employment. If the broken window is
large enough, it might produce an economic boom!... Most voters fall for the
broken window fallacy, but not economics majors. They will say, “Hey, wait a
minute!” If the baker hadn’t spent his money on window repair, he would have
spent it on the new suit he was saving to buy. Then the tailor would have the
new income to spend, and so on. 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…. The
broken window fallacy is perpetuated in many forms. Whenever job creation or
retention is the primary objective I call it the job-counting fallacy.
Economics majors understand the non-intuitive reality that real progress comes
from job destruction. It once took 90 percent of our population to grow our
food. Now it takes 3 percent. Pardon me, Willie, but are we worse off because
of the job losses in agriculture? The would have-been farmers are now college
professors and computer gurus…. So instead of counting jobs, we should make
every job count. We will occasionally hit a soft spot when we have a mismatch
of supply and demand in the labor market. But that is temporary. Don’t become a
Luddite and destroy the machinery, or become a protectionist and try to grow
bananas in New York City. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Dawkins fell for the broken window fallacy
as well and believed nature often plays the role of 'banker', so lots of game
would be nonzero sum game. I think Dawkins only see the activity that takes
place, but he does not see the activity that would have taken place. In short,
he ignores the opportunity cost. The essence of many policies is to transfer
costs at the expense of other people's interests. The Microeconomics tells us society
faces a short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Why is that?
The essence of unemployment is to kick the unqualified suppliers out of the
labor market, and the essence of inflation is to turn these unqualified
suppliers into qualified buyers of products and services. Let's go back to the
key point that all the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on
you cannot completely eliminate them. There are no absolute good things or bad
things in the world, and no matter what happens, someone can gain from it while
someone must loss from it. In my eyes, there are only two things in the world:
One is how to split the interests; the other is how to share the costs. Any
sudden incident will change the current pattern of interests, no matter it is a
lie or a truth. Merkel's mistake was that she transferred costs instead of
eliminating them because of her ignorance and naïve. Human evolution requires
sacrifice. The sacrifice of who is important. Lies and victims are necessary,
because these, as same as taxes, are the costs we pay for civilized society,
and the key question is who will pay. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">From a genetic perspective, what is a
winner? The winner means who can survive and breed successfully as much as
possible, instead of who can manufacture Mercedes Benz, BMW or Audi. Australia,
the United Kingdom, New Zealand and so on those island countries generally have
the most stringent rules of entry, and they are forbidden to bring all seeds
and live animals. Why? Any weaker species will explosive grow when it is
suitable for survival without natural enemies. Here I give you some similar
examples. You can find that kangaroo, as a special species, only appears in
Australia, but there are no giant animals like tigers and lions in Australia.
Why is that? Because of natural segregation made by continental drift,
Australian plate was isolated from Asian plate, so you can't bring any tigers
or lions to Australia, or you are making new winners and losers artificially.
Let us imagine Australian plate goes back to Asian plate. What will happen? Is
this just to the kangaroo? There is no problem of just, but only the problem of
new winners and new losers. In the early days of the settlement of Australia,
enterprising settlers unwisely introduced the European rabbit. Such wild rabbit
populations are a serious mammalian pest and invasive species in Australia
causing millions of dollars of damage to crops. Their spread was enhanced
probably through the emergence of strong crossbreeds. Various methods in the
20th century have been attempted to control the Australian rabbit population.
Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but
these had only limited success. In 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in
Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits. The myxoma
virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in
the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population. Can I
say you infringe on the breeding rights of rabbits? In addition to Australia,
the United States has encountered this kind of invasion: Asian carp in North
America. Asian carp are a voracious and destructive invasive species
threatening the survival of native fishes and the health of America's
waterways. Germany also suffered crawfish invasion. Germany has decided on a
novel approach to dealing with its "crayfish plague''. Berliners will now
be allowed to eat crawfish. Every year after mating season, Cuba must encounter
crabs’ invasion. Female land crabs migrate from their forest home to the
coastline in order to release their eggs into the Caribbean Sea. The smell of
crushed crab is everywhere, and their shells damage car tires. Despite being
smashed by cars and pedestrians, they still complete their long journey for
species survival. To be honest, any creature is very scary when spread
unchecked including human beings. Rats are the most dirty creatures on the face
of this planet, carriers of various viruses and bacteria such as Tuberculosis
and other pests that cause Dysentery. People in many countries do not eat rats,
but people in the country of Vietnam eat rat as a delicacy. Destitute Indians
also eat rats. The reason is very simple: people face tradeoffs between life
and death. Poor people do what they must to survive. Before we arrived trade
civilization, which can make both better off, white people can use their
weapons to destroy yellow and black people completely, as same as Homo sapiens
chose to kill Homo neanderthalensis tens of thousands of years ago. Some
scholars believe that the Homo sapiens have assimilated Homo neanderthalensis.
I don't know they are killed or assimilated, if the latter is true, I bet that
must be the contribution of Neanderthal women instead of men. For the problem
of fusion, you have only two strategies: Kill them or assimilate them. If you
choose the latter, you must adopt the strategy of “Trading space for time” and
the strategy of “Segregation” in short-run because it takes time and process to
turn them into us, but unfortunately West chose neither. Darwin also explained
the relationship between invasion and balance in his book of <i>Origin of species</i></span><i><span face="宋体" style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span></i></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">If the country were
open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would
likewise seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let
it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or
mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country
partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could
not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which
would assuredly be better filled up if some of the original inhabitants were in
some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same
places would have been seized on by intruders…. We have good reason to believe,
as shown in the first chapter, that changes in the conditions of life give a
tendency to increased variability; and in the foregoing cases the conditions
the changed, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by
affording a better chance of the occurrence of profitable variations. Unless
such occur, natural selection can do nothing. Under the term of
"variations," it must never be forgotten that mere individual
differences are included. As man can produce a great result with his domestic
animals and plants by adding up in any given direction individual differences,
so could natural selection, but far more easily from having incomparably longer
time for action. For as all the inhabitants of each country are struggling
together with nicely balanced forces, extremely slight modifications in the
structure or habits of one species would often give it an advantage over
others; and still further modifications of the same kind would often still
further increase the advantage, as long as the species continued under the same
conditions of life and profited by similar means of subsistence and defence. No
country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly
adapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live,
that none of them could be still better adapted or improved; for in all
countries, the natives have been so far conquered by naturalised productions
that they have allowed some foreigners to take firm possession of the land. And
as foreigners have thus in every country beaten some of the natives, we may
safely conclude that the natives might have been modified with advantage, so as
to have better resisted the intruders…. if any one species does not become
modified and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors it will be
exterminated…. Hence, rare species will be less quickly modified or improved
within any given period; they will consequently be beaten in the race for life
by the modified and improved descendants of the commoner species…. From these
several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in
the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become
rarer and rarer, and finally extinct…. this is shown to be the case by so many
native forms in many quarters of the world having yielded their places to
intruding foreigners. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">After the refugees invaded, the native
inhabitants will become rarer and rarer because they were unqualified suppliers
in the reproductive market. Do you remember the Indian massacre in American
history? Geocide of indigenous Americans, the huge and precipitous decline in
native populations in the Americas after European arrival. Now the roles seem
to be reversed. The native inhabitants become the white, whereas the invaders Middle
East and North Africa refugees. Is it karma? It is generally known that Chinese
women like to go to the United States or Canada to give birth to their
children. Why? Why don't they go to Africa? It is because they are not stupid,
and they are arbitrage. Like the refugee problem in Europe, who gives them the
opportunity to arbitrage? it is not hard to answer: American and Canadian laws.
There are two principles of Birthright Citizenship: Jus soli & Jus
Sanguinis. Jus soli is a Latin term that means law of the soil. Many countries
follow the system of jus soli or more commonly known as, birthright
citizenship. Under this concept, citizenship of a person is determined by the
place where a person was born. Jus sanguinis is when a person acquires
citizenship through their parents or ancestors. Many nations have a mixture of
jus sanguinis and jus soli, including the United States, Canada, Israel,
Greece, Ireland, and recently Germany. Today France only narrowly applies jus
sanguinis, but it is still the most common means of passing on citizenship in
many continental European countries. The U.S. follows the jus soli system to
determine citizenship, which can be traced back to the Fourteenth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution what provides that all persons born or naturalized in the
United States are citizens. In my view, Jus soli and Jus Sanguinis resort to
different interest subjects. The former resorts to the individual interest, the
latter to genetic interest. Our evolutionary history is a process how individual
interests gradually replace genetic interests, and also a process how selfish
genes make concessions step by step. I would talk about God weigh when the two conflicts
with each other later. It is because of this loophole that the Chinese go to
the United States or Canada to give birth for arbitrage.</span><span face="宋体" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span><span lang="EN">There is nothing
in the law that makes it illegal for pregnant women to enter the United
States,” said a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Canada
is one of the few developed countries, along with the United States, that
grants birthright citizenship. </span><span lang="EN-US">According to the
Canadian news report, </span><span lang="EN">the number of Chinese residents in Vancouver has grown to
more than 18 percent over the last 20 years. 295 of the 1,938 babies born at
the hospital in Richmond over the last year were born to Chinese mothers, a
number that has increased significantly since 2011, although it’s unclear how
much it's gone up. Health authorities in Canada do not typically record the
nationalities of patients. According to a news release from Citizenship and
Immigration Canada in 2014, there were fewer than 500 reported cases of a child
being born in Canada to parents who were neither a citizen or permanent
resident. In July 2016, health ministry investigators in B.C. counted 26 in the
province—a threefold increase since 2009. While no such data has been made
public for Ontario, Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto also reported an increase in
foreign births in 2015, receiving women from China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates. In 2013, Montreal authorities said women from Haiti
and French-speaking northern African countries “frequently” arrived to give
birth in Canada. The excuse of all arbitragers is like this “I am here to give
my kids better options, clean water, clean air, best education, a safe
childhood and reliable medical care.” The real purpose is to access to quality
education and public healthcare. In other words, they are taking advantage of Canada's
public subsidy system because of reproduction has been a positive externality
in Canada I have mentioned in Figure 6.4. Birth tourism creates this opportunity
for arbitrage. To be honest, it is big risky for current taxpayers because this
is a game with sunk cost that if the baby is going to use a lot of public</span><span lang="EN"> </span><span lang="EN">subsidy in Canada, but there is no commitment that the baby will become a Canadian
legal taxpayer when he grows up in future. In other words, the best response
for poor guys is to grow up in a country with high welfare and emigrate
to a country with low welfare when he gets capable and rich because now emigrant
become his dominant strategy, which must converge to an equilibrium state after
the long-term consequences that in the end Canada is full of poor and incapable
people who just want to take instead of giving. This is a common thing in the
newspaper that the rich chose to emigrate for tax avoidance. Ikea founder
Ingvar Kamprad left Sweden in the 1970s in protest at the country’s high taxes,
setting up residence in Switzerland. Swedish taxes once accounted for half of
GDP. "At that time, the tax regime was very restrictive," Ikea said. Sweden's
centre-right coalition government has chipped away at the country’s generous
welfare system during its nearly two terms in office, trimming income taxes and
abolishing a wealth tax, and then Ingvar Kamprad moves back to Sweden after 40
years in Switzerland in 2013. The French government announced on 28 September
2012, a series of measures that would significantly increase the taxes borne by
wealthy individuals, with some of the proposed increases to apply to income
earned from 1 January 2012. Unfortunately, this farce of robbing the rich and
helping the poor lasted for only 2 years. For the same reason, British chose withdrawal
from the European Union. I am going too far, let's go back to the problem of
birth tourism. Recently, I saw a news: A Chinese pregnant woman run away after
giving birth in Vancouver and owe the hospital over million 800 thousand.
Frankly speaking, she is not birth tourist but birth arbitrager or birth
terrorist as same as Cuckoo who deposits her egg and disappears. From the point
of ESS, Birth tourism is not an evolutionary stable strategy because it can be
invaded by any nasty strategy. You can see why the tax revenue in China needs
to be controlled at the source and why the hospital requires the patient to pay
the money first. Everything is a compelled counter-strategy. All in all, don't
forget an important lesson from Game Theory: Do not play a strictly dominated
strategy. I recently saw another piece of news that Trump plans to sign an
executive order to terminate birthright citizenship. This order will inevitably
lead to bankruptcy of all Chinese maternity hotel in Chinatown in America, and
the beneficiaries will be those Chinese who have become citizens of the United
States. New losers and winners will arise. It is not wrong that the rich
Chinese are willing to emigrate to the United States or Canada to pursue a
better environment. It is because the poor have low evaluation of the
environment, and the rich have a high evaluation of the environment. The
greater the gap is between the rich and the poor, the greater they demand for
external living conditions. Now, it is difficult for whole society to form a
common understanding. Segregation is necessary, otherwise chaos will inevitably
arise. The key problem is you have to pay for it because your initial position
is not in the US and your entry will dilute the welfare of American citizens. That
is just a deal, and American should figure out a problem, namely, “who is
useful to me and who is most useful to me?” and then find an equilibrium point
by setting a dynamic threshold to kick off unqualified people. If I were the
president of America, I would be only interested in two kinds of people: The
talented and the rich. </span><span lang="EN-US">Western and Northern Europe are
now communist countries, and China is a real capitalist country. Only communist
countries will create arbitrage opportunities because Nice guys seem bound to
decrease in numbers: niceness dies a Darwinian death, because only the strategy
of </span><span face="宋体" style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Tit for Tat</span><span face="宋体" style="mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">”</span><span lang="EN-US"> is a stable one. Let us review the
two strategies Sucker and Cheat in Dawkins's <i>Selfish gene :</i></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Suckers groom
anybody who needs it, indiscriminately. Cheats accept altruism from suckers,
but they never groom anybody else, not even somebody who has previously groomed
them…. Cheat genes will therefore start to spread through the population.
Sucker genes will soon be driven to extinction. This is because, no matter what
the ratio in the population, cheats will always do better than suckers…. But
still, cheats will be doing better than suckers because they are getting all
the benefits—such as they are—and paying nothing back…. But now, suppose there
is a third strategy called Grudger. Grudgers groom strangers and individuals
who have previously groomed them. However, if any individual cheats them, they
remember the incident and bear a grudge: they refuse to groom that individual
in the future…. When the proportion of cheats reaches 90 per cent, the average
pay-off for all individuals will be very low: many of both types may by now be
dying of the infection carried by the ticks. But still the cheats will be doing
better than the suckers. Even if the whole population declines toward
extinction, there will never be any time when suckers do better than cheats.
Therefore, as long as we consider only these two strategies, nothing can stop
the extinction of the suckers and, very probably, the extinction of the whole
population too…. Once the grudgers manage to build up in numbers so that they
reach a critical proportion, however, their chance of meeting each other
becomes sufficiently great to off-set their wasted effort in grooming cheats.
When this critical proportion is reached they will start to average a higher
pay-off than cheats, and the cheats will be driven at an accelerating rate
towards extinction…. Grudger does indeed turn out to be an evolutionarily
stable strategy against sucker and cheat, in the sense that, in a population
consisting largely of grudgers, neither cheat nor sucker will invade…. The
first thing that happens is a dramatic crash in the population of suckers as
the cheats ruthlessly exploit them. The cheats enjoy a soaring population
explosion, reaching their peak just as the last sucker perishes. But the cheats
still have the grudgers to reckon with. During the precipitous decline of the
suckers, the grudgers have been slowly decreasing in numbers, taking a battering
from the prospering cheats, but just managing to hold their own. After the last
sucker has gone and the cheats can no longer get away with selfish exploitation
so easily, the grudgers slowly begin to increase at the cheats' expense.
Steadily their population rise gathers momentum. It accelerates steeply, the
cheat population crashes to near extinction, then levels out as they enjoy the
privileges of rarity and the comparative freedom from grudges which this
brings. However, slowly and inexorably the cheats are driven out of existence,
and the grudgers are left in sole possession. Paradoxically, the presence of
the suckers actually endangered the grudgers early on in the story because they
were responsible for the temporary prosperity of the cheats. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">When some group can't emigrate for arbitrage,
they choose to ask the authorities for so-called “Human Rights”. For example,
some stupid Chinese complain that one child policy is a violation of human
rights, so they demand to call for the policy of one child because Westerners
can give birth at will; someone complains the costs of raising children are too
high, so the government should raise children's welfare because West government
offers a 2,500-euro bonus for every baby born. They must be dreaming! The
beneficiary is you, but the cost is borne by others. One Child Policy was
absolutely right at that time. In chemistry, when molecules are in different
phases, you may choose the opposite means to achieve your goals. For example, is
increasing temperature beneficial to solubility? When I want to improve the
solubility, solids do the inverse of gas. Temperature is good for solid
solubility, in general, if you are dealing with a solid in a liquid solvent,
increasing the temperature will increase the solubility. But what about a gas?
When you are dissolving a gas inside of a liquid solvent, it actually has the
opposite effect. When temperature goes up, solubility goes down. And likewise,
if temperature goes down, solubility goes up. So, the position you are in is
very important in decision making. Reproduction, now in China, is still a game
of negative externality because some of them are irrational human and some of
them are rational animals. Even though some Chinese already have pension
insurance, but mostly of them have huge inertia, so the best strategy for the
government should be to make good use of their inertia. There are also some people
in the West who like reproduction. According to British news: Britain’s Most
Shameless Mum, named Cheryl Prudham, who has already had 12 children, can receive
£40,000 in benefits a year from government. Most have accused her of having
children just to capitalize on government benefits, but in my eyes why Britain
subsidized childbirth? It is because without a subsidy, no one would give
birth, but it must end with Reproductive Professionalization. Those people, who
has lower opportunity costs, would choose to reproduce for living.
Reproduction, finally in China as same as in West, would become a game of positive
externality. Like I said before, the emergence of pensions inevitably led to
the result that reproduction loses its incentive, and then led to government
subsidy, and then reproduction becomes a profession to live on, and finally
reproduction enters professionalism, and people choose to reproduce for money. There
is a saying that the way of thinking of Oriental and Westerners is different.
This is absolutely wrong. Only the environment was different, which led to
different counter-strategy, and then accumulated in opposite directions. This
is why I do not want to associate with the Chinese people because they must bring
me to the lower level where is an equilibrium in China. In order to maximize my
interests, I have to choose the same vulgar strategy as same as theirs, but in
the western environment, the model of mutual benefit can make me get more
benefits. I like to enter into mutually beneficial trading mode with others,
because trade can make both better off. I am an honest person, more precisely an
honest business person.</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 15pt;">People are born
good or evil?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">About human nature, there have been two
claims since ancient times. Hobbes believed human nature is evil, man has no
idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked and vicious because he does not
know virtue; that he always refuses to do his fellow-creatures services, while
Locke and Rousseau believed human nature is good. My point of view is very
simple: Using Darwin's words to answer you that any creature that has evolved
must be selfish, or it will have died out long ago. Do you remember the lesson
5 in The Game Theory from Yale's open course: “Yale students are evil.” To be
honest, human beings have two characteristics: One is selfishness and the other
is greed. Dawkins has already explained battle of the generations and battle of
the sexes in details in his book of <i>The
Selfish Gene</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">One of the most striking properties of
survival-machine behaviour is its apparent purposiveness. What is a single
selfish gene trying to do? It is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool.
Basically it does this by helping to program the bodies in which it finds
itself to survive and to reproduce. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We have to learn to think in selfish gene
terms. </span><span lang="EN-US">What is a single selfish refugee trying to do?
The answer is they want to gain all the benefits without paying the costs.
Under dictatorship, the public didn’t have the freedom to go abroad, but after
the collapse of dictatorship, they have the freedom to go abroad for arbitrage.
Altruism must be bad and selfishness good. This follows inexorably from our
definitions of altruism and selfishness. As survival machines, the refugees are
not wrong when they find an opportunity to arbitrage, as same as men are not
wrong if women are willing to provide free sex-services. The key of all
arbitrages is on suckers. These so-called refugees, like successful Chicago
gangsters, are good at using the Western rules to arbitrage, and a predominant
quality to be expected in a successful survival machines is ruthless
selfishness. Sometimes selfish survival machines can achieve its own selfish
goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual
animals. Beneath the seemingly selfless surface is selfish purpose. Selfish
purpose is hidden under all the seemingly selfless behaviors. Do you still
remember that in the movie of <i>Titanic</i>
how Cal used a little girl to get on the last lifeboat? Do not doubt the
selfishness of refugees, because anything that has evolved by natural selection
should be selfish. You could say that dinosaurs are altruistic, because they
are extinct, but you can't believe refugees are altruistic, because they are
good at using children to achieve the purpose of arbitrage. next, let's have a
look at what Montesquieu said in his book of <i>The Spirit of Law :</i></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">There is not
perhaps any man in a comfortable position who has not greedy heirs, and perhaps
even children, secretly wishing for his death; not a ship at sea, of which the
loss would not be good news to some merchant or other; not a house, which some
debtor of bad faith would not be glad to see reduced to ashes with all the
papers it contains; not a nation which does not rejoice at the disasters that
befall its neighbours. Thus it is that we find our advantage in the misfortunes
of our fellow</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 微软雅黑;">−</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">creatures, and that the
loss of one man almost always constitutes the prosperity of another. But it is
still more pernicious that public calamities are the objects of the hopes and
expectations of innumerable individuals. Some desire sickness, some mortality,
some war, and some famine. I have seen men wicked enough to weep for sorrow at
the prospect of a plentiful season; and the great and fatal fire of London,
which cost so many unhappy persons their lives or their fortunes, made the
fortunes of perhaps ten thousand others. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Whether death or disaster, as a
sudden event, some people will benefit from it while some people will lose from
it. Do you remember the Luddite Revolt? The technological progress is good for
some of people, but others take it as a threat to their standard of living. Any
reform has broken the original pattern of interests by creating new losers and
new winners. Like the good news for farming is bad news for farmers, the good
news for men but at the cost of women's benefits. There is no doubt that vested
interests group always see the awakening of fools as a threat to their vested
interest. I hate to hear such propaganda that some places are paradise. My
answer is that there is no such place called paradise on the earth, because on
any cross section of evolutionary road, the interests of all people are in
zero-sum games due to infinite human desire but fixed production capacity, and
what I lost is what others got in total. Everyone have to be trapped in the
predicament of the times, without exception including genius. Because of
interest people must depend on each other, and at same time people must deceive
each other for the same sake. To this end, the powerful employ all their
strength, and the weak all their cunning. This is how the fickleness of the
real world. Greed is the second characteristic of mankind. Montesquieu has a
profound knowledge of human greed in his book of <i>The Spirit of Law :</i></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Besides, the
possession of so many wives does not always prevent their entertaining desires
for those of others. It is with lust as with avarice, whose thirst increases by
the acquisition of treasure…. It is natural
for a people to leave a bad soil to seek a better, and not to leave a good soil
to go in search of worse. Most invasions have, therefore, been made in
countries which nature seems to have formed for happiness; and as nothing is
more nearly allied than desolation and invasion, the best provinces are most
frequently depopulated, while the frightful countries of the north continue
always inhabited, from their being almost uninhabitable…. We find by what
historians tell us of the passage of the people of Scandinavia along the banks
of the Danube that this was not a conquest, but only a migration into desert
countries…. The most happy of mortals should I think myself could I contribute
to make mankind recover from their prejudices. By prejudices I here mean, not
that which renders men ignorant of some particular things, but whatever renders
them ignorant of themselves…. When things are examined with never so small a
degree of extent, the sallies of imagination must vanish; these generally arise
from the mind’s collecting all its powers to view only one side of the subject,
while it leaves the other unobserved. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The key
issue is not refugees because using market to arbitrage is never wrong.
Everyone wants to leave a bad place to seek a better one, and not to leave a
good place to go in search of worse. Refugees are not fools, why they don't go
to Russia or East Asia? The only reason is high welfare in Europe. I want high
welfare too. So now Europe is ravaged only because of the high welfare. The
choice of refugees is consistent with the theory of evolution and the
principles of market economy, and the irrational is the European governments. I
dare say that refugees want not only just survival, but also mating rights,
reproductive rights and voting rights and so on so forth. The fallacy of our
choice is that man is far from the first principle of evolution: Self-Love. In
evolution, there are only two options: Hunt or be hunted. Greed never ends
until there is a power to hedge his desire, called law, by transferring the
cost to himself, and then he would weigh the pros and cons by giving up some
less important interests in order to gain some more important interests.
Selfish is a very normal thing, and the key is whether you can transfer the
cost back to him, and the laws of all nations are only consequences of hedging
to keep equilibrium. People are not aware of Justice or Human Rights, and just
accept it as the lesser evil. Comparisons are very harmful. Lies are necessary,
because it is easier to satisfy occasionally a fool. Stuart Muller said that it
is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, but
unfortunately, the pig does not think so. What is happiness? Are people happier
now than one hundred years? It is hard to say. I think happiness is a relative
value depending on the gap between your actual situation and expectations. You
have to lower your expectation when you don't have enough ability to change
your situation. Frankly speaking, if China didn't open the door, the Chinese
people may feel happy as same as North Korean. The United States believed that
overthrowing dictators can bring people happiness, but the fact is that people
there don't feel happy because they believed they can be happier in Europe. God's
strategy is to castrate people's desires before they have the ability to
achieve the next Equilibrium. I stress it again that segregation is always a conservative
stable strategy, please think about the</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">IOS</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">ecosystem of Apple phone. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">On inequality<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The latest news shocked the scientific
community that Nobel Prize-winning scientist James Watson has been stripped of
his honorary titles at the laboratory he once led after doubling down on racist
comments. Watson, who discovered DNA's double helix structure alongside Francis
Crick and Rosalind Franklin in the 1950s, said that genes cause a difference on
IQ tests between blacks and whites in a recent PBS documentary “American
Masters: Decoding Watson.” This isn't Watson's first controversial comment
about race. He lost his position as chancellor at the lab in 2007 after he told
the Sunday Times he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa"
because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence
is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.” He added that
although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees
find this not true.” Now let’s turn to the problem of inequality and examine the
racial differences in IQ. We can't avoid Rousseau's book of <i>A Dissertation On the Origin and Foundation
of The Inequality of Mankind :</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">I conceive that
there are two kinds of inequality among the human species; one, which I call
natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a
difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or of
the soul: and another, which may be called moral or political inequality,
because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least
authorised by the consent of men. This latter consists of the different
privileges, which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others; such as that of
being more rich, more honoured, more powerful or even in a position to exact
obedience…. It is in fact easy to see that many of the differences which
distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the different methods of
life men adopt in society. Thus a robust or delicate constitution, and the
strength or weakness attaching to it, are more frequently the effects of a
hardy or effeminate method of education than of the original endowment of the
body. It is the same with the powers of the mind; for education not only makes
a difference between such as are cultured and such as are not, but even
increases the differences…. For, according
to the axiom of the wise Locke, there can be no injury, where there is no
property…. In a word, there arose rivalry and competition on the one hand, and
conflicting interests on the other, together with a secret desire on both of
profiting at the expense of others. All these evils were the first effects of
property, and the inseparable attendants of growing inequality…. There is
hardly any inequality in the state of nature…. so many writers have hastily
concluded that man is naturally cruel, and requires civil institutions to make
him more mild; whereas nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive state….
The more we reflect on it, the more we shall find that this state was the least
subject to revolutions, and altogether the very best man could experience; so
that he can have departed from it only through some fatal accident, which, for
the public good, should never have happened. The example of savages, most of
whom have been found in this state, seems to prove that men were meant to
remain in it, that it is the real youth of the world, and that all subsequent
advances have been apparently so many steps towards the perfection of the
individual, but in reality towards the decrepitude of the species. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Savage man, when he
has dined, is at peace with all nature, and the friend of all his
fellow-creatures. If a dispute arises about a meal, he rarely comes to blows,
without having first compared the difficulty of conquering his antagonist with
the trouble of finding subsistence elsewhere: and, as pride does not come in,
it all ends in a few blows; the victor eats, and the vanquished seeks provision
somewhere else, and all is at peace. The case is quite different with man in
the state of society, for whom first necessaries have to be provided, and then
superfluities; delicacies follow next, then immense wealth, then subjects, and
then slaves…. Let the learned tell us why, instead of multiplying to such a
degree, these fierce and brutal men, without sense or science, without
education, without restraint, did not destroy each other hourly in quarrelling
over the productions of their fields and woods…. I hear it constantly repeated
that, in such a state, the strong would oppress the weak; but what is here
meant by oppression? Some, it is said, would violently domineer over others,
who would groan under a servile submission to their caprices. This indeed is
exactly what I observe to be the case among us; but I do not see how it can be
inferred of men in a state of nature, who could not easily be brought to
conceive what we mean by dominion and servitude. One man, it is true, might
seize the fruits which another had gathered, the game he had killed, or the
cave he had chosen for shelter; but how would he ever be able to exact
obedience, and what ties of dependence could there be among men without
possessions? If, for instance, I am driven from one tree, I can go to the next;
if I am disturbed in one place, what hinders me from going to another? Again,
should I happen to meet with a man so much stronger than myself, and at the
same time so depraved, so indolent, and so barbarous, as to compel me to provide
for his sustenance while he himself remains idle; he must take care not to have
his eyes off me for a single moment; he must bind me fast before he goes to
sleep, or I shall certainly either knock him on the head or make my escape.
That is to say, he must in such a case voluntarily expose himself to much
greater trouble than he seeks to avoid, or can give me. After all this, let him
be off his guard ever so little; let him but turn his head aside at any sudden
noise, and I shall be instantly twenty paces off, lost in the forest, and, my
fetters burst asunder, he would never see me again.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">The first
man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is
mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of
civil society…. Destitute of valid
reasons to justify and sufficient strength to defend himself, able to crush
individuals with ease, but easily crushed himself by a troop of bandits, one
against all, and incapable…. With this view, after having represented to his
neighbours the horror of a situation which armed every man against the rest,
and made their possessions as burdensome to them as their wants, and in which
no safety could be expected either in riches or in poverty, he readily devised
plausible arguments to make them close with his design. "Let us
join," said he, "to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the
ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let
us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be
obliged to conform; rules that may in some measure make amends for the caprices
of fortune, by subjecting equally the powerful and the weak to the observance
of reciprocal obligations. Let us, in a word, instead of turning our forces against
ourselves, collect them in a supreme power which may govern us by wise laws,
protect and defend all the members of the association, repulse their common
enemies, and maintain eternal harmony among us." … But, if individuals
became to some extent less able to encounter wild beasts separately, they found
it, on the other hand, easier to assemble and resist in common… I regard it
then as certain, that government did not begin with arbitrary power…. Now, in
the relations between man and man, the worst that can happen is for one to find
himself at the mercy of another…. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Such was, or may
well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the
poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural
liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever
usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious
individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and
wretchedness…. the despot is master only so long as he remains the strongest;
as soon as he can be expelled, he has no right to complain of violence. As he
was maintained by force alone, it is force alone that overthrows him. Thus
everything takes place according to the natural order; and, whatever may be the
result of such frequent and precipitate revolutions, no one man has reason to
complain of the injustice of another, but only of his own ill-fortune or
indiscretion…. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Let me
sum up Rousseau's point of view: (1) There are two kinds of inequality among
the human species: One is physiological inequality, including age, gender and
muscle, and the other is birth inequality, including wealth, status and
privilege. Rousseau
believed man can control his destiny, and many of the
differences which distinguish men are merely the effect of habit and the
different methods of life men adopt in society. (2) Private ownership is the
culprit of inequality, and there is hardly
any inequality in the state of nature. (3) In primitive state, man is gentle,
so he is at peace with all nature, and the friend of all his fellow-creatures.
(4) He regards it then as certain, that government did not begin with arbitrary
power. I am sorry that I find it difficult to identify with his views. Let me
clarify my point of views one by one. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In my opinion, there is only one inequality
called destiny, because God gave everyone different endowments by endowing
different genes and different growth environments. In other words, we are born
located in different knots in any game tree, which determines that we must
adopt different strategies to maximize individual's payoffs and minimize the
costs. In short, different endowment determines different strategy you have to
use. Rousseau totally denied that talent gap between man and man, and believed
that your destiny is completely in your hands. First, Genes must play a
decisive role. A Chihuahua can never grow into a Siberian husky whatever in any
case. Thomas Edison said that “Genius is one percent inspiration and
ninety-nine percent perspiration, but sometimes, one-percent inspiration is
more important than ninety-nine percent perspiration.” When brainwashing
people, politicians always emphasize the first half, but ignore the second
half. Second, I don't deny the habits
and methods are very important in people's growth, but who pays the price. For
example, they must share the different muscles if one person ate beef every day
and the other was starved every day. Beef comes at a price, and who would pay
for your price? Apparently, it should be the parents who pay the beef. What
kind of family you were born in is also a kind of endowments, you can't decide
where you were born. Don't expect me to beat Tyson by training me every second.
There is an old saying in China: First humiliation then be brave. The women's
biggest problem is that they are still in the stage of no humiliation, and in
other words they don't</span> believe P-V model chosen by God, means humiliation for
themselves, so they could be brave to resist this model. West believed that all
men are born equal, which is the greatest mistake of cognition and the source
of subsequent erroneous cognition. The female greatest misperception is God
represents fairness and justice, and P-V model is beneficial for men so must be
beneficial for women because God chose it. It is not the scariest thing that
you know you know nothing, and instead the scariest thing is that you don't
know you know nothing, where all women are now. In fact, God has his plan of
division of labor which may be may be random as same as division of labor of cells
in survival machines, some of them become liver, some brain. You can't deny the
importance of the original endowment. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Rousseau blamed unfair on private ownership,
but here I want to defense private ownership for a little bit. The fact is the
opposite is true that prior to the emergence of private ownership, human beings
were unfair. The inequality between men is the reason, and private ownership is
the result. Inequality leads to private ownership. If we really want to trace
the origin of inequality, it should go back to Bio-diversity, so first of all
let’s go back to the evolution from Haploid organism to Diploid organism. When
a creature is a haploid organism, it must adopt mitosis as an asexual form of
reproduction. The progeny and mother shared the exactly the same genes, and it
means the same species share the same genes. In the same environment, they
either live together or die together because there is no injustice between
them. Unfairness occurred when diploid organisms appeared, even no need to be sexual
reproduction. You must know the famous Mendel's pea experiment, who is called
the father of modern genetics. Why did he choose peas instead of other plants?
It is because peas are self-fertilized. The result is very clear that, in the
natural state, all offspring must be purebred. <span class="termtext">Mendel
crossed a purebred short plant and a purebred tall plant (two purebreds) by</span>
<span class="termtext">removing the pollen from a flower on one plant and
brushing it onto a flower on a second plant, which called </span>cross-fertilization<span class="termtext">. There is no inequality between genetically identical
homozygotes, but inequalities exist between different genetically homozygotes.
We can still call this inequality among species instead of within species, but
as the heterozygote appeared, inequality within species inevitably happened. I
am certain that </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">there are full of inequality in
the state of nature, because </span><span lang="EN-US">as long as there is
difference, there is a preference, and then there will be unfairness. In the
natural state, you can’t see the inequality because the inferior individuals
have been eliminated by death, while the inferior people are not eliminated
completely so you can see them in your life. God is never fair from the
beginning to the end. Marx's theory that the destruction of private ownership
would liberate human beings must come from Rousseau. Marx believed that you
eliminate private ownership and everything will be fine. No private ownership,
things will be rosy, and there will be equality among people. How naive the
idea is! As naive as women are, who believed they can get the freedom after the
collapse of patriarchy, but the fact is they fell into free prostitutes from fee
prostitutes. The stupidest thing women believed is that monogamy can make women
equal to a man. Man and woman can never be equal, because that is chosen by
God. I think the emergence of private property must be the first step in the
beginning of the contract civilization. My view is that private property is
sacrosanct. Even if their wealth is seized by violence, we should uphold the
rule of law as long as he is playing a game based on the market economy,
because seizing back with violence like the proletarian revolution must lead
our human into vicious circle.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Every coin has two sides. The benefits of
hybridization are self-evident: Diversity, but hybridization is also defective:
no homozygote at all. It is well known that the practice of consanguineous
marriage in Egypt is very old since Ancient Egyptians to keep the royal blood. Consanguineous
marriage also has a long history in Europe. For example, the marriage of Louis
XIV of France and Maria Theresa of Spain was a first-cousin marriage on both
sides. Only Austria, Hungary, and Spain banned cousin marriage throughout the
19th century. First-cousin marriage in England in 1875 was estimated by George
Darwin to be 3.5% for the middle classes and 4.5% for the nobility, though this
had declined to under 1% during the 20th century. Queen Victoria and Prince
Albert were a preeminent example. Now in Pakistan, cousin marriage is legal and
common. Here I don’t want to waste time talking about the benefits of hybridization,
because the benefit is very single: Prevent genetic diseases like Hemophilia.
Here I want to discuss the results of hybridization and where the boundary of
hybridization is. Frankly speaking, God adopted a strategy to suppress
hybridization: Reproductive isolation. According to Wikipedia, the mechanisms
of reproductive isolation are a collection of evolutionary mechanisms,
behaviors and physiological processes critical for speciation. They prevent
members of different species from producing offspring, or ensure that any
offspring are sterile. These barriers maintain the integrity of a species by reducing
gene flow between related species. I can understand why the ancient Egyptian
royal family allowed only consanguineous marriage, because they want to keep
their blood pure. In fact, the stability of any species is the result of
self-fertilization. The only reason why we can see a wide variety of different
species is reproductive isolation, and furthermore, the only reason why we
humans have different races on the earth is reproductive isolation. The
ultimate result of hybridization must be that there is only one race in the
world, and there is no longer yellow, black or white races. We should thank God
for setting the zone range of reproduction for us, otherwise I hardly imagine
the hybrids would be between man and dog or cat. Many humans with low IQ must abuse
this freedom. The only reason why Australia still have a wide variety of rare
species now, is God adopted a strategy of isolation to Australia. We should
change our thinking. People always think fertility is normal and infertility is
abnormal. This is a way of thinking inertia, but I think the infertility is
normal, because in the process of evolution, in order to prevent
self-fertilization, female gametes must evolve a defensive strategy to suppress
promiscuity. This inhibition must have occurred on female eggs, because eggs
are scarce resources and the biggest victim of endless promiscuity is female. A
haploid egg can also develop into a life in logic, but it didn't do that. Why? The
key to unlocking a life must be controlled in the hand of male sperm. Just as
the barrier to female-female reproduction, there is no reproductive isolation
between two female gametes, but why a woman's gamete cannot fuse another
woman's gamete and start a new life? The greatest charm of sperm is no longer
providing half the genes, but in opening a new life. We humans do not get the
key to how the male sperm opens the door of new life. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Not only Rousseau had made such a mistake, that put the cart before the horse, in human history. Malthus criticized Godwin's system of equality in his paper of An Essay on the Principle of Population as well, because Godwin attributed all the vices of mankind to human institutions. Malthus wrote: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The great error under which Mr Godwin labours throughout his whole work is
the attributing almost all the vices and misery that are seen in civil society
to human institutions. Political regulations and the established administration
of property are with him the fruitful sources of all evil, the hotbeds of all
the crimes that degrade mankind. Were this really a true state of the case, it
would not seem a hopeless task to remove evil completely from the world, and
reason seems to be the proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great a
purpose. But the truth is, that though human institutions appear to be the
obvious and obtrusive causes of much mischief to mankind, yet in reality they
are light and superficial, they are mere feathers that float on the surface, in
comparison with those deeper seated causes of impurity that corrupt the springs
and render turbid the whole stream of human life…. No human institutions here
existed, to the perverseness of which Mr Godwin ascribes the original sin of
the worst men. No opposition had been produced by them between public and
private good. No monopoly had been created of those advantages which reason
directs to be left in common. No man had been goaded to the breach of order by
unjust laws. Benevolence had established her reign in all hearts: and yet in so
short a period as within fifty years, violence, oppression, falsehood, misery,
every hateful vice, and every form of distress, which degrade and sadden the
present state of society, seem to have been generated by the most imperious
circumstances, by laws inherent in the nature of man, and absolutely
independent of it human regulations…. The system of equality which Mr Godwin
proposes is, without doubt, by far the most beautiful and engaging of any that
has yet appeared. An amelioration of society to be produced merely by reason
and conviction wears much more the promise of permanence than any change
effected and maintained by force. The unlimited exercise of private judgement
is a doctrine inexpressibly grand and captivating and has a vast superiority
over those systems where every individual is in a manner the slave of the
public. The substitution of benevolence as the master-spring and moving
principle of society, instead of self-love, is a consummation devoutly to be
wished. In short, it is impossible to contemplate the whole of this fair
structure without emotions of delight and admiration, accompanied with ardent
longing for the period of its accomplishment. But, alas! that moment can never
arrive. The whole is little better than a dream, a beautiful phantom of the
imagination. These ‘gorgeous palaces’ of happiness and immortality, these
‘solemn temples’ of truth and virtue will dissolve, ‘like the baseless fabric
of a vision’, when we awaken to real life and contemplate the true and genuine
situation of man on earth…. the vices and moral weakness of man can never be
wholly overcome in this world…. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Slavery is caused by natural physical inequality. If the
winners and losers of violent civilization, and men and women exchange their
bodies with each other. Nothing will change. Slavery will still happen. There
is only two ways, hunt or be hunted. The result of putting the cart before the
horse is to throw the whole community in confusion, and the collapse of Soviet
Utopian communism and China’s capitalist reform have proved that, the vices and
moral weakness of man can never be wholly eradicated, and such a state of an
egalitarian society is absolutely impracticable, and perfectibility, in the
sense in which Mr. Godwin uses the term, not applicable to man. Races differ,
one from another, in important and meaningful respects because they are from
different genes pools. They differ in physical strength, in courage, in
imagination, in artistic skills and appreciation, in basic intelligence, in
preferences, in attitudes toward others, in life-styles, in ability to deal
socially with others, in Weltanschauung, in power to control others, and in
command over nonhuman resources. Since you admit these differences between
different races, why don't you admit the difference in IQ? This gap does exist.
In the same race, individuals differ greatly in IQ, let alone different race. In
a world of equals, most of the motivation for trade disappears. Exchange of
rights takes place because persons are different, whether these differences are
due to physical capacities, to some assignment of endowments, or to differences
in tastes or preferences. We must recognize this cruel fact, not
self-deception. All human contradictions originated from that people tried to
endow equal rights to every unequal person. There are features of modern
American society that suggest “sickness” to me, and West has completely entered
mediocrity. They completely ignore this natural inequality and take it for granted
that everyone </span><span lang="EN-US">is equal before the God,
which is the bourgeois conspiracy. </span><span lang="EN-US">The essence of natural selection is the non-random differential
reproduction of genes which premise is differentiation and inequality. Inequality has always run through the evolution
of any life, and inequality between the sexes has started from the division of
labor between the sexes, until now. The key point is how to make an equal
treatment for unequals, not equals. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 15pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The emergence of private ownership<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Here let me answer Rousseau's question why, instead of multiplying to such a degree, these fierce and brutal men, without sense or science, without education, without restraint, did not destroy each other hourly in quarrelling over the productions of their fields and woods. His question can be expressed in this way how we evolve from the primitive society to the slave society? The answer is the advance of the tools. In other words, the advance of the tools changed the choice of the strong. Let me give you an example of my personal experience: There are two room in my apartment, and my mother sleeps in one room while I sleep in the other; sometime a fly flew into my room, you think what I am going to do? In general, I have two strategies: One is that I pick up the flyswatter to kill the fly immediately in order to prevent it from interfering with my sleep; the other strategy is that I take the quilt to my mother's room and sleep with my mother on one bed. What determines my choice? My mother? The fly? The weather? None of them. The key factor is whether I have a flyswatter. If I have a flyswatter, I choose to kill the fly; if I don't have a flyswatter in my house, I choose to avoid the fly, because I have to compare the benefit that will result with the cost of that input. Similarly, I don’t think the real reason why savages didn't enslave the same kind is not because they are born good, but because they have no incentive and ability to enslave others. The main reason is that, in barbarism, the degree of interdependence among primitive men is very low. In other words, you are no use to me or I can't get extra services or products from you, why should I keep you around me. The secondary reason is no tools to imprison the weak. Do you remember the upgraded version of Skinner box in endnotes of The Selfish Gene? The “exploiting” pig is the subordinate one, and conversely the “slave” pig usually the dominant one. 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. If I were the dominant pig, the best case for me is sitting by the food trough, let the subordinate pig press the lever, but unfortunately the subordinate pig was not stupid or in Love or brainwashed by religion, and he would not serve me without any return. If I choose to hit the subordinate pig, he must choose fight, and the result is that I must win because I am much stronger than him, but I have to weigh the pros and cons. I am not stupid so I am going to choose less evil thing. What if there is knife in my hand? Will I change my strategy? Of course, yes. It is because a knife, like flyswatter, can make killing to be a thing with little cost. Let's go back to the evolution. The progress of tools is the main reason for human beings to enter the slave society. According to Wikipedia, the Bronze Age began in 3300 BC, and the start of the Iron Age proper is considered by many to fall between around 1200 BC and 600 BC, depending on the region, while slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient peoples. You can find a common phenomenon that, in almost all pictures of slaves in various countries, slaves are all in legcuffs, which is effective in preventing slaves from escaping. The development of tools has a direct impact on the development of human relations. In short, flyswatter make me kill, and the advent of metal tools make the strong kill, so I will choose to enslave him instead of killing him if he can provide some services and goods. In summary, the winners of Violent Civilization choose to start enslaving the losers for more goods and services instead of eliminating them when tools develop to a certain stage.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">I can answer Rousseau's question who is the first man
having enclose a piece of ground. He must be the strongest man. Might is right
because in primitive slavery there is only violence, and there is no lie. The
strong began to use tools to compel their so-called private slaves to serve
themselves and protect their so-called private lands. Since then, private
ownership had officially appeared on the stage of human history. In order to
control more slaves and prevent slaves from escaping, the strong have an
alliance motive. The first alliance must have occurred between the strongest
and the second strongest, and the origin of the government was not for the
maintenance of the law or justice or compensating for the gap of fate, but for enslaving
the weak better, so I regard it then as certain, that government did begin with
arbitrary power. In human history, violence must have occurred before the lie
appeared, just as same as rape must precede G-spot. As time went by, authorities
had found that lies were less costly than violence, so they started to enslave
slaves with both violence and lies. Later, slaves were alienated in the role of
slaves as same as women were alienated in the role of slaves. Now, in the
relations between man and man, the worst that can happens is not for one to
find himself subject to might, but to lies.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
nature of slavery is an absolute parasitic relationship, regardless of resorting
to violence or lies. Let us forget so called “Humanitarian”, and just consider
the problems from parasitism perspective. In biology, parasitism is a
non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite,
benefits at the expense of the other, the host. Generally, parasites typically
do not kill their host because parasites need to exploit hosts for resources
necessary for their survival. In other words, standing on the parasite's point
of view for their own sake, they don't want the host to die, at least before
they get a new host. Let's go back to the problem of North Korean issue. As we
all know, the United States is the biggest enemy of North Korea. Can you guess
who is the biggest food aid country to North Korea every year? Still America. Let
me put it another way, the United States nourished a host of parasites who
wants to kill you. Who should be responsible for today's situation? Of course,
America yourself. This is normal that I would fight against you if you want to
kill me. The problem lies in America instead of parasite. If Kim is the cheater,
and then North Koreans are the suckers, and how to eliminate cheaters? There's
only one way: eliminating the suckers from body or mind, because the presence
of the suckers actually endangered the grudgers, and they were responsible for
the temporary prosperity of the cheats. Obviously, providing food aid without any
compensation is a strictly dominated strategy, and Game Theory told us: Do not
play a strictly dominated strategy at any time. Unfortunately, the Democratic
Party has forgotten this most important principle. America is too young too
naïve, and I miss the age of the British Empire. Liberal international order
led by America really cannot save the world. Let us look at Israel. Why did no
country dare to provoke Israel? It is because Israel has effective
counter-strategies to pass on the costs to themselves, but American don't. You
should get some lessons from the disintegration of the Soviet Union. To be
honest, I share the same values with the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill,
modern US presidents Trump and Father of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew.
After elected president in 2016, President Donald J. Trump's foreign policy is
putting the interests and security of the American people first which is in
line with the evolutionary subject, namely, self-love. For those of American climbing
to the top of the food chain, there can be no mercy, there is but one rule:
hunt or be hunted. David Hume said, “The rules of morality are not the
conclusions of our reason.” </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://cn.bing.com/search?q=quotes+of+Winston+Churchill"><span color="windowtext" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Winston Churchill</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"> said, “The whole history of the world is
summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just,
and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.”</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
emergence of the private system must be accompanied by slavery. Until now,
women are still in the status of sex slaves, because P-V reproduction models
decided that who is abuses and who is abused, which is their natural inequality.
The emergence of private ownership is indeed a great progress for mankind. If we
can regard the Slavery as the extreme point in human evolutionary function
which opened the door to the accumulation of wealth, we also can regard the capitalist
industrialization as the inflection point which changed the speed of
accumulating wealth. Why should I say that? The protection of private property
allowed people to weigh short-term interests and long-term interests, and
inheritance system allowed people to weigh investment and consumption. A
son has the right to inherit his father's property, status, and privileges.
Through primitive accumulation, the birth of inequality officially ascended the
stage of history. Everyone knows Tragedy of the Commons in economics which
illustrates why common resources are used more than is desirable from the
standpoint of society as a whole. 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.” That is key why socialism does not do the economy well. In Microeconomics,
N.Gregory Mankiw give us a classic example: why the cow is not extinct? </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Throughout
history, many species of animals have been threatened with extinction. When
Europeans first arrived in North America, more than 60 million buffalo roamed
the continent. Yet hunting the buffalo was so popular during the 19<sup>th</sup>
century that by 1900 the animal’s population had fallen to about 400 before the
government stepped in to protect the species. In some African countries today,
the elephant faces a similar challenge, as poachers kill the animals for the
ivory in their tusks…. Yet not all animals with commercial value face this
threat. The cow, for example, is a valuable source of food, but no one worries
that the cow will soon be extinct. Indeed, the great demand for beef seems to
ensure that the species will continue to thrive…. Why is the commercial value
of ivory a threat to the elephant, while the commercial value of beef is a
guardian of the cow? The reason is that elephants are a common resource,
whereas cows are a private good. Elephants roam freely without any owners. Each
poacher has a strong incentive to kill as many elephants as he can find.
Because poachers are numerous, each poacher has only a slight incentive to
preserve the elephant population. By contrast, cattle live on ranches that are
privately owned. Each rancher makes great effort to maintain the cattle
population on his ranch because he reaps the benefit of these efforts…. Governments
have tried to solve the elephant’s problem in two ways. Some countries, such as
Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, have made it illegal to kill elephants and sell
their ivory. Yet these laws have been hard to enforce, and elephant populations
have continued to dwindle. By contrast, other countries, such as Botswana,
Malawi, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, have made elephants a private good by allowing
people to kill elephants, but only those on their own property. Landowners now
have an incentive to preserve the species on their own land, and as a result,
elephant populations have started to rise. With private ownership and the
profit motive now on its side, the African elephant might someday be as safe
from extinction as the cow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Slavery
is full of violence, evil, exploitation, oppression and killing, but I still want
to defend the slave society because we must admit that that is a part of our
human beings' evolution, inevitable. There is no short-cut in evolution. </span><span lang="EN-US">Apparently, the emergence of private ownership opens the door to the
accumulation of wealth. In my eyes, there are two stages very important in
human history: One is slave society; the other is capitalist society. The
former completed the transformation of private property from zero to one, and
the latter not only opened the geometric increase of private wealth but also opened
the door to knowledge and truth. Slave society is also a step forward for women
to become private property of men, because men would only protect their private
property from being occupied by others, so sex slaves are an insurmountable
step in human evolution. The advance of tools, which inevitably led to the
emergence of slavery and private ownership, seems to be the chief culprit of
all inequality, but the fact is we should be grateful for the progress of the
tools, because equality never existed from the very beginning of human history,
and the advent of tools only increased this inequality, but only private
ownership can accomplish the primitive accumulation of wealth, and then because
of new technological advances human beings can enter the capitalist stage
called Contract Society which based on two things: private ownership and
contractual spirit. Napoleon code states
that inviolability of private property are fundamental principles. In a system
of capitalism, it is also a progress that inequality of birth is replaced by
inequalities of wealth. There are only two modes of human existence: One is self-sufficient,
and the other is trade, and the emergence of the slave society ended the first
form and opened the second form. We human beings must always face the problem of
how to solve scarce resources, which must be assigned by power if not by money.
F. Hoelderlin said “what has always made the state a hell on earth has been
precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.” Rousseau’s views were too
radical, which laid a hidden danger for Marx's proletarian revolution, His
ideas are often lacking in systems; he is far from a theorist, but an orator. No
one I think can have marvelled more at the inequality of individuals during one
species, than we have done. We take for granted equality's universality, when
we appeal to men's sense of justice. The sayings and doings of daily life
continually imply some intuitive belief of this kind. This is the biggest
mistake where a series of subsequent mistakes were derived. God gives different
people different missions. We must admit man can never be equal, but what we
can do is everyone is equal before the law. The nature
of proletarian revolution is to bring human beings back to the primitive
society by force under the guise of pursuing absolute equality, and then let's
experience slave society once again because there is no short-cut in evolution.
The proletarian revolution would plunge us into a dead cycle, and you can seize
my property by violence, but why can't I seize the same property from you by
violence either? Reason leads to suboptimal results. The first step in our
maturity is to acknowledge the inequality of fate, and second step is to compensate
for the gap of fate partially by the continuous progress of technology. There
is no short-cut in evolution. Any primitive accumulation of wealth must be
accompanied inevitably by barbarism and injustice, which can not be replaced,
and we have to face this cruel fact. Looking at China's past 100 years, when
people refused to recognize the primitive endowments, violent revolutions
happened again and again, even brought us back to violent civilization and caused
a sharp decline of social wealth. At any point in time, anyone should
acknowledge this primitive inequality regardless of what kind of means they get
it, and then let bygones be bygones, finally set up private institutions and
trading civilizations. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">The pros and cons
of capitalism<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">If I were you, I would have a question why birth tourism
is legal in America and Canada, their governments are all brain-disabled? Is
the excessive dissemination of human rights a contingency? Obviously not. There
is no contingency at all in the world, and all contingency is a necessity,
which you can call “Lot” determined by the pros and cons of capitalism. Here I
don't want to repeat some platitude about criticism of capitalism that
capitalism is inherently exploitative or leads to an erosion of human rights
and so on and so forth, instead, I want to rationally analyze the charm and
wickedness of capitalism from the inevitability. For the pros and cons of
capitalism, I can't ignore The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in
1848. Frankly speaking, the first feeling after reading is that Marx is indeed
an importunate Luddite. Using Marx's words to say the biggest pros of
capitalism is “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years,
has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all
preceding generations together.” Capitalism not only promotes the progress of
material civilization, but also promotes the dissemination of technology and
knowledge. The reason is simple that you have to teach me how to use it if you
want to sell me something. This advantage is very important because the
Capitalism has made the cake bigger and bigger, which obvious and has been
recognized by all including Marx himself. In addition to this, I would like to
touch on several other pros which Marx can't see. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">The second advantage is that the emergence of capitalism
lets the genocide be replaced by colonialism. Before capitalism, in feudal
times, every nation was self-sufficient. In other words, before capitalism, the
only purpose of production is for satisfying the needs of producers instead of
for exchanging with others, and the inevitable result of this self-sufficient
economy must be that everyone got all the products from nature, so for nature
as a scarce resource, everyone or every nation is in the game of zero-sum. Darwin
also agrees with me, and he wrote in the Origin of species: As species of the
same genus have usually, though by no means invariably, some similarity in
habits and constitution, and always in structure, the struggle will generally
be more severe between species of the same genus, when they come into
competition with each other, than between species of distinct genera. Under this
circumstance, genocide is the best strategy of a strong nation, but capitalism
has, essentially, changed the history of genocide. It is because trade can make
both side better off. Because of comparative advantage, in one hand, the strong
nation needed the goods of the weak nation; in the other hand, the former also
want to sell goods to the latter. From the view of game theory, I'll let you
live when you live to be more profitable to me. Adam Smith was right, “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.” Dawkins
also has a similar expression in the book of The Selfish Gene, “To a survival
machine, another survival machine (which is not its own child or another close
relative) is part of its environment, like a rock or a river or a lump of food.
It is something that gets in the way, or something that can be exploited. It
differs from a rock or a river in one important respect: it is inclined to hit
back. This is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in
trust for the future, and it too will stop at nothing to preserve them. 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.” Stopping
killing is not from the benevolence of the strong nation, but from their regard
to their own interest. In short, utilitarianism is the only reason for mankind
to move towards peace. Capitalism's success is focused on money, so there is no
racial or gender discrimination. To extend one step, capitalism will inevitably
lead to the professionalization of the whole world and the evolution of human
society towards the organic structure of human body by making new winners and
losers. Marx also talked about this global integration like this: </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">The need of a
constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the
entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere,
establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation
of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and
consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has
drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood.
All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being
destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a
life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer
work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest
zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every
quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of
the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products
of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion
and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal
inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual
production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common
property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more
impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises
a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments
of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all,
even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of
commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese
walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of
foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to
adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it
calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In
one word, it creates a world after its own image. The bourgeoisie has subjected
the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has
greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus
rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.
Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made
barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations
of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. The bourgeoisie
keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of
the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population,
centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few
hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation.
Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws,
governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with
one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier,
and one customs-tariff. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">The third advantage is that the invention of the machine
undermined the physical strength of men and lowered the career threshold. Karl
Marx said, “Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of
labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and,
consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the
machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily
acquired knack, that is required of him.” He was right, but it seems to me that
is the pro of capitalism. Because the machine simplifies the process of
production, in the past, it must be done by men, but now women and children can
do it, so capitalists widely employ women and child workers because of their
lower wages, and more and more men were thrown out of the factory. For example,
men used to drive big buses in my childhood in China because the steering wheel
was very heavy, but now lots of women are engaged in the job of driving big bus
whether in the United States or in China. Is this women's physical progress?
Certainly not. Progress is technology instead of the power of women. Just for
the pursuit of profit of the capitalists, women can have the opportunity to go
out to work, which leads to the human being entering the pseudo-equilibrium
state, which is the prelude to the next equilibrium state. Whereas capitalists
in the Marxian system rationally and calculatingly pursue their economic
advantage and sow the seeds of their own destruction, in my eyes these same
rational and calculating capitalists, in following their own self-interest,
promote the social good. The above three points are all derived from the
“self-love” of capitalism. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">After praising capitalism, let's look at the cons of
capitalism which are the root cause of the chaos in the world today. Speaking
of criticizing capitalism, let's take a look at what Marx said. I totally agree
with Marx that capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with
blood and dirt. This is the inevitable result that dogs of rich families are
more valuable than people of poor families when everything is measured by
money. In essence, trade civilization is cruel as same as violent civilization
because they are both evolved, and everything that evolves is permeable with
selfish blood, or it will be eliminated already. A common saying goes,
"Business is as fierce as war". The common point of two civilizations
is to eliminate unqualified people, but the difference between two
civilizations is to eliminate unqualified people by different rules: The former
relies on money, and the latter relies on violence. The purpose is the same, but
the rules are different which cause the different outcomes of losers that,
there is no any trouble in violent civilization because the losers are dead,
but all troubles in trade civilization are from that losers are not completely
eliminated in the body, and then these losers in trade civilization will resort
to violent civilization by using unscrupulous divisive tactics, that is the
source of the chaos in the world today. To clarify this, I must start with the
Renaissance which is considered the beginning of modern European History. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Capital and commercial trade thus existed for much of
history, but it did not lead to industrialisation or dominate the production
process of society. Capitalism in its modern form can be traced to the
emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the Renaissance. The
Renaissance began in Florence, Italy, in the 14th century, and spread from
Italy to France, the German states, Holland, and England in the 15th Century.
Before the Renaissance, whole Europe was under the control of theocracy or the
Roman Catholic Church, which had religious power, controlled people's beliefs
and advocated Asceticism. It is not difficult to understand that, as I said
before lies are shameless but necessary, resources are always scarce in
comparison with population, so asceticism was used to control people's desires,
otherwise, reason must inevitably lead to bad outcomes going back to violent
civilization (ground state). Religion and Asceticism are the main obstacles for
the development of capitalist markets, and capitalism can not grow in such an
abstinent soil because it needs consumers as many as possible
with various desires as huge as possible. What should the bourgeoisie
do? The bourgeoisie needs to free people from asceticism and religion. The
Renaissance was born under such a background, and the bourgeoisie need a change
in people's thought. The core idea of the Renaissance is humanism, which
challenged traditional religious beliefs, and focused on the ideas and actions
of the individuals, and glorified the individual and approved worldly
pleasures, viewing life as worthwhile for its own sake, not chiefly as a
preparation for salvation, in contrast to the Middle Ages where humans were
seen as small, wicked and inconsequential and should focus solely on earning
salvation. In short, the core of Humanism is to replace theocracy with human
rights, but unfortunately every coin has two side, and Humanism buries the
seeds of trouble at the same time, so I believe that releasing desire is a
double-edged sword. </span><span lang="EN-US">The Humanism has three big
misunderstandings all from excessively releasing the endless desire of human
beings in order to cater for the development of capitalism. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The first one is the Humanism
believes that everyone is equal on the earth and should enjoy the same rights. The
French Declaration of the Rights of Man, issued in 1789 declared that men are
born, and remain, free and equal in rights. I think this idea comes from John
Locke who said men are born free and equal. I don't agree with him on this
issue, and I believe that you have no heart if you don’t think men are born
free and equal before your age of 30, but you have no head if you still think
men are born free and equal after your age of 30. I was lucky enough to catch
the last bus to be a wise person. The truth is all men are born unfree and
unequal, because everyone is bound by the times and God even has a preference.
I always say something that public may not want to hear. In fact, equality can
be interpreted as the reason for social conflict, rather than the solution for
social conflict. Freedom has the limitation: No harm principle. If there are no
restraints, there is no civilization. Civilization comes out of the repression
of drives, rather than satisfaction of drives, and the essence of civilization
is a containment of freedom, rather than boundless freedom, because compared
with limited material resources, human desires are endless. The confusion in Chinese
society is not that freedom is too little, but that ability and freedom do not
match. Spencer said, “When, in the pursuit of their respective ends, two
individuals clash, the movements of the one remain free only in so far as they
do not interfere with the like movements of the other.” The first principle of
his theory is “Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he
infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.” The incompetent Chinese do
not deserve freedom because they abuse freedom. We must learn to accept that we
are unqualified consumers or suppliers in many ways in contract civilization,
because God set some men above others as same as that God set all men above all
women. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The second one is, in order to release
human desires, the Humanism views the dictator as the worst person and the
masses as the good, all troubles would disappear as long as the dictators are
overthrown. The truth is degeneration is more terrible than dictatorship
because the masses don't have the ability to maintain the new equilibrium of
democracy, therefore society immediately falls back into the ground state of
violent civilization. Any equilibrium state is formed by the interaction of all
suppliers and demanders in the system. No individual, including a dictator, can
change this equilibrium. Dictators cannot die immediately because they are just
one level in the local biological chain, and once they die, the ecological
balance is broken, and then the nation will immediately fall into chaos until
the next dictator establishes another dictatorial order. China's history of the
last 100 years has already told us that these violent over turnings of early
institutions fail to do what their originators hope, and that they finally
result in the setting up of institutions not much better than those superseded,
is very true. As long as fools exist, the next dictator will get worse only. </span><span lang="EN-US">A free nation may have a
deliverer: a nation enslaved can have only another oppressor. The customs of an
enslaved people are a part of their servitude, those of a free people are</span><span lang="EN-US"> a part of their liberty. Liberty itself has appeared intolerable to
those nations who have not been accustomed to enjoying it. Thus, pure air is
sometimes disagreeable to such as have lived in a fenny country. For whoever is
able to dethrone an absolute prince has a power sufficient to become absolute
himself. Cheat could appeal to the emotion of the public. </span><span lang="EN-US">An egg is a life if opened from
the inside, and a food if opened from outside. I recommend two movies to you
here. One is American movie named Dogville (2013) starred by Nicole Kidman, and
the other is Chinese movie named No Man's Land (2013). You will understand what
the banality of evil is. I hate dictators, but I hate the ignorant people even
more, because they are co-evolving. Equilibrium in a violent civilization is
the result of the interaction of all people in that civilization, just as the
equilibrium price of the market is determined by all suppliers and all
demanders. The dictator, as an individual, cannot change the equilibrium price
of the market either if he does not resort to violence. In the face of mob, I have
nothing to do but a deep despair. I knew this feeling in 2012 in America. I am
a bourgeois conservative, so I choose to wait. </span><span lang="EN-US">All
which is as much as to say that mankind must have employed, in the
establishment of society, a capacity which is acquired only with great
difficulty, and by very few persons, even in a state of society. The West only
considers that dictator might abuse his power, but does not realize that it is
more harmful the masses abuse the freedom because so-called freedom has the
limitation as well. The dictator system is not the worst system because state
monopoly belongs to the category of trade civilization as well, the only
difference is in competitive markets, price equals marginal cost, and in
monopolized markets, price exceeds marginal cost. In fact, dictators are bad,
and the masses are worse because both of them are for themselves only. There is
no good or bad in dictator system, but only bad or worse. The next dictator
will be worse, if the public does not change. I happened to coincide with
Dawkins on this point, and he wrote this in <i>The
Self Gene :</i></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">In a large and complex system of rivalries,
removing one rival from the scene does not necessarily do any good: other
rivals may be more likely to benefit from his death than oneself. For instance,
suppose that B and C are both my rivals, and I happen to meet B. It might seem
sensible for me as a selfish individual to try to kill him. But wait. C is also
my rival, and C is also B's rival. By killing B, I am potentially doing a good
turn to C by removing one of his rivals. I might have done better to let B
live, because he might then have competed or fought with C, thereby benefiting
me indirectly. The moral of this simple hypothetical example is that there is
no obvious merit in indiscriminately trying to kill rivals. You have a serious
agricultural pest, you discover a good way to exterminate it and you gleefully
do so, only to find that another pest benefits from the extermination even more
than human agriculture does, and you end up worse off than you were before. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The last one is people believes
death is the most terrible thing, and life is better than death. This stems
from the fear of death. This is unnatural. It is the result of capitalist
propaganda. Based on reciprocal and mutually beneficial capitalist model, I
wish you to live rather than die. All religions regard death as a kind of
reincarnation or an inevitable lot. If all people are controlled by religion,
how to develop the pharmaceutical industry? So, capitalism magnifies the desire
of people to survive, or even greed desire of eternity. This is a typical
consumerism trap which is the inevitable result of capitalism. To be honest,
death is the lot of every survival machine, and fear of death is not natural,
and everyone has to accept it, but we are being sort of indoctrinated by
capitalism to fear death, aimed at increasing the desire for consumption. Look
at the old lady dying in the hospital. Hospitals will not let them die easily before
doctors squeeze all their money of their pockets. Overtreatment is very common
in China. This is the miserable life of ordinary Chinese because they spent 70%
of all savings in their last ten years in hospital. Human beings, as a kind of survival
machines, can never be eternal, except for giving up reproduction theoretically,
because reproduction and death match each other by achieve a dynamic equilibrium.
Capitalism has completely aroused the greed of the Chinese, and on one side
they do not want to die, and on other side they want offspring as many as
possible. Capitalism does open Pandora's box of human endless desires. </span><span lang="EN">Here I would
like to extend a point of view: suicide. Suicide is a private affair, but based
on the same reason, the authorities began to</span><span lang="EN"> </span><span lang="EN">prevent people
from committing suicide. </span><span lang="EN-US">The truth is lots of girls' lives are worse than death. Slave owners do not want slaves to commit suicide,
because slaves are also useful to slave owners. A lot of times, saving a man is
equal to you killing a woman or a few</span><span lang="EN"> women. In fact, as same as the broken window
fallacy, you don't have the ability to solve the problem, you just do some
stupid thing to pass on the costs to some others. Here I am emphasizing my point
of suicide: Any individual has the right to commit suicide because that is my
life instead of yours; I support the legalization of euthanasia because death
is just the matter of time. Life is the beginning of all trouble, and death is
the end of all trouble. Humanism has another feature: optimism. Every life is
worth respect. Most people are rabble and unworthy of respect. In fact, the
vast majority of life is meaningless. As same as Schopenhauer, I am a pessimist
too. </span><span lang="EN-US">I have the same
understanding with Einstein about this point in his book of <i>My review :</i></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">When I was a
precocious teenager, I realized that most of the hopes and efforts that most
people have been pursuing for a lifetime are worthless. Moreover, I soon found
that the cruelty of the chase, which is more elaborate in the days of the year,
is more elaborate with hypocrisy and beautiful words. Everyone just because
there is a stomach, it is doomed to participate in this chase. And, as a result
of the pursuit, his stomach is likely to be met; however, a man with ideas,
feelings can not be satisfied with this. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">Now let's go back to the disadvantages of capitalism
which are natural and inherent in capitalism itself. Apparently for money,
capitalism inevitably publicize carnalism and hedonism</span>. In other
words, after religion has lost control of human beings, human beings are
exposed under a cold rational world of the marketplace. Here I agree with what
Marx said: </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">The
bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal,
patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley
feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining
no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash
payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of
chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of
egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value,
and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that
single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation,
veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked,
shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its
halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It
has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of
science, into its paid wage labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the
family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere
money relation. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising
the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and
with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of
production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of
existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting
uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier
ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and
venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become
antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that
is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his
real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Marx was
right again. When the lies fade, people have to face the naked and cruel
humanity, but the truth always hurts. The only purpose of capital was to pursue
interests, so it began to release the greedy human nature, but capital forgot a
very important thing that itself was also unable to satisfy all people's all desires.
There are two reasons about it, on the one hand, compared with limited products
and services, human desires are endless; on the other hand, consumption of
goods and services has a threshold which is determined by the cost of producing
it. The beautiful illusions of capitalism were based on complete transaction
civilization, but it ignored what strategy those huge unqualified consumers would
have, so </span><span lang="EN-US">Luddite Revolt or Proletarian Revolution
appeared. There are no essential differences between the two. Humanism advocated
the release of human nature and the pursuit of liberty, but there is not only
good but also evil in human nature. Capital did not consider that t</span><span lang="EN-US">he mass might abuse their freedom
after the excessive liberation of human nature. Freedom is limited, and we only
have a certain degree of freedom. "O liberty! O liberty! What crimes are
committed in thy name!" Jeanne Marie Roland's Last words, before her death
on the guillotine. Liberalism, as same as Patriotism, Nationalism, Feminism,
Communism and Philanthropy, is exploited by some sinister intentions. Even
African blacks in violent civilizations have learned to arbitrage with
patriotism. Here'</span><span lang="EN-US">s a classic case of black people making money from patriotism.
Born in Nigeria, raised in New Zealand, Adesanya, as a professional boxer, was
publicized as “black skin but with Chinese heart.” He also gave himself a
Chinese name, Black Dragon, and every time he appeared, he carries the Chinese
flag accompanied by a song of My Chinese Heart. He often sensationally
expressed that he was addicted to Chinese culture, he wanted to be Chinese and
fight for China. He took full advantage of Chinese patriotism to enrich
himself. A spectre appeared in Europe, which direct their attacks not against
the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of
production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their
labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they deny
the money and try to bring the human beings back to an age of self-sufficiency.
The legal system is based on contract. The essence of modern legal system is
contract. This is the first disadvantage of capitalism because capital is built
on trade civilization but forget one important thing that the losers of trade
civilization would resort to violent civilization. In my view, capitalism is cheating
which belongs to contract category, and socialism is robbing which belongs to violence
category, so the more the poor, the more lies society needs. By the way, Socialism
with Chinese Characteristics is both robbing and contract. After Mao's death,
Deng, who was identified as one of these “capitalist roaders” during the Cultural Revolution,
became China's actual controller, who advocated reform and opening up and instituting
pragmatism within policy that are commonly considered capitalistic, including
employing wage labor, increasing unemployment to motivate those who are still
working, transforming state owned enterprises into joint stock companies and
encouraging the growth of the joint venture and private capitalist sectors. Officially,
according to the Chinese governments state ideology, China is currently in the
primary stage of socialism, but in fact, China is capitalizing. Due to lack of
orders, when the dream of communism Utopian collapsed, people began to fight
for their own interests. The current chaos in Chinese Society is the same as
that in Europe after the Renaissance. In China now, people are generally
unhappy. Why is that? It is because happiness is only related to expectations,
and the development of capitalism opened Pandora’s box of Chinese desires. Now,
The Chinese are still with the incompetence of the proletariat but have the
desire of the bourgeoisie. There is no right and wrong in China, but only the
winners and the losers because the Chinese are not the rational maintainers of
the contract civilization, but proletarian rogues and hooligans who are always
ready to use violence to overthrow the authorities, so democratic election does
not work now in China because they do not deserve it. The Chinese have already
enjoyed the material civilization of the west, but they lack the spiritual
civilization of the West. The basic characteristic of Western contract
civilization is professionalization, but Chinese worship some professions
blindly and despise some other profession blindly. For example, they worship
police, teachers, doctors and white-collar workers, but despise blue collar
workers, prostitutes and so on. When you are blinded by</span><span lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US">certain professional
worship, there will be a lack of professional norms to require professional
practitioners to behave, so as a result, it is bound to be chaotic. Of course,
this is also from the propaganda of the authorities, namely, obscurantism which
is very common in the dictatorship system. Only children distinguish right from
wrong, but in the mature adult world, there are only pros and cons. By the way,
in my opinion, the greatest Chinese in the last century was Deng because of his
three policies: 1) Reform and opening; 2) Resumption of education; 3) One child
policy. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
second disadvantage of capitalism is catering to</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">popular</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">taste, which is also determined by
the nature of capitalism. Catering is one of the attributes of capitalism, not
only to the public, but also to ignorance and low tastes. For the profit,
capitalism even can call white black and black white</span><span lang="EN-US">. Asceticism
is primarily punitive. Every infraction of the Rule had a fixed penance. The
purpose was to keep the mobs humble by keeping them aware of their
imperfections. </span><span lang="EN-US">Humanism
ignores right and wrong, and encourages people pursue pluralism by exaggerating
their individuality unilaterally and making individualism extremely inflated,
that </span><span lang="EN-US">keeps us from seeing things as they are. </span><span lang="EN-US">The education of humanism advocated
our worship of human nature which took the place of God by. We human beings are
the source of meaning and authority. It magnifies the instability and ignorance
of human beings. In China, lots of mobs often despise some of the mistakes of
the Savior's theory. Who gave them these courage and confidence? Humanism. The
overspread of humanism is the main reason of serious chaos in the world, which caused
the society to lose the standard of "right and wrong", and there is
no authority, and individualism is overflowing, and standards of right and
wrong of everything was based on individual subjective feeling. The West has
completely fallen into mediocrity because they can no longer face the cruel
truth. Recently, there is a news like this:</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">French President Emmanuel Macron
said that women in Africa are having a large number of children because they
lack education, according to The Guardian. “I always say: ‘Present me the woman
who decided, being perfectly educated, to have seven, eight or nine children.'”
Macron said. “Please present me with the young girl who decided to leave school
at 10 in order to be married at 12. This is just because a lot of girls were not
properly educated, sometimes because these countries decided the rights of
these girls were not exactly the same rights as the young man. That is not
acceptable.” Many women were offended by his comments, and well-educated women were
sending photographs of and tweets about their large families to tell him that
they are not mutually exclusive. After reading these comments, I know why God
chose to enslave women. They deserves it. Do you still remember the Number game
in Game Theory, One of Yale Open Courses? Without showing your neighbor what
you are doing, put it in the box below a whole number between 1 and a 100, we
will calculate the average number chosen in the class, and the winner of this
game is the person who gets closest to two-thirds times the average number. Ignorance
and foolishness magnified by humanism seriously hindered the formation of
common knowledge. </span><span lang="EN-US">Common knowledge is a statement about
not just what I know, it is about what do I know the other person knows that I
know that the other person… and so on and so forth. It turns out that society is
difficult to converge to equilibrium, such as the dog’s problem in China and female
orgasm’s problem in the world. </span><span lang="EN-US">The jury system is typical model of catering, which as an
exotic product, is not suitable for China because most of Chinese are with low
intelligence and low</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">judgment but full of love. For benefits,
people began to cater to the feelings of the mob, and to cater for stupidity,
under the glorious name of “follow you heart”. The customer is God, and I must
cater to your personal preferences, even the wrong and irrational preferences. Aesthetic
judgment is very important, and people in different equilibrium even have the
opposite judgment. The typical case of failure is the Hongkong film. Before
1997, Hongkong films are unique in whole China because at that time Hongkong films
can't be sold to the mainland so Hongkong filmmakers don't have to cater to the
mainland, but after 1997, the</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Hong</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Kong</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">movie industry</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">began</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">to</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">decline
because filmmakers started to cater to the mainland. In pursuit of more
interests, many Hongkong actors have left TVB to the mainland, but they forget
one important thing they are nothing after leaving TVB. TVB is also degenerated.
Under capitalism, there is no right, no mistake, no nobility, no aristocracy,
only to catering. Where there is a demand, there is a supply, so far, the world
was trapped in Consumerism. In the current China, capitalism sells youth and
beauty (makeups) to women, and potency (Viagra) to men, and the future (knowledge
and skills) to children, and immortality (tonics) to the old. To be honest, the
masses so vulnerable to emotional influences and thus lack sufficient intelligence
and judgment, that the subjective feelings of the vast majority are all wrong.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
third disadvantage of capitalism is to reduce</span><span lang="EN-US"> threshold </span><span lang="EN-US">to</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">entry. Like I said before, capitalism
cannot solve the problem that there are lots of unqualified consumers in the
market. In order to maximize its own interests, capitalism has evolved a
strategy: lowering the threshold. Microeconomic theory tells us there is an equilibrium
price in market, which depends on both aggregate supply and aggregate demand,
so specifically, capitalism had two strategies to lower the threshold: Figure a
way to reduce the equilibrium price and figure a way to shift the demand curve
to the right. Next, I'm telling you how capitalism achieves its conspiracies. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">How
to reduce the equilibrium price? Loan, mortgage and a series of derivatives later.
The final result is known to all that the subprime crisis broke out in America.
The essence of the loan is to lower the threshold of the equilibrium price
because you can't afford the price from short-term, so you have to overdraft
your future consumption from long-term. As the down payment had been reduced
again and again, the threshold had been reduced again and again, more and more
unqualified consumers can enter in the market, until zero down payment lead to
no threshold. In China, some consumptions are with negative threshold, and in
order to stimulate consumption, some businesses even give you money to spend,
and of course high interest rates are waiting for you. The public has
deep-rooted misunderstandings about the loan whose essence is to borrow money
from your future self rather than banks. This is the eternal truth that zero
threshold inevitably leads to confusion. I think subprime crisis is familiar to
everyone because this is a compulsory part of the financial course, so</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">I don't
want to waste more time on it, but I want to talk about second conspiracy
carefully. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">How
to shift the demand curve to the right? “The reciprocal bond basic to marriage
is not set up between men and women, but between men and men by means of women,
who are only the principal occasion for it,” says Lévi-Strauss. This is the
essence of marriage under patriarchy. Under patriarchy, any woman is strictly
controlled by her father, and sold to another man through marriage, and women can't
go to school or participate in social work, and their only value is to provide
the vagina and uterus, as a goods, she has no rights of choosing a husband, or even
no rights of choosing anything. How did capitalism do to shift the demand curve
to the right? Disintegrating the patriarchy and letting irrational women enter
the market. Every coin has two sides. Like I said before the positive effect of
capitalism is that money has no race and sex discrimination because competitive
markets have a natural remedy for employer discrimination and capitalists are
usually more interested in making profit than in discriminating against a
particular group, so women had the chance to enter the factory and sexual
relationship entered the pseudo-equilibrium state which is the prelude to next
equilibrium. At the same time, money is</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">also the negative effect of
capitalism.</span><span lang="EN-US"> Money is just a different color of paper.
What is the essence of it? The essence is the product and the service. From the
transaction object to consider, there are two issues: Who will produce it and
who will buy it? The sole purpose of capitalists is to pursue the maximization
of net profit, which inevitably leads to two outcomes: </span><span lang="EN-US">capitalists hope 1) the lower the cost the
better; 2) the higher the selling price the better. </span><span lang="EN-US">If
you admit the above reasoning, you must get the following results. What are the
capitalists willing to hire? Those workers who have lower opportunity costs, and
in other words, women and children instead of men. To whom are the capitalists
willing to sell their products and services? Those buyers who values them most
highly, and in other words, irrational women and children rather than rational and
practical men. A popular saying in China is that women and children's money are
easy to make. Disintegrating patriarchy and emancipating women and children from
rational fathers are the best strategy to shift the demand curve to the right. Obviously,
under the guidance of capital, irrational, inexperienced and naive women began
to enter the market economy, so capitalists have been led, in their own
interest, to give partial emancipation to women. From the beginning with the
disintegration of the patriarchal system, the world entered the bubble era:
LOVE. The Renaissance also played a role in boosting the flames. At this time,
many literary works were pushed to the stage of history to brainwash people,
such as The Decameron, which include various tales of love from the erotic to
the tragic, and the basic plots of the stories include mocking the lust and
greed of the clergy. Public opinion began to encourage immature women to pursue
love, aimed at enlarging their ignorance and irrationality and letting them
provide free sex service. Public opinion is changeable, even opposite at
different times. During the period of Mao, the propaganda was like this: For
anything, you have to use the new thing for three years, and then use the old
thing for next three years, and then use the same thing for another three years
after mending it; during the period of Deng, the propaganda was like this: We
have to spend tomorrow's money on today's business. Any propaganda must serve a
purpose. The former called on people to be frugal because socialism inevitably
lead to a shortage of social goods and repression of desire can relieve social
contradictions; the latter called on people excessive consumption because Deng wanted
to wake up people's desire for consumption to develop capitalism. All things
have cause and effect, and all living beings have its own lot. Why diamonds are
the world's biggest marketing scam in twentieth Century? Diamonds do not have
any utility in fact, but why? It is because diamonds are bound with love. I
dare say that the marketing conspiracy of diamonds is impossible to succeed under
the patriarchal system, and the reason is very simple that diamonds are useless
to rational and down-to-earth fathers. By the way, in my opinion the second
biggest marketing scam is the World Cup because people endow it too much
national honor, dignity or something belonged imaginary axis. The world has
since entered a chaotic and irrational stage because irrational women are
involved in public affairs. What caused the crisis? The crisis was caused by irrationality
overflowing. This is a short-sighted behavior because any strategy of lowing
standards can only result prosperity in short-term but must store up trouble in
the future. This negative effect is constantly expanding, and children's
unreasoning is because irrational women participate in the education of future
generations. You would find a common interesting phenomenon that children prefer
to cry in front of their mothers instead of their fathers. Why is that? The
answer is very simple: Crying is very useful to achieve their purpose in front
of mothers but useless in front of fathers. This is instinct that even children
know how to cheat and use others. As long as there is irrationality in the
market, someone must be going to use your irrationality for arbitrage. In order
to achieve these two purposes, capitalism began to disintegrate male rights and
advocate feminism, and the real purpose was to create cheaper works and irrational
consumers. Feminism was just a political swindle just under the guise of so-called
human rights and freedoms, and of course the patriarchy had his own
counter-strategy, and finally, with the participation of the conservative
forces, the forces of all sides of the society compromised into a final plan: Single-sex
education. The nature of single-sex education is Gender segregation temporary,
like the infant-industry argument in trade protectionism, aimed at for
temporary trade restrictions to help women to be qualified market participants
first, and after a period of protection women will mature and be able to participate
in the transaction with men. In the history of women's education, Single-sex education
must first appear at the start in both the West and the East, and then had been
scrapped and replaced with coeducation little by little by various revolutions under
the name of Egalitarianism and Discriminism. Now in some conservative countries,
like conservatism in capitalist countries and Muslim countries in the Middle
East, single sex education is quite common so far. At the beginning of the20<sup>th </sup>century,
the Chinese national government promulgated laws to ban men and women studying
together, living together and swimming together, and the reason the government
gave is prevent women from getting pregnant, but unfortunately those laws were overturned
by swindlers and fools. Letting irrational women get rid of the patriarchal
system and enter the sex trade is like putting a sheep in a group of wolves. Look
at the present China, girls in middle school are pregnant everywhere, and unmarried
cohabitation in college are everywhere. Current female situation reminds me of
some words in A Tale of Two Cities written by Charles Dickens, but I make a
change for a little bit: For women now, it is the best of times because you
have the right of free choice as same as men in law; it is the worst of times
because you abuse these rights; it is the age of wisdom because I am in your
ages; it is the ages of foolishness because you are also in my ages; it is the
epoch of belief because I have my faith; it is the epoch of incredulity because
I doubt your judgment; it is the season of Light because I start to wake up; it
is the season of Darkness because you are still in sleep; it is the spring of
hope because I give the offspring the hope; it is the winter of despair because
you let me down; you had everything at the same time you had nothing; you are
told you are all going direct to Heaven, but unfortunately there is no place
called Heaven. Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, once said that "</span>the capitalists will sell us the rope
with which we will hang them." In fact, Lenin was only
half right. The capitalists will not sell you the rope if you are going to hang
them, but they will sell you the rope if you are going to hang yourself. The
irrational consumer who are more inclined to spend money in useless things is
always the favorite of the business, so women's ignorance has been magnified
again and again under capitalism. After the war disappeared, monogamy began to
enter the stage of history, aimed at letting women become the comfort women and
free prostitutes for the poor guys under the guise of Feminism, Egalitarianism,
Discriminism and Love. The existence of fools is the only reason for the
existence of swindlers. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
forth disadvantage of capitalism is genetic fusion of various races. There are
only three outcomes for multi-civilizations existence at same time: extinction
or segregation or integration. Apparently, in the self-sufficient farming
civilization, the outcome must be extinction; in the early days of trade civilization
because of undeveloped traffic and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages, the
outcome must be extinction; today in the global integration period, the outcome
must be not only the integration of culture but also fusion of genes because women
in poor nations are qualified suppliers and men in rich nations are qualified consumers
in the whole world sex-services market. There is an interesting phenomenon that
after the reform and opening up, lots of Chinese girls marry American boys, but
few Chinese boys marry American girls, and by comparison, lots of Vietnamese
girl wants to marry Chinese boys. Marriage inevitably brings reproduction
because reproduction is bound to sexual intercourse. To be honest, we are all
in transitional forms, so I dare say there is only one race in 500 years, and
no white, no yellow and no black any more by slow and unconscious accumulation </span><span lang="EN-US">during successive generations</span><span lang="EN-US">. It</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">is not</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">hard</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">to see that, as a nation of
immigrants, many Americans are mixed blood, and for example, in NBA Stephen
Curry, Blake Griffin, Tony Parker and so on are all mixed blood of black and
white. At the 2018 Russian World Cup, in addition to the Iceland team, there
are black players in other traditional European white countries, including Denmark.
In French team, the vast majority are black or mixed blood, and for example, Mbappé
is mixed blood of black and white. It's not hard to understand that many
African countries used to be French colonies, especially North Africa. I dare
say that world sports will be ruled by mixed blood in further because according
to Biology, Hybrids </span><span lang="EN-US">will gain so much in vigour and
fertility over the offspring from long continued self-fertilisation. </span><span lang="EN-US">By</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">way</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">of</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">contrast</span><span lang="EN-US">,
mixed bloods are rare in relatively conservative and backward East Asian
civilizations, Middle Eastern Civilizations and Eastern European civilizations,
but it must be temporary, and mixed blood is unstoppable unl</span><span lang="EN-US">ess you take the strategy of
racial segregation. This is why I am afraid that Germany will soon become </span><span lang="EN-US">Germanstan, and even the most conservative royal family in Britain
will have the first African hybrid. Rarity, as geology tells us, is the
precursor to extinction. Racial discrimination can never be avoided until all human
beings become hybrids. By the way, how to maintain racial diversity? Two ways:
One is prohibiting interracial reproduction, the other is reproductive
discrimination. The former must lead to racial integration and the latter a
kind of genocide which is the next disadvantage I am going to talk about. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
fifth disadvantage of capitalism is adverse elimination of genes because of reproduction
professionalization whatever in mixed blood or not. In violence civilization, principles
of selection by nature is </span><span lang="EN-US">the Survival of the Fittest,
which controls the evolution of all life. What is the essence of principle of
selection? It is the non-random differential reproduction of genes, which is
why I don't think reproductive rights is one of “human rights” because it involves
the category of genes. Natural selection, as an invisible hand, is daily and
hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest;
rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good;
silently and insensibly working for the own good of the being. so, in a state
of nature, natural selection will be enabled to act on and modify organic
beings at any age, by the accumulation of profitable variations and the
elimination of injurious variation at the same time, or the species would
become extinct. That is why we shall see how Natural Selection almost
inevitably causes much extinction of some injurious genes accompanied by
elimination of some individuals. In short, this is a positive elimination
because the winners are eligible to reproduce, so we can view the interests of
the winner individual interests, group interests and profitable genes interests
are consistent, but there is a divergence of interests between the three in our
human contract civilization. </span><span lang="EN-US">Like I said before the biggest disadvantage of pensions is that good
genes are doomed to be eliminated, because the supplier must be the one with
the lowest opportunity cost who must make no greater achievements in other
industries. In short, the suppliers in reproductive market are “lemons.” Of
course, this conclusion is based on that a successful survival machine has
better genes than a failed survival machine. In China, the government is
already going to cancel one child policy gradually due to a pension gap, and even
the local government began to give birth subsidies, although Chinese population
is still growing. I am sure it is going to happen that those genes in urban
people are replaced by those in rural people. It is because urban people are facing
higher raising costs. Not only have they to raise their children, but also
spend lots of money on other interest classes, such as piano class, dance class,
English language, swimming class, taekwondo Class and so on and so forth. One
of my female colleagues, who has a ten-year-old son only, told me that she is</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">more
exhausted on Saturday and Sunday she sends his son to Various kinds of classes
than she is on work from Monday to Friday. In addition, we must admit that
urban people have a higher opportunity cost than rural people. In terms of
incomes, urban people basically have pensions, so they don't need the financial
support from their children. After considering their costs and benefits
together, more and more urban people would exit the reproductive market because
they are unqualified suppliers. The rural people are facing the opposite
situation. In terms of costs, their children would not learn those things like
piano; in terms of incomes, many rural people still have no pension, so they
have strong incentives to invest for their old ages. An old saying in China: The
saints fear the cause while the mortals fear the results. To be exact, the
genes of the poor will gradually replace the genes of the rich, because only
the poor will become qualified suppliers in the reproductive market. For the
same logic, even if the Germans and the refugees are not mixed blood, the
Germans with low fertility will be also replaced by refugees. When there is no
immigration, we can regard Germanic nation as an Isolandian reproductive market
isolated from the rest of the world, and the price adjusts to balance domestic
supply and demand. After immigration, what would happen? I think it depends on the
world price and domestic price. Apparently, for Germany, the domestic price is
much bigger than the world price in productive market. To be exact, prices in
developed countries are far higher than those in developing countries. It must inevitably
lead that Germany, as developed country, become importing country in
reproductive market, while these refugees become reproductive exporters. Now
consider the gains and losses from immigration. Once again, not everyone
benefits from it. As the equilibrium price drops in reproductive market, more
and more marginal Germanic people, as the original supplier, are forced to exit
the market. As same as externalities, racism is reciprocal. White people are
suffering reverse racism. The former deputy mayor of Italy, Ceccano, Massimo
Ruspandini, after the publication of the poster on his Facebook page at that
time, “The first ciociaro born in 2019 was Chinese with small eyes.” I am not
alarmist that some demographers have predicted the U.S. will become a
majority-minority nation by 2050, with African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics and
other minority groups outnumbering the people we call white. The shift in the
nation's racial demographics have already been stark. In 1965, whites
represented 85 percent of the population, with the other 15 percent made up of
African-Americans. These days, white people make up just 60 percent of the
nation, while Hispanics account for 18 percent and Asians about 6 percent. We
must figure out what the essence of natural selection is. The essence of
natural selection is the non-random differential reproduction of genes. Whites are
quickly penalized and marginalized already by so-called modern civilization of
capitalism. White extinction is the inevitable result of reproductive professionalization.
From the view of genes, the white genes are being hunted now because good genes
would be selected by successful individuals before pension, but now bad genes
would be selected by failed individuals after pension. Evolution is the process
by which some genes become more numerous and others less numerous in the gene
pool. The emergence of pensions will inevitably lead to bad genes drives out
good genes. We can name this atavism or adverse elimination, and t</span><span lang="EN-US">he tendency of atavism may often prevent the work of selection. The
situation in Japan and South Korea is also not optimistic, and fertility rate of
them has hit a record low. </span><span lang="EN-US">All troubles stem from a major misconception: Reproductive right is
considered as a kind of human rights. I'm sorry to tell you that the conception
of reproductive right does not belong to the category of human individuals, but
the category of genes. With a little familiarity such superficial objections
will be forgotten, but human beings are still in oligophrenia period. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In
fact, some prescient governments had enacted laws to intervene in this adverse
elimination but had been defeated by human rights. In America, the eugenics
movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton,
which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and
arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior
genetic makeup. Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective
breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to
believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples;
supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the
forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral". Eugenics
was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. Eugenics supporters advocates
for the removal of genetic "defectives" such as the insane,
"feeble-minded" and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding
of "high-grade" individuals. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many
states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was
"epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. The first state
to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the
proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight
years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that
was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact
sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by Washington and
California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low
(California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v.
Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home
for the mentally retarded. While California had the highest number of
sterilizations, North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to
1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs. An
IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Some
states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although
compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v.
Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law
until 1974. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907
and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic
legislation in the United States. A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3
of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental
defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15%
opposed both. In the 1970s, several activists and women's rights groups
discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of
specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or
mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women
were recorded. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In
Japan, a “Eugenic Protection Law (EPL)” permitted involuntary sterilization of
people with intellectual or mental disability from 1948 to 1996. More than
16,500 women and men were sterilized against their will. The objective of this
law was "to prevent birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point
of view, and to protect life and health of mother, as well." (Article 1) Under
Article 3 anyone could be voluntarily sterilized if: (1) he/she or the partner
had hereditary "psychopathia," "bodily disease" or
"malformation," or the partner "has mental disease or
feeble-mindedness"; (2) he/she or the partner's relative within the fourth
degree of kinship had hereditary "mental disease,"
"feeble-mindedness," "psychopathia," "bodily
disease," or "malformation"; (3) he/she or the partner was
"suffering from leprosy, which is liable to carry infection to the
descendants." In fact, EPL called sterilization a "eugenic
operation," which was done either voluntarily or involuntarily. In 1996
the eugenic provisions were repealed, and EPL was revised producing the
"Maternal Protection Law," which allows only voluntary sterilization
and abortion. As I expected, the reason for the abolition comes from human
rights and women, and ignorant and kindhearted women made a great contribution
again </span><span lang="EN-US">in human degeneration. To be honest, this
anti-degeneration has never stopped, but it has changed one way. In other
words, there are substitutes. </span><span lang="EN-US">Congenital anomalies contribute a significant proportion of infant
morbidity and mortality, as well as fetal mortality. The most prevalent
conditions include congenital heart defects, orofacial clefts, Down syndrome,
and neural tube defects. Since the introduction of ultrasound in the 1970s,
ultrasound technology has greatly improved. Advances in medical technology now
enable doctors to identify disabilities within the early weeks of pregnancy.
Screening can detect problems such as neural tube defects, chromosome
abnormalities, and gene mutations that would lead to genetic disorders and
birth defects, such as spina bifida, cleft palate, Downs Syndrome, Tay–Sachs
disease, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy,
and fragile X syndrome. It is common practice for the doctor to recommend an
immediate legal abortion, when a disable fetus found. The understanding is that
if the abortion is performed as early as possible, it will be safer and less
psychologically traumatic. The couple are usually advised that termination is
the sensible decision and consoled with the prospect that they can try again. There
is no essential difference between a compulsory sterilization law and abortion
after medical detection, and both belong to the category of Eugenics, which can
be viewed as a major victory for good genes against the bad. Unfortunately,
there are still some people against ending a pregnancy due to fetal anomaly,
under the name of “Human rights”. What crazy people! What crazy human rights!
What crazy equalitarianism! In rural China, many pregnant women do not go to
the hospital for medical detection at all. Because of lower opportunity cost,
they prefer to give birth to a baby, and they decide to raise or kill based on
whether baby is healthy or not. Of course, the best strategy for irresponsible
parents is to put disabled baby in baby hatch and throw them to the government. </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In
Singapore, Eugenics is part of family planning. </span><span lang="EN-US">As
early as the late 1960s, just a few years after Singapore's independence in
1965, Lee Kuan Yew revealed his views on the relationship between genes and
talent. A proponent of nature over nurture he stated that "intelligence is
80 percent nature and 20 percent nurture" and attributed the successes of
his children to genetics. In one of his speeches, he argued that unless the
better-educated citizens reproduced at a higher rate, the future of their
progeny would be at stake because less economically productive people—the
“social delinquents”—would live off the nation's scarce resources. In 1984, the
Singaporean government also launched the Graduate Mothers' Scheme to boost
fertility among married, educated women and a sterilization program to decrease
fertility among the uneducated. The government prioritized college-educated
mothers for housing and their child'</span><span lang="EN-US">s school admissions and subsidized their
deliveries in hospitals. The second component of the eugenic-based policy, the
sterilization program, offered married women whose educational level was not
beyond junior high school and whose monthly household income was less than 750
Singaporean dollars a grant of 10,000 Singaporean dollars to undergo
sterilization of their own accord. There was a backlash against these
pro-natalist programs which favored college graduates. Lee was indeed not an
egalitarian in terms of his reproduction strategies. Despite the 1980s
backlash, the inheritability of intelligence remained Lee's pet topic in the
years that followed, and indeed to the end of his life. He described his belief
that intelligence is genetically determined as a “hard truth” that has kept
Singapore going. In his eyes, no amount of government intervention and social
engineering can significantly change a person's lot in life as it has already
been predetermined by the quality of the genes that they are born with.
Government officials can equalize opportunity at the starting point for all,
but they cannot ensure equal outcomes. But the result is not what Lee envisioned.
However, birth rates across the board remained low as Singapore became a highly
affluent and consumerist nation where having children, even if subsidized,
could be a burdensome, expensive affair for most citizens. Lee was alarmed that
as of 1983, 16 percent of graduate women remained single compared to 5 percent
of men. Unmarried female college graduates themselves were frustrated with the
government for publicly airing their singlehood and implicitly accusing them of
prioritizing their own interests over national ones. They argued that the root
of the problem was deeply structural, complaining that their juggling of both
career and family duties was difficult in the implicitly patriarchal
Singaporean society. They said that this was compounded by a lack of empathy
for their difficulties from their male Singaporean counterparts. Why is it? The
answer is that division of labor is not detailed enough. Let me put it another
way, Lee didn't distinguish between bearing and caring. It can't be blamed on him,
nor can it be separated in his time. His wisdom was that he knew to select
highly educated women as qualified bearers, but he didn't realize that those
women are not qualified carers because they had higher opportunity costs. </span><span lang="EN-US">How to deal with it? Let's have a
look and get a lesson from other non-human beings. I have always believed that
other non-human beings are rational because the price of their irrationality is
death. Now let's review some words in <i>The
Selfish Gene </i>by Dawkins: </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="Default">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 等线; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;">A social insect colony is a huge
family, usually all descended from the same mother. The workers, who seldom or
never reproduce themselves, are often divided into a number of distinct castes,
including small workers, large workers, soldiers, and highly specialized castes
like the honey-pots. Reproductive females are called queens. Reproductive males
are sometimes called drones or kings. In the more advanced societies, the
reproductives never work at anything except procreation, but at this one task
they are extremely good. They rely on the workers for their food and
protection, and the workers are also responsible for looking after the brood.
In some ant and termite species the queen has swollen into a gigantic egg
factory, scarcely recognizable as an insect at all, hundreds of times the size
of a worker and quite incapable of moving. She is constantly tended by workers
who groom her, feed her, and transport her ceaseless flow of eggs to the
communal nurseries. If such a monstrous queen ever has to move from the royal
cell she rides in state on the backs of squadrons of toiling workers…. In
Chapter 7 I introduced the distinction between bearing and caring. I said that
mixed strategies, combining bearing and caring, would normally evolve. In
Chapter 5 we saw that mixed evolutionarily stable strategies could be of two
general types. Either each individual in the population could behave in a mixed
way: thus individuals usually achieve a judicious mixture of bearing and
caring; <i>or, </i>the population may be divided into two different types of
individual: this was how we first pictured the balance between hawks and doves.
Now it is theoretically possible for an evolutionarily stable balance between
bearing and caring to be achieved in the latter kind of way: the population
could be divided into bearers and carers. But this can only be evolutionarily
stable if the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care, at
least as close as they would be to their own offspring if they had any.
Although it is theoretically possible for evolution to proceed in this
direction, it seems to be only in the social insects that it has actually
happened…. Social insect individuals are divided into two main classes, bearers
and carers. The bearers are the reproductive males and females. The carers are
the workers—infertile males and females in the termites, infertile females in
all other social insects.</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">All
the troubles, caused by capitalism, should be solved by a capital way as well. What
lessons can we draw from these so-called lower organism ants? Apparently, the
ant colony, completely controlled by genes, has a strictly division of labor on
reproductive strategy that some of them never work at anything except bearing
and some of them are responsible for caring. Of course, this division of
strategy, based on genetic perspective, would be evolutionarily stable only
under the conditions that the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom
they care. What about our human beings? It is not necessary in human beings
because of Capitalist Professionalization, and it results in it that some unqualified
people need to be carers as their profession. I am not sure, maybe until one
day God allow the separation reproductive rights from mating rights, and I think
that depends on the real awakening of women that they must refuse to breed for
free for the poor guys. Pension, as the inevitable result of the division of
labor by capitalism, is the largest Ponzi scheme by far. The essence of any
Ponzi scheme is the game which always need more newcomers to enter. More
precisely, Ponzi scheme of pension needs someone or something who can give tax,</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">no matter
what the man looks like, and even a dog is all right, just pay the tax. Just
because of the essence of pension, the two conditions of American immigration
are either talented person who can create wealth for the United States, or rich
person who can bring wealth for the United States. In short, America also need
money. According to the United States Census Bureau, the Asian American
population, including those of multiracial and Hispanic and Latino ancestry,
had increased to 20,908,701 by 2016, which has doubled over twenty years ago. I
don't know when Humanism had instilled a naive idea to human beings that
“reproduction is great, or mother is great, or</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">a woman who does not have a child
is incomplete.” All these propagandas are for reproduction, and the fact is
nothing is great in evolution. To be honest, I think animals is great than
human beings from the point of individual, because they don't expect any
positive feedback from their offspring. The nature of pensions determines that
human beings themselves become scarce resources. The threshold is reduced again
and again, even negative. As I said before, zero threshold can only generate
prosperity in short-term, which will inevitably lead to confusion in the long
run. It tends to fill the world with those who are with stupid and defective
genes. Let's wait and see. When the whole society takes on the cost of
children, it is the responsibility of the government to choose good genes to
reproduce according to certain rules. In my opinion, the only way to stop the adverse
elimination of genes is separation the reproductive rights from parenting function
or establish a certain reproductive threshold. </span><span lang="EN-US">For all
physiologists admit that the specialization of organs is an advantage to each
being; and hence we also need to adopt a more specialized approach to solve
this problem.</span><span lang="EN-US"> I
guess, in future, human beings would adopt a mixed strategy which includes two
main strategies: One is you have the right to spread your genes but you have to
bear all the costs; the other is you only provide your gametes, and the rest of
things is none of your business related to whether selected or not, and cooperate
with who's gametes. In other words, from individual perspective, they are
professional carers, and caring the next generation which do not belong to them
is only for money. I guess, in future, paying gametes is like paying taxes,
which is also the price we must pay for human civilization. Only by doing so can
we maintain a positive elimination. </span><span lang="EN-US">We have already
seen how it entails extinction; and how largely extinction has acted in the
world's history, geology plainly declares. </span><span lang="EN-US">No one I think can have marvelled more at the
extinction of species, than human have done. </span><span lang="EN-US">The race of
human was already old, but man remained a child. </span><span lang="EN-US">There are only two ways in evolution: hunt or
be hunted. We can regard this process as the application of the principle of
selection by man’s selection. Frankly speaking, artificial selection has been
used for many years </span><span lang="EN-US">under domestication. According to my
old rules, let's take a look at what Darwin said first in </span><span lang="EN-US"><i>Origin of Species</i> :</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Under
domestication, it may truly be said that the whole organisation becomes in some
degree plastic…. One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races
is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal's or plant's own
good, but to man's use or fancy…. But when we compare the dray-horse and
race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either
for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good for
one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose; when we compare the
many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different ways; when we compare the
gamecock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds so little quarrelsome,
with "everlasting layers" which never desire to sit, and with the
bantam so small and elegant; when we compare the host of agricultural,
culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at
different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we
must, I think, look further than to mere variability…. The key is man's power
of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up
in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made
for himself useful breeds…. We see an astonishing improvement in many florists'
flowers, when the flowers of the present day are compared with drawings made
only twenty or thirty years ago. When a race of plants is once pretty well
established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go
over their seed-beds, and pull up the "rogues," as they call the
plants that deviate from the proper standard. With animals this kind of
selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as
to breed from his worst animals…. I could give several references to works of
high antiquity, in which the full importance of the principle is acknowledged.
In rude and barbarous periods of English history choice animals were often
imported, and laws were passed to prevent their exportation: the destruction of
horses under a certain size was ordered, and this may be compared to the
"roguing" of plants by nurserymen…. Some of these facts do not show
actual selection, but they show that the breeding of domestic animals was
carefully attended to in ancient times, and is now attended to by the lowest
savages. It would, indeed, have been a strange fact, had attention not been
paid to breeding, for the inheritance of good and bad qualities is so obvious….
We see the same process of extermination among our domesticated productions,
through the selection of improved forms by man. Many curious instances could be
given showing how quickly new breeds of cattle, sheep and other animals, and
varieties of flowers, take the place of older and inferior kinds. In Yorkshire,
it is historically known that the ancient black cattle were displaced by the
long-horns, and that these "were swept away by the shorthorns" (I
quote the words of an agricultural writer) "as if by some murderous
pestilence." </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">So
far, we should admit the necessity of artificial selection. </span><span lang="EN-US">Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in
the hands of man, apply to human ourselves? Whether in violence or contract
civilizations, the basic principle of selection is to eliminate unqualified
genes. Anyone who forgets this will be quickly penalized by selection. That
selection generally acts with extreme slowness, so we still have time to
correct mistakes we have make. </span><span lang="EN-US">That is not big deal, and the real big deal is how to distinguish good
gametes from bad gametes. Darwin also admitted that, selection is the
magician's wand, by means of which he may summon into life whatever form and
mould he pleases, and not one man in a thousand has accuracy of eye and
judgment sufficient to become an eminent breeder. I have been thinking about this
question for a long time, and finally prepare to resort to God’s strategy as
well: A mixed strategy set including female gametes with low risk and low
return, and male gametes with high risk and high return. Let me put it another
way, we must choose the low threshold as female qualified gametes and high
threshold as male qualified gametes. Select a few healthy sperm by strict
genetic testing and family medical history and so forth and so on, to fertilize
the vast majority of female gametes. If my prediction crazy? I do think so. Contract
civilization is just as cruel as violent civilization because both aiming at
elimination of unqualified genes. If man wants to take the place of Creator, he
must be cruel as a Creator. The government should think about how to deal with
those rogues and hegemonists. The name of “Human rights”</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">are
useless in evolution. You must say that such a division of labor will lead to
the loss of black genes, but trust me, before the loss of black genes, we are
all mixed blood </span><span lang="EN-US">by the accumulation in one direction
during successive generations</span><span lang="EN-US">. Maybe this is God's will because reproductive isolation principles
didn't exist between different human races.</span><span lang="EN-US"> Everything
is under the best arrangement.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<br />
bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-10328943362269662402019-02-15T01:48:00.001-08:002019-02-15T01:48:24.886-08:00Part two: Principles of human social evolutionbealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-52900895121534928592019-02-15T01:47:00.004-08:002023-05-02T23:22:57.737-07:00Chapter 5: Bride-price and leftover women<div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">I'm
going to talk about two hot topics in this chapter: Bride-price and leftover
women in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
To be honest the bride-price has a long history in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>, and the nature of it is the
advance payment for lifetime sex-service. Since the reform and opening up
in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>,
the bride price becomes more and more high, and lots of bullshit scholars and
politicians, standing on the moral high ground, condemned bride-price and
viewed it as the bad habits. In my eyes, they are either stupid or pretend to
be stupid with some divulged conspiracy. I would like to prefer the former from
my deep goodness, but the latter is true. The present situation in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>
is that in general the girls in the countryside married the boys in the city;
the girls in the city and the boys in poor countryside are left, called leftover
women and leftover men. The real purpose of bride-price condemnation is to
cater to the majority of leftover men who can't pay bride-price, and push leftover
women into marriage, because in today's egalitarianism each man takes mating
right for granted. As I have analyzed before, the Luddites will make trouble
for the government if they don't have a hole to vent their sex desire. All the
government done is to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium: it banned Sex-selective abortion
because men need enough sex slaves; it condemned material girls because men
prefer free prostitutions; it issued price-controls because lots of poor guy
can't pay the equilibrium price for the prostitution. </span></p></div>
<div class="Default">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">Bride-price</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">I agree with Hagel that what is reasonable is real; that which
is real is reasonable. Let me explain why bride-price was reasonable in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
I believe that in ancient times, the purpose of reproduction is not only for
spreading their genes as simple as an animal, otherwise there is no adoption at
all, because apparently adopted son doesn't have his genes. Why does he adopt a
boy? Obviously, it's against the rules of nature. It is from kindness with good
intention? Definitely not. Man has become a half Orc which are not only
controlled by genes as same as animals but begin to have some individual
consciousness. By the way, adoption in ancient China was not what you thought. If
you want to abandon your child, you must write down with blood: no regrets like
throw a stone down mountains, on which condition, your child could be adopted. Otherwise,
no one will adopt your child, and it will only die. This is reasonable, because
from the perspective of investment that is to protect investors' income. Like I
said before under patriarchy without pension systems, father has two investment
strategies: one is to invest on boys, and the other is to invest on girls,
which reflect father's two considerations: the former is long-term investment
for his old age, and there is an old saying in China, “Raising sons as
insurance against old age;” the latter is short-term investment for cash,
because father can sell girls in marriage market now. Frankly, I admit that
Chinese had son preference in ancient times, but the reason is not the way
modern people understand it. I dare say that there was no way to kill a baby
girl in ancient times because father has two ways: one is to raise the girl up
and sell her in marriage market; the other is father had some sunk cost unrecoverable
during pregnancy period, since the girl had been born already, so his best
strategy is to sell the baby girl to brothel instead of killing her. Anything
is better than nothing, right? Obviously, the strategy of selling girl to brothel
dominates the strategy of killing her. Fathers were not stupid, so I firmly
believe that there was no possibility of killing girls in ancient times. Since
the son and daughter are two different investments, why Chinese had son
preference so much? The reason is simple: girls can't work out or be an
official by examination under patriarchy; her only resource is her sex resource
as a sex slave in future. Why, then, should father, as a rational
investor, invest her in other way? The best strategy for father is raising the
girl up and selling her for money. On the contrary, son can have many
possibilities in future. Father can benefit a lot from his son if his son can
be an official by the imperial examination, so father was willing to invest money
on son's study or survival skills, because he can get paid in extra investment
on son. This is the essence why Chinese had son preference. I bet any father
would like to invest lots of money on her daughter in advance if he was sure she
can be queen in future. That is utilitarianism, instead of sex preference. The
real misogyny preference must start from monogamy. I have given you the reason
in previous chapter. It is because the change from polygamy to monogamy reduces
the quantity demanded of women at every price shifts the demand curve to the
left and is called a decrease in demand. Fathers, as a supplier, have to
respond by reducing the quantity of women. In order to cut the losses, he must
choose to exit the sex-service supply market. On the contrary, because t</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">he policy </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">distorts prices and thus the decisions of rational fathers,
people start to produce boys only and kill or abort girls. At the same time, the
policy changes God's mixed strategy set with non-arbitrage: male is one
strategy with high income with high risks; female is the
other strategy with low income with low risks; so it is normal that people
began to arbitrage. To understand father's decisions, we need to keep an eye on
economic profit. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Let's go back to the
problem of bride-price. Bride-price is not unique to humans. First let us have
a look at what Dawkins said about in <i>The
Selfish Gene</i>: </span></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">…Since
she starts by investing more than the male, in the form of her large, food-rich
egg, a mother is already at the moment of conception 'committed' to each child
more deeply than the father is. She stands to lose more if the child dies than
the father does. More to the point, she would have to invest more than the father
in the future<i> </i>in order
to bring a new substitute child up to the same level of development. If she
tried the tactic of leaving the father holding the baby, while she went off
with another male, the father might, at relatively small cost to himself, retaliate
by abandoning the baby too. Therefore, at least in the early stages of child
development, if any abandoning is going to be done, it is likely to be the
father who abandons the mother rather than the other way around. Similarly,
females can be expected to invest more in children than males, not only at the
outset, but throughout development. So, in mammals for example, it is the
female who incubates the foetus in her own body, the female who makes the milk
to suckle it when it is born, the female who bears the brunt of the load of
bringing it up and protecting it. The female sex is exploited, and the
fundamental evolutionary basis for the exploitation is the fact that eggs are
larger than sperms. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">We
have looked at some of the things that a female might do if she has been
deserted by her mate. But these all have the air of making the best of a bad
job. Is there anything a female can do to reduce the extent to which her mate
exploits her in the first place? She has a strong card in her hand. She can
refuse to copulate. She is in demand, in a seller's market. This is because she
brings the dowry of a large, nutritious egg. A male who successfully copulates
gains a valuable food reserve for his offspring. The female is potentially in a
position to drive a hard bargain before she copulates…. Courtship rituals often
include considerable pre-copulation investment by the male. The female may
refuse to copulate until the male has built her a nest. Or the male may have to
feed her quite substantial amounts of food. This, of course, is very good from
the female's point of view, but it also suggests another possible version of
the domestic-bliss strategy. Could females force males to invest so heavily in
their offspring before they allow copulation that it would no longer pay the
males to desert after copulation?...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">
</span></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">There
are various ways in which females can put this type of strategy into practice.
I have already suggested that a female might refuse to copulate with a male who
has not already built her a nest, or at least helped her to build a nest. It is
indeed the case that in many monogamous birds copulation does not take place
until after the nest is built. The effect of this is that at the moment of
conception the male has invested a good deal more in the child than just his
cheap sperms. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">Notice that pre-copulation investment happened only to birds
instead of mammals. Why? I have explained the reasons before, so we can
definitely regard “bride-price” as a progress of civilization from barbarous situation.
The emergence of bride-price shows respect and transfer of property rights
under private ownership. Apparently, the purpose of bride-price paid by man is
not only for reproduction, but also for buying a sex slaves. The nature of
bride-price is to force men to invest in sex-service in advance. After the
advance payment, he can't get any benefit if he chooses to abandon the woman in
the middle as long as she is still useful for him. Of course, polygamy under
patriarchy, as equilibrium, has to obey certain rules in China. Certain things
are not allowed. First thing is bridegroom must pay a certain number of
betrothal gifts to father of the bride. In other words, he buys a wife home
from her father. Second thing is woman has no right to divorce. In other words,
he buys a woman whole sex-service in her life at expense of his bride-price. The
sex-service market determines the bride-price. The sex-services offered by each
girl seem approximately the same, and the buyers and sellers are so numerous
that no single buyer or seller has any influence over the market price. Because
buyers and sellers in perfectly competitive markets must accept the price the
market determines, they are said to be price takers. So, under patriarchy and
polygamy, regardless buyer and seller, each takes the price as given. Here let's
assume some arbitrary hypothetical values for the various costs and benefits. Suppose
that the pay-off gained by a man in sexual satisfaction in his whole life is 12
units, and the cost of buying a woman is 10 units. The cost is expressed as
negative, because it is 'paid out' as bride-price before having a sex with a
woman. Therefore, the net profit for a man participating in sex-service trade
is 12-10 = 2. In other case, he can't get sexual satisfaction if he chooses not
to pay. Therefore, the net profit for a man not participating in sex-service
trade is 0-0 = 0. Paying nothing and getting nothing back is a fair and normal
thing. The following Figure 5.1 is the two choices men face. Like I said before,
the nature of marriage is a contract between two men under patriarchy,
concluding two important things: One is rights and obligations of both parties,
and the other is the validity period of this contract. Apparently, the details
in the contract under patriarchy are very clear that man has to pay in advance
and in exchange he can get ownership and usage rights of woman' s whole life. We
need to distinguish between two prices: the purchase price and the rental
price, and purchase price is marriage and rental price is prostitution. Under
patriarchy, woman is just a private good with both value and use value without
any emotion or subjective will. I bet no one believe that marital rape is a
crime under patriarchy including woman herself. In order to get value father
has to give up the use value, conversely in order to get use value groom has to
give up the value. As a result, under patriarchy, man prefer to pay
bride-price, because no money no sex-service. This trade accords with one of
the Principles of Economics: people face trade-offs. You may have heard the old
saying, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” It means that to get one
thing from others, we usually have to give up another thing you own. Making
decisions requires trading off one goal against another.</span></p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cuKMLTVVrZo/XGaF0c3rkPI/AAAAAAAACjE/7TYpLBf0_cMR5QNjJWB2TiSglySugWA5gCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25AE%258C%25E5%2585%25A8%25E7%2588%25B6%25E6%259D%2583%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B5.1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1001" data-original-width="1600" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cuKMLTVVrZo/XGaF0c3rkPI/AAAAAAAACjE/7TYpLBf0_cMR5QNjJWB2TiSglySugWA5gCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25AE%258C%25E5%2585%25A8%25E7%2588%25B6%25E6%259D%2583%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B5.1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">With the collapse of patriarchy, woman has some parts of
“human rights” – divorce. Women replace their fathers as independent sellers. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Suppose that the payoff
gained by a man in sexual satisfaction in his whole life is 12 units, and the
cost of buying a woman is 10 units. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Therefore, the net profit for a man participating
in sex-service trade is 12-10 = 2. This is the net profit under patriarchy with
woman having no right to divorce, but what happens if woman has right to
divorce? Here </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">let's
assume the value of woman providing sex-service in her whole life is 8 units,
and the bride-price is not recoverable as long as married. Woman has two
options now if a man chooses to pay bride-price as same as under patriarchy. One
option is to marry him and never divorce in her life. In this case, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">net profit
man gets is 12-10 = 2 units as same as that under patriarchy, and net profit
woman gets is 10-8 = 2 units. The other option for woman is marrying him to get
bride-price, and divorce him immediately. Because time is very short, we can
ignore woman's sexual loss. In this case, man gets very little sex-services roughly
regarded as 0, but at the expense of 10 units. Therefore, the net profit he
gets is 0-10 = -10 units. Conversely woman pays very little in sex-services
roughly regarded as 0, but get bride-price of 10 units. Therefore, the net
profit woman gets is 10-0 = 10. In the case of man paying bride-price, woman must
choose divorce as soon as possible if she is rational, because 10 is bigger
than 2, and the strategy of divorce strictly dominates the strategy of
no-divorce. You can find another interesting thing in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>: man
always asks for refund of bride price when woman chooses divorce, actually we
can view this strategy of divorce as collusion or price gouging between daughter
and father against the groom. What about groom refusing to pay bride-price? </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Woman also has two options.
One option is to marry him and never divorce in her life. In this case, the
payoff gained by a man in sexual satisfaction in his whole life is 12 units,
but he didn't pay any bride-price. Therefore, the net profit he gets is 12-0 =
12 units. Conversely the payoff gained by </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">woman is 0, but the
cost she pays is 8 units. Therefore, the net profit woman gets is 0-8 = -8
units. The other option for woman is to reject to provide free sex-services. Both
of them get 0 units any pay 0 units at same time. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">No money no sex-service as same as that
under patriarchy. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">In the case of man paying no bride-price, woman must
reject to marry if she is rational, because 0 is bigger than -8, and strategy
of no-marriage strictly dominates strategy of marriage. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The following Figure 5.2 is
a tree I draw to represent the game between sexes under the condition that
woman has the right to divorce and no premarital sex. Obviously, no matter what
kind of choice he makes, paying bride-price in advance or not, woman </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">must res</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">pond by choosing separation
now or then. Dashed magenta boxes are two strictly dominant strategies by
woman. Now how does man choose? It is simple </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">to answer: using
backward induction. When a man is making a decision whether to do something or
not, he needs to look at the sub-game first, and check what would happen if he
did pay bride-price, and then solve out the new Nash equilibrium in that
sub-game. Next, he rolls back the value of that sub-game, back into the initial
decision node which is his best decision he has to choose. He must compare -10
with 0, and apparently strategy of paying bride-price is eliminated by man,
because -10 is</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">
dominated by 0. Unlike the first situation under patriarchy, the man's choice
has changed, just because woman has the right to divorce. Now the nature of marriage
becomes unclear, and the key problem is the validity period of this contract is
uncertain, and secondary problem is woman also has the right to reject man's
sex requirement. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">These are two reasons why lots of men in China are willing
not to pay bride-price now. Please keep in mind in this tree: (0,0). Z</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ero may not seem much, but
it is better than negative. I think </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">(0,0) is an eternal stable strategy from
a conservative point of view, because it means everyone exits the trade with
paying nothing and get nothing back. Rationality must lead to suboptimal result,
and there is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">an
old saying: Penny wise, pound foolish. I think there are two equilibriums left
between sexes in the end after lies fall back: one is (0,0), and the other is
prostitution. There's no such thing called free sex-service in the world. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Money is
used to buy 2 things: one is the goods, and the other is service. This is the
eternal truth. We can call this tree sub-game 1.</span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6QSTRu3VHZw/XGaGLH-tozI/AAAAAAAACjM/hjkjZaQkfIITvpWWc9XJmvI4eNgnNUt6gCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E6%259C%2589%25E6%259D%2583%25E7%25A6%25BB%25E5%25A9%259A5.2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1132" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6QSTRu3VHZw/XGaGLH-tozI/AAAAAAAACjM/hjkjZaQkfIITvpWWc9XJmvI4eNgnNUt6gCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E6%259C%2589%25E6%259D%2583%25E7%25A6%25BB%25E5%25A9%259A5.2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
<div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Based on above Figure 5.2, we can conclude that marriage is
doomed to extinction, because rational choices can lead to bad outcomes (0,
0), but why so far marriage still exists? Like I said before, as the only way
to reproduce, P-V model must be maintained till selfish genes find another way
for themselves. Apparently, man is the beneficiary of P-V model and he
definitely want to be in this model. Conversely, woman is the key factor to
prevent maintenance of P-V model. As a result, God chose to brainwash women by
introducing imaginary axis: so-called LOVE. The following Figure 5.3 presents
how love introduced into this game and then changes woman's payoffs and
choices. Ignorant woman believes she gets a love from her marriage, so she
changes her option, because you have to change her payoffs if you want to
change her choice. We can assume VL is the value of love. Where is the tipping
point of VL? In the case of bride-price, woman starts to compare 2+VL with 10,
and she would choose marriage without divorce if VL is bigger than 8. Similarly,
in the case of no bride-price, woman starts to compare -8+VL with 0, and she
would choose marriage without divorce if the VL is bigger than 8. So, in this
model, VL equal to 8 is the tipping point. What does it mean for man? It means
he can get free sex-service from a woman if he makes her believe she is in
love. Now man faces two options: One is that his net profit is 2 units when he
chooses to pay the bride-price; the other is that his net profit is 12 units
when he rejects to pay the bride-price. Apparently, he must choose the latter,
because strategy of no bride-price strictly dominates strategy of bride-price
for him. This is a further collapse of patriarchy, and woman starts to have the
freedom to choose a marriage. As a result, she is trapped into utopia of love,
because she must abuse the freedom before she has the ability to control this privilege.
Under patriarchy no one cares about love, and the purpose of paying bride-price
for a man is to exchange sex slave, house maid and reproduction machine back.
Love is forced to build out after woman has the right to divorce because love
is a necessity to maintain marriage. Of course, after love gradually lost the
power of persuasiveness, another other lie follows: G-spot, trying to maintain pseudo-equilibrium
from real axis. You could find an interesting and common phenomenon that woman,
in general, can't bear a marriage with sex but without love, and conversely
man, in general, can't bear a marriage with love but without sex. Many women
choose divorce when disillusionment of love, of course on the condition that
they don't have any child, because lies can only deceive for a moment, but
genes fusion is eternal cruel bind. Woman has to bear the loss when they have a
child. This tree is called sub-game 2, as a variant form of sub-game 1, because
love changes woman's payoffs. Frankly speaking, it is spiritual victory.</span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqrwRWPmcqg/XGaGkTLu0CI/AAAAAAAACjU/Lfls3ouy3vUBDwxOM2ydgH6l9FhZk3ECgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25BC%2595%25E5%2585%25A5%25E8%2599%259A%25E8%25BD%25B4%25E7%2588%25B1%25E6%2583%25855.3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1132" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqrwRWPmcqg/XGaGkTLu0CI/AAAAAAAACjU/Lfls3ouy3vUBDwxOM2ydgH6l9FhZk3ECgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25BC%2595%25E5%2585%25A5%25E8%2599%259A%25E8%25BD%25B4%25E7%2588%25B1%25E6%2583%25855.3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Next, I keep talking
about how woman continued abuse of freedom. Sensitive topic: Premarital sex. I
like listening to the radio, and lots of women complain that boyfriends don't
want to get married after cohabitation. Stupid girls, let me tell you why? All
previous situations are based on no premarital sex before marriage. Let's see
what Dawkins said in <i>the selfish gene</i>: </span></div><div class="Default"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Is there anything a female can do to reduce the extent to
which her mate exploits her in the first place? She has a strong card in her
hand. She can refuse to copulate. She is in demand, in a seller's market. This
is because she brings the dowry of a large, nutritious egg. A male who
successfully copulates gains a valuable food reserve for his offspring. The
female is potentially in a position to drive a hard bargain before she
copulates. Once she has copulated she has played her ace—her egg has been
committed to the male. It is all very well to talk about driving hard bargains,
but we know very well it is not really like that. </span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Unfortunately, modern women do not read. With the complete collapse
of patriarchy, woman has not only the right to divorce, but also the right to
choose a husband by herself. As a result, ignorant woman has the premarital sex
with a man, driven by so-called love. Moreover, some women got pregnant in cohabitation
period. Let's examine how game will be after premarital sex and pregnancy. The
following Figure 5.4 I draw is the game. Let me explain the details. First, woman
has three choices. One is to reject premarital sex; and this option must lead
to above Figure 5.3, called sub-game 2 that whether a woman chooses to marry
him or not depending on the value of love. Another option for woman is to have
premarital sex with a man but reject pregnancy, let's assume the girl wants to
get married after they lived together for 2 years. I had assumed the value of
woman providing sex-service in her whole life is 8 units; for woman's sex recourses,
I think we have to use accelerated depreciation method. It is rational assumption
because in general you have to pay more money to a young prostitute than old prostitute,
so let's assume woman lost 2 units sex resources in 2 years. In other words, because
she provided free sex-service for 2 years, actually she lost 2 units opportunity
cost, and the 2 units is her sunk costs unrecoverable. Now man still has two
options: one is to pay bride-price; the other is to reject to pay. In the case
of bride-price, women still have two options to respond. One is to marry him
and never divorce in her life. In this scenario, the game is as same as that
under patriarchy, and net profit man gets is 12-10 = 2 units, and net profit
woman gets is 10-8 = 2 units; the other option is marrying him to get
bride-price, and divorce him immediately. Because time is short, we can ignore
woman's sexual loss in marriage, but in this case, she has suffered 2 units
loss in cohabitation for 2 years, therefore the net profit she gets is 10-2 =
8; and at the same time man got 2 units of sexual satisfaction, but lost 10
units of bride-price, therefore the net profit he gets is 2-10 = -8. Apparently
in the case of bride-price, a rational woman must choose to marry him and
divorce as soon as possible, because 8 strictly dominate 2. Similarly, in the
case of no bride-price, a rational woman must choose separation immediately,
because -2 strictly dominate -8. Obviously, no matter what kind of choice he
makes, paying bride-price in advance or not, rational woman must respond by
choosing separation now or then. Rational man must respond by choosing no
bride-price, because for him -8 is strictly dominated by 2. You could find a common
phenomenon that men are no longer eager to get into marriage after cohabitation.
The best wish of man is cohabitation forever because he can enjoy free sex-service
all the time without any pay. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In the sexually open
West, many men only cohabit without marriage. In a sexually open China now, cohabitation
before marriage has become very common, and the main reason for forcing men to
marry is that only after marriage can they legally have children. In the West,
there is no such threat. The reason is discussed in the Population Division. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">On the contrary,
women are eager to get into marriage after cohabitation. The reason is very
simple: her sex recourses is experiencing accelerated depreciation. As a
result, the more losses women suffer, the longer they live together;
conversely, the more benefits men can get, the longer they live together. Notice
here: because of sunk cost, woman will choose to marry him and not divorce as
long as VL is bigger than 6, smaller than previous 8. What does that mean
tipping point has shrunk to 6 from 8? It means love is worthless during cohabitation.
You can find another interesting phenomenon: a man is always servant when he is
courting you; a man becomes a master after cohabitation immediately; conversely
woman becomes a servant from princess after cohabitation. To be honest, negotiation
of sex trade is like a war of attrition for women. Once women enter into the
war of attrition, the best strategy is cutting your losses and quit, because
anything is better than zero, and zero is better than negative, and -100 is
better than -10. Unfortunately, women are more concerned about sunk costs than future
costs and benefits based on marking to the market. This devaluation in woman's
life is the mini version of that in the evolution of women. The tree in dashed
magenta box is called sub-game 3, as a variant form of sub-game 2, because sunk
cost changes woman's payoffs. </span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dwrL3pnpzLI/XGaHJt50XBI/AAAAAAAACjg/wh03u9q8ZvI8yPRtBmRYFQ4HrB0RQ8E4ACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25A9%259A%25E5%2589%258D%25E5%2590%258C%25E5%25B1%2585%25E6%2580%2580%25E5%25AD%25955.4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1132" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dwrL3pnpzLI/XGaHJt50XBI/AAAAAAAACjg/wh03u9q8ZvI8yPRtBmRYFQ4HrB0RQ8E4ACLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25BD%25A9%25E7%25A4%25BC%25E5%258D%259A%25E5%25BC%2588-%25E5%25A9%259A%25E5%2589%258D%25E5%2590%258C%25E5%25B1%2585%25E6%2580%2580%25E5%25AD%25955.4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Let's talk about a more complex option. A third option for
woman is to have premarital sex with a man and get pregnant at cohabitation
period. At man's decision node, he still has two options: one is to pay
bride-price; the other is to reject to pay. Let's examine them one by one. In
the case of bride-price, woman still has two options: one is to marry him and
never divorce, and as same as the previous, the net profit man gets is 12-10 =
2 units, and the net profit woman gets is 10-8 = 2 units; the other option is
to marry him but choose abortion and divorce him as soon possible. We can
assume the girl gets pregnant after they lived together for 2 years, and CA is
the cost of abortion for a woman, but unlike love from imaginary, axis CA, as a
real cost, represents physical and psychological harm from real axis; for
example, maybe abortion would cause woman lifelong infertility especially for nulliparous
woman. In this scenario, the net profit man gets is 2-10 = -8 units, and the
net profit woman gets is 10-2-CA. According to backward induction, woman is
going to compare 2+VL and 8-CA, and if 2+VL</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">><span lang="EN-US">8-CA, VL+CA</span>><span lang="EN-US">6, woman must choose to marry him. It means woman has to choose marriage
if CA is bigger enough even she can't feel any love. The same logic can be applied to the
rape problem in <st1:place w:st="on">Africa</st1:place>. This situation is also
described in <i>half the sky</i> that the
man didn't commit a crime if he pays the bride-price to marry the girl after he
raped the girl. It is because rape costs too much for unmarried girls, she has
to marry the rapist if he can pay the bride-price. Similarly, in the case of
bride-price, woman still has two options: one is to marry him and never
divorce; in this scenario, the net profit man gets is 12 units and the net
profit woman gets is -8+VL; the other option is to choose abortion and separation,
therefore in this scenario the net profit man gets is 2 units and the net
profit woman gets is -2-CA. According to backward induction, woman is going to
compare -8+VL and -2-CA, and if -8+VL</span>><span lang="EN-US">-2-CA, VL+CA</span>><span lang="EN-US">6, woman must choose to marry him. It means woman has to choose
marriage if CA is bigger enough even she can't feel any love. Using backward
induction, in this assumption as long as CA is bigger than 6, woman must choose
marriage regardless bride-price or not. So you would find that women are more
eager to get married than men when they get pregnant in cohabitation, and now
the tipping point of VL can even be negative. Like I said, your love is
worthless in my eyes. Now man must compare 12 and 2, and definitely 12 strictly
dominate 2, so he prefers no long to pay bride-price after he knows girlfriend
got pregnant. You could find a common thing that woman immediately fell into weak
bargaining position after cohabitation and pregnancy, and the man always can
get a wife for free after her pregnancy during cohabitation period. In other
words, the time point when your girlfriend got pregnant is your best opportunity
to haggle with your future father-in-law. Moreover, man rejects to marry the
girl after her pregnancy, even she no longer asks any bride-price. Do you know
why? It is simple to answer: because the next prostitute is going to be free
too. Rational men only follow the principle: marking to market. I don't care
what I have got from you already, but what else I can get from you in future. The
tree in dashed green box is called sub-game 4, as a variant form of sub-game 3,
because CA changes woman's payoffs. Above Figure 5.4 tells us another important
principle: order matters a lot, or in other words, sunk cost means second mover
advantage in battle of sexes instead of first-mover advantage. </span></span></p></div><div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">To be honest, all the confusion during marriage is caused by irrational
women because the presence of the suckers actually endangered the grudgers
because they were responsible for the temporary prosperity of the cheats. The
fact that women have the right to master freedom before they have ability to
master freedom, must lead to chaotic situation. Without rape, sexual relationship
depends on the choice of woman. Woman, as supplier, is the key to the deal; on
the contrary, man, as consumer, must hope the goods and services cheaper and
cheaper, and the best is he can get free goods and services. Under the guise of
love or G-spot orgasm, women become suckers after providing free sex-services. We
shouldn't blame the man, because they are just practicing arbitrage and the
strategy of cheat is always evolutionary stable strategy (ESS), and the
presence of the suckers is only reason for the existence of cheaters. It is
best response for man to receive free sex-service like that cheaters always readily
accept altruism from suckers, because s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">elfish genes being what they are, it is
not surprising that ruthless, exploiting cheats have cashed in.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;"> All in
all, free and stupid women are the main cause of high divorce rate now because any
free products and services would disrupt the normal economic order. Let's review
what Dawkins said in <i>The Selfish Gene</i>: </span></p></div>
<div class="Default"><p class="Default" style="margin-left: 1.7pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">…A male who waits for a coy
female eventually to copulate with him is paying a cost: he is forgoing the
chance to copulate with other females, and he is spending a lot of time and
energy in courting her. By the time he is finally allowed to copulate with a
particular female, he will inevitably be heavily 'committed' to her. There will
be little temptation for him to desert her, if he knows that any future female
he approaches will also procrastinate in the same manner before she will get
down to business. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">As I
showed in a paper, there is a mistake in Trivers's reasoning here. He thought
that prior investment in itself committed an individual to future investment.
This is fallacious economics. A business man should never say 'I have already
invested so much in the Concorde airliner (for instance) that I cannot afford
to scrap it now.' He should always ask instead whether it would pay him in the
future, to cut his losses, and abandon the project now, even though he has
already invested heavily in it. Similarly, it is no use a female forcing a male
to invest heavily in her in the hope that this, on its own, will deter the male
from subsequently deserting. This version of the domestic-bliss strategy
depends upon one further crucial assumption. This is that a majority of the
females can be relied upon to play the same game. If there are loose females in
the population, prepared to welcome males who have deserted their wives, then
it could pay a male to desert his wife, no matter how much he has already
invested in her children. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">…So
far, faithful males have had a monopoly. But now if a philanderer male arises
in the population, he starts to do better than his faithful rivals. In a
population where all the females are fast, the pickings for a philanderer male
are rich indeed….In a population in which all the females are fast, philanderer
genes will spread like wildfire.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Demanding that a prospective mate should build a
nest is one effective way for a female to trap him. It might be thought that almost
anything that costs the male a great deal would do in theory, even if that cost
is not directly paid in the form of benefit to the unborn children. If all
females of a population forced males to do some difficult and costly deed, like
slaying a dragon or climbing a mountain, before they would consent to copulate
with them, they could in theory be reducing the temptation for the males to
desert after copulation. Any male tempted to desert his mate and try to spread
more of his genes by another female, would be put off by the thought that he
would have to kill another dragon.</span></div><div class="Default"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">What
does this sentence mean: If all females of a population forced males to do some
difficult and costly deed, like slaying a dragon or climbing a mountain, before
they would consent to copulate with them, they could in theory be reducing the
temptation for the males to desert after copulation. I think it means divorce
rate would drop dramatically if there is no free sex-service in the world. The
fundamental reason for a man to divorce or separation so easy is the next
prostitute is also free, and in general the strategy adopted by a man is looking
for a horse while riding on a donkey as same as the strategy in looking a job. The
bride-price indeed played a stabilizing role of marriage, because the essence
of bride-price is advance payment of lifelong sex-services. For example, a man
spent 500 thousand RMB on bride-price, and one day he wants to divorce and
change a new wife, and then he should think like this “Forget it, I have to pay
another 500 thousand RMB for a new one, but the effect of pussy is the same no
matter whose. ” Notice here: I address that bride-price and no free
sex-services bound together can reduce the divorce rate, but can't stop
prostitution, because based on Edgeworth Box I have illustrated already,
prostitution can make both of them better off. Women must admit and face it,
because rational people would compare the temptations to cheat today with the
rewards and punishments from tomorrow, so far woman or government has no
effective punishment for prostitution, so prostitution is profitable deviation
for men, and no one can change that. Rational people make decisions by
comparing marginal benefits and marginal costs. </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">Similarly,
here I give you another classic economic crisis example helping you to
understand importance of the bride-price in maintaining stability of marriage: subprime
mortgage crisis in America. Traditionally banks have certain strict standards
of conforming loans if one day I want to get a loan to buy a house from my
bank. I have to satisfy the following some properties: I have to pay 20% down
payment in advance, and I have a steady job, and I have a good credit rating. We
can view these conditions as strictly access threshold, and the significance of
the existence of the threshold lies in kicking the unqualified people out of
the market and protecting the lenders and passing the most of risks on to qualified
borrowers. For a concrete example: I want to spend 1 million on buying a
house, my bank never gives away loans for free and asks me to put 20% down
payment in a house and check my job and my credit rating. After all check, my
bank would say “Yuyu qualified, because she has paid 200 thousand, and she has
a steady job and very good credit rating.” Misfortunes never com single. After I
bought this house I lost my job and the value of the house drops by 20% over
night. I choose default because I don't have the ability to pay the mortgage
anymore. My bank must take the house back immediately and auction it off in the
market. Eventually bank can get almost all 80 thousand back and suffer little
loss because bank keeps this equity cushion. That is why the banks wanted
everyone to put 20% down. Because they know even if the value of the house
drops by 20%, it will all come from my equity and I would lose all my down
payment. How did the subprime crisis happen? The root lies in bank started
lowering loan standards. Banks would think we are already giving mortgages to
all the people who qualify, and in order to find more people who want mortgages
from us, we will just have to lower the standards a little bit. As a result, the
standards for getting a loan went lower and lower, and credit just got easier
and easier and easier, even people didn't need any down payment. Now buying a
house becomes a thing with zero thresholds. Like I said before, the existence
of the thresholds aims at kicking the unqualified people out of the market. Zero
thresholds allowed more people to bid on houses. Banks could give a loan to
someone who is complete deadbeat without any down payment. But as long as
housing prices go up, if they lose their job, they can still sell that house
and pay back the loan. What happens when housing prices go down? The deadbeat
guy must choose to default if the market price of the house goes less than his
loan, because default is his best response. Bank has to take the house back and
auction it off in the market. As a result, banks take all risks of the house
and can only get a part of the money back. Subprime mortgage crisis occurred. I
said before that lowering standards leads to brief false prosperity in
short-run, but with great risk inevitably lead to chaos in long-run. This is s a universal truth.</span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">The
essence of lowing standards is to let unqualified consumers into the market. From
short-run view, lowing standards indeed can bring temporary prosperity, but
from long-run view, it must lead to chaos and bubble. In my opinion, it is an
illusion, and short-sighted behavior. Similar, we can apply this logic to the
sex-service market called marriage. Bride-price, as threshold, is necessary as
same as down payment in buying house, because the existence of threshold plays
the role of maintaining stability. Without a threshold, man will easily default,
because rational man must act on mark-to-market. Moreover, without down
payment, house prices are facing two possibilities: rising or falling, so buyers
would not necessarily default, but because woman's sexual resources must be
devalued as time goes by, man must choose divorce if he has another better and
free choice. In China, generally the bride-price of middle aged and remarried
women is much less than that of young unmarried woman, because your bargaining
chip is depending on your continuation values instead of your sunk costs, and every
now and then, rational man has to figure out what his purpose is worth, and
obviously the sex resources of middle-aged women is not much leftover. There is
an old saying in China, the three best wishes of a middle-aged man: one is getting
a promotion, another is making a fortune, and the third one is wife is dead.
Notice here: This order is very important, because poor guys don't want wife
dead. The advantage of the threshold lies in that it can absorb all of deviations
which are below the threshold. Any system, without a threshold, would
immediately collapse when once suffered any deviation outside. In short, a
system with a moderate threshold could be a relatively stable state, but a
system without any threshold must be an unstable state. I confess this idea
comes from threshold in nerve conduction. A marriage with no bride-pride before
having sex is as same as buying house with no down payment, where there are a
lot of risks in and default or separation at any time. The relationship between
sexes is indeed a relationship of mutual mistrust and mutual exploitation. This
is the wisdom of the Chinese, playing the game of down payment a few hundred
years earlier than western. By the way, the childbride is also a prepaid
system, and the nature of it is bride-price as well. Payment in advance to the
girl's father can reduce his life burden. This is the wisdom of the Chinese
people. The system of bride-price is the most powerful umbrella for rural women,
otherwise in the current situation, forcing the cancellation of bride-price would
make women more worthless, and no one would produce girls.</span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">Leftover
women</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">As we all know, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place> has quickly entered the “single
country” with many leftover women and more leftover men. Leftover men tend
to attribute the reason why they can't get married to the faulty of
Chinese government; they blame government's supervision so inadequate that many
baby girls got abortion after Sex Identification through B-scan. I have to
admit that the sex ratio, according to state media, is 105:<st1:chmetcnv hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="100" tcsc="0" unitname="in" w:st="on">100 in</st1:chmetcnv> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place> at the end of 2016, which
means there are totally 34 million men leftover even under the condition that
there is no woman leftover and each woman was forced into a marriage. You could
find a common phenomenon that there is a marriage squeeze happening in China
that city's men marry country's women, and leftover women are basically in the
city particularly in the super metropolis, and leftover men are basically in
countryside particularly in impoverished rural areas, so you should
realize that the actual population of leftover men is far greater than 34
million because don't count on leftover women to marry leftover men. I
conservatively estimate there are at least 100 million leftover men in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
Unfortunately, so far neither the government nor the experts are aware of where
the real problem lies in. Some scholars also point out that leftover women are
not a problem, and leftover men are a problem. In order to maintain social
stability, Chinese government has to pander to the sex desires of so many
leftover men. In other words, government is forced to intervene directly
in sex-service market on its own interests because it was kidnapped
by bottom men through “cruel bind”. As a result, except </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">stabilization the aggregate supply of sex service by </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">prohibition of
sex-selection abortion, government often intervenes in the market in two ways:
one is price controls; the other is taxes. Here we examine these two policies
one by one using only the tools of supply and demand. As you will see, the
analysis yields some surprising insights. Policies often have effects that
their architects did not intend or anticipate. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">Like I said before, the gender imbalance in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place> is not the main reason for
the problem of leftover woman and leftover men. The following Figure 5.5 would
show you why leftover women arise and how price ceiling affect market outcomes.
We also start from an initial equilibrium. Under patriarchy and polygamy, supply
curve (S) and demand curve (D<sub>1</sub>) intersect at point A. We can roughly
believe that there is no women leftover at this scenario, because rich men
always get as many wives as possible, and leftover women can be sold in brothel.
In short, all women must enter P-V model and there is no free sex-services in
the market because this is only way to make a living. One day the change from polygamy
to monogamy shifts the demand curve to the left, and intersect supply curve at
point B, and we can assume that there is no gender preference, so Q<sub>N</sub>
is women's population also equivalent to men's population. Now</span><sub><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span></sub><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">with </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">economic independence, women become gradually rational
and rational and begin to examine the costs and benefits of marriage. Based on
one of ten principles of Economics “People respond to incentives”, that more
and more women refuse to enter marriage, is a response to incentives. It can be
said that in the patriarchal system, rational fathers respond to monogamy by
killing baby girls and exiting supply market, and after the collapse of patriarchy,
rational girls should also respond to monogamy by exiting supply market. So, in
new equilibrium point B, the bride-price </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">falls from P<sub>1</sub> to P<sub>2</sub>, and the
equilibrium quantity falls to Q<sub>2</sub> to Q<sub>1</sub>, there are women
of (Q<sub>N</sub>-Q<sub>2</sub>) leftover in society. Because of the sex ratio
of 1:1, there are also men of (Q<sub>N</sub>-Q<sub>2</sub>) leftover in total. This
is the key to problem of leftover men. As long as woman, as supplier, gets more
and more rational, you can't solute the problem of leftover men, because no
woman wants to offer sex-service for free. For extreme example: there is only
one men leftover in China, who is beggar, do you think there is a woman willing
to provide free sex-service for him? Don't you think he can occupy all women? Stress
that again: the essence of economy market is to </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">kick unqualified buyers and unqualified
sellers out of the market, so l</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">et
me redefine the leftover woman and leftover men: leftover women is unqualified
sellers, whose cost of marriage is bigger than equilibrium price; leftover men is
unqualified buyers, whose willingness to pay is smaller than equilibrium price.
They are both rational people, because unqualified sellers in sex-service market
lose nothing, and they left without bride-price and without providing
sex-service; similarly, unqualified buyers in sex-service market lose nothing, because
they left without sex-service and without paying bride-price. I was mercilessly
kicked out of the sex-service, because I made a rational choice. Eventually at
next equilibrium those men who value the sex-service more than the bride-price
choose to buy sex; men who value it less than the price does not. Similarly,
those women whose costs are less than the price choose to sell sex; women whose
costs are greater than the price do not. In short, the phenomenon of leftover
men and leftover women is a very normal and inevitable outcome as the result of
economy market. No one can change that.</span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K2JzFXRclww/XGaIxNxN4zI/AAAAAAAACjs/i_kBu1lLVvwfpU7O4wu7wI9hKheBYjBuwCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E5%25A5%25B35.5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1133" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K2JzFXRclww/XGaIxNxN4zI/AAAAAAAACjs/i_kBu1lLVvwfpU7O4wu7wI9hKheBYjBuwCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E5%25A5%25B35.5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The key question is lots of men in China can't afford the P<sub>2</sub>, but they still wanted to enjoy sex-service and kidnapped the government, because Chinese people don't understand what a shortage is, and the definition of shortage is I can't buy a good or service at the going price, but Chinese think that I can't afford the going price means shortage. They blame the government; the government has to compromise to cater to them. As same as rent-control laws and Minimum-wage laws, bride-price-control is enacted when policymakers believe that the market price of sex-service, also named marriage, is unfair to buyers. The essence of free market economy is to kick unqualified buyers and unqualified sellers out of the market, and apparently not everyone may be happy with the outcome of this free-market process, because there are always some people wiped out who can't afford the equilibrium price. Because buyers of any good always want a lower price while sellers want a higher price, the interests of the two groups conflict. If the government puts different weight assignment on buyers or sellers, it would choose different strategy: price ceiling or price floor. Obviously, government prefers men, because women are stupid so far. You can't get what you want, till you know what you want. So far women don't know what they what, so it is normal women are exploited. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Assume that in monogamy sexual services reach <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">equilibrium</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Point</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">B.</st1:placename></st1:place> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">When the government, moved by the complaints and campaign contributions of bottom men, imposes a price ceiling on the marriage market</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">, and the market price equals the price ceiling. At this price, the quantity of women demanded exceeds the quantity supplied, because some women quit sex-service market. There is a shortage of women: some men who want to buy a wife at the going price are unable to do so. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The above Figure 5.5 would show you how price ceiling affect market outcomes. Recent news reports that in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place> some local governments have imposed a price ceiling of 60 thousand RMB. We assume the dark cyan line represents price ceiling, which is below P<sub>2</sub>, and intersect demand curve2 at point C and supply curve at point D. apparently at this price, the quantity of demanded exceeds the quantity supplied. There is a shortage of women: (Q<sub>3</sub>-Q<sub>4</sub>) who wants to buy a wife at the going price is unable to do so. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In the short run, the primary effect in the short run is to reduce bride-price. The long-run story is very different because the fathers respond bride-price control by abortion baby girls as time passes. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Once the government has imposed a price ceiling of zero, every rational woman would exit the market in short-run, but people immediately begin to arbitrage by producing boys only. Prohibition of prostitution is to set a price ceiling of zero. To be honest, this price ceiling does not work and must lead to rent seeking, because bride-price would become a kind of underground economy. Except for bride-price itself, men have to bribe others, such as woman's relatives, and eventually the total price of a marriage (including the bribe and rent seeking) must be closer to the equilibrium price. What is the government, as a so called “benevolent social planner”, going to do next? </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">When a shortage of sex service develops because of this price ceiling, some means will naturally develop by government to push women into marriage. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Rationing system maybe, but I don't think so, not because rationing violates human rights, but they can find another way to force leftover women into P-V model. Taxes I think because taxes are such an important policy instrument in many ways. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">From the above Figure 5.5, we know that the bride-price-ceiling is not good at forcing women into a marriage, and government must come up with another trap. If the government wanted to encourage people to get into a marriage, it usually uses subsidy. There are two ways to achieve this goal: one is to subsidize people who get into a marriage; the other is to punish people who keep single after adult by taxes. Frankly speaking, the two ways are essentially the same, but I bet governments prefer the latter to former, and the reason is very simple: where is the money from? Tax on being singles is a variant form of “Poll tax”. In ancient <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>, everyone had to pay a poll tax after born in order to control population growth. We can view “Single tax” as a kind of “Poll tax” which you must pay after born till you get into a marriage. A subsidy, as same as “Single tax”, is the opposite of a general tax. General tax is a tax on trade, but “Single tax” is a tax on non-trade with the only purpose to force people into marriage. Everything is the result of relative choice, so there is no essential differences between the two expect the problem of justice, but I don't think the government cares about justice too much, and it even doesn't know what the justice is. Who knows? I don't know either. What I am sure is government will do everything possible or impossible to force women into marriage. The reason is simple: it needs woman to be placebo, because lots of men without sex satisfaction would harm the stability of society. The following Figure 5.6 illustrates how subsidy or “Single tax” affects people's decision. </span></p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TBawEa7xf2E/XGaJZs-joXI/AAAAAAAACj0/2FSteCUToZgzaY8V0rKlQN7nPAHWIMrrwCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E5%25A5%25B3-%25E5%258D%2595%25E8%25BA%25AB%25E7%25A8%258E5.6.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1584" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TBawEa7xf2E/XGaJZs-joXI/AAAAAAAACj0/2FSteCUToZgzaY8V0rKlQN7nPAHWIMrrwCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E5%25A5%25B3-%25E5%258D%2595%25E8%25BA%25AB%25E7%25A8%258E5.6.jpg" width="316" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Like most taxes, subsidy also distorts incentives and pushes the allocation of scarce resources away from the optimal quantity Q<sub>2</sub>. As we saw in above Figure 5.6, both buyers and sellers are better off when marriage is subsidized: A subsidy raises the price sellers receive and lowers the price buyers pay. In other words, a subsidy on a good or service causes the size of the market to expand. Let's assume after the subsidy, the number of women in marriage changes to Q<sub>5</sub> from Q<sub>2</sub> as same as the number of men because of monogamy. The government's total subsidy is represented by a rectangle, and the height of this rectangle is S, and the width of the rectangle is the quantity Q<sub>5</sub>. Therefore, the rectangle's area, which equals the total subsidy government, has to pay, is S×Q<sub>5</sub> = C+D+E+F+G. After calculation, the cost of subsidy expended by the government exceeds the total revenue received by buyers and sellers. The area G measures the size of the deadweight loss. With subsidy, the marginal buyers and sellers enter the marriage market. Because subsidy distorts people's incentives, they cause markets to allocate resources inefficiently. </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">From above Figure 5.6, we are sure that subsidy or single tax would lead to deadweight loss, but why lots of governments still choose to intervene in the marriage market? Cruel bind. The governments pursue their own self-interests under the guise of pursuing bullshit equality, as same as polygamy replaced by monogamy. We have known how markets allocate scarce resources with the forces of supply and demand, and the equilibrium of supply and demand is typically an efficient allocation of resources. To use Adam Smith's famous metaphor, the “invisible hand” of the marketplace leads self-interested buyers and sellers in a market to maximize the total benefit that society derives from that market. But the efficient allocation of resources doesn't conform to rulers' interests, in other words, maximization of total benefit of society doesn't mean maximization of rulers. As a result, government must intervene in the market. Apparently, the fact that a large number of men do not get sexual satisfaction would threaten social stability. In order to maintain stability, incompetent governments choose to change the equilibrium by laws, instead of strengthening legalization or security administration. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Subsidy or Single tax, which government prefers? The government must look at the pros and cons of these two. The Following figure 5.7 illustrates the results of the two strategies. Let's examine the two strategies one by one, and finally you will know there is no solution to this problem of leftover women and men all over the world. During panel (a), i</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">n the absence of government intervention, the price adjusts to balance the supply and demand for </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">marriage. The quantity supplied and demanded in the market equilibrium, shown as Q<sub>market</sub> in panel (a), is efficient in the sense that it maximizes the sum of supplier and demander surplus. But rulers, as so called “benevolent social planners”, believed Q<sub>market</sub> is too small, and more people into marriage can help to stabilize society. In other words, beyond men's private benefits, however, marriage also yields positive externalities. So, the social value is greater than the private value, the social value curve lies above the demand curve, and the optimal quantity government thought is found where the social-value curve and the supply curve intersect. To move the market equilibrium closer to the social optimum, a positive externality requires a subsidy, so external benefit is equal to subsidy in panel (a). So far, we know subsidy is necessary, but does it work? We have learned some general lessons from economy: (1) Taxes levied on sellers and taxes levied on buyers are equivalent, and in the new equilibrium, buyers and sellers share the burden of the tax, and the only difference between taxes on sellers and taxes on buyers is who sends the money to the government; (2) How the burden of a tax is divided: A tax burden falls more heavily on the side of the market that is less elastic. We can apply these logics to subsidy incidence. Like I said before, because of marriage squeeze, leftover women are basically highly educated with high salary, in other words they have a high opportunity cost; conversely leftover men are basically less educated with low salary. Therefore, in marriage market, leftover women are not very responsive to changes in the price (so the supply curve is steeper), whereas leftover men are very responsive (so the demand curve is flatter). In other words, price elasticity of supply is almost completely inelastic, and conversely price elasticity of demand is almost completely elastic. In panel (a), we can see that when a subsidy is delivered, the price paid by men does not fall much, but the price received by women rises substantially. Thus, women get most of the benefit of the subsidy, because a subsidy incidence falls more heavily on the side of the market that is less elastic. Eventually government can't get what they want, because they spend lots of subsidy but squeeze out a little increment: Q<sub>optimum</sub> is a little bigger than Q<sub>market</sub>. In summary, marriage subsidy is not a good way, and the key problem is also where the money comes from. Maybe the idea of “Single tax” is much better than subsidy, even though it is the most shameless, but I think governments don't even know what the impudicity is, because God don't know either. Next, we are going to examine the strategy of “Single Tax”. </span></p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xhjKeAahZ4I/XGaKLDTOMNI/AAAAAAAACkA/VHxsFtuENLQnIVhFHCbVd7xrseaCfeDtQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E5%25A5%25B3-%25E6%2594%25BF%25E5%25BA%259C2%25E6%258B%259B5.7.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="612" data-original-width="1600" height="122" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xhjKeAahZ4I/XGaKLDTOMNI/AAAAAAAACkA/VHxsFtuENLQnIVhFHCbVd7xrseaCfeDtQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E5%25A5%25B3-%25E6%2594%25BF%25E5%25BA%259C2%25E6%258B%259B5.7.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">During
panel (b), we also start from equilibrium that in the absence of government
intervention, the price adjusts to balance the supply and demand for marriage. One
day the government begins to levy “Single Tax”, and this trick indeed can force
someone into marriage. We can think about “Single Tax” conversely. Some marginal
suppliers get into marriage in order to avoid tax, but the increment is very
small (Q<sub>W</sub>-Q<sub>E</sub>) because supply curve is steeper; conversely
some marginal demanders get into marriage for the same reason, but he increment
is very big (Q<sub>M</sub>-Q<sub>E</sub>) because demand curve is flatter. In
other words, quantity squeezed by Single tax is much smaller on suppliers than demanders,
because price elasticity of supply is almost completely inelastic while price
elasticity of demand is almost completely elastic. Don't forget we are
monogamy, it means there are (Q<sub>M</sub>-Q<sub>W</sub>) men leftover who can't
get into marriage but have to suffer the Single Tax. Of course, there are same
amount of women leftover. Actually, I'm not worried about the Chinese
government imposes a single tax. Because it dares not. Here I give you my
reason. What kind of men who can't get a wife in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>? The answer is poor guys. What
if government imposes a Single Tax? I have no way out but let it squeeze my
surplus, but I have lots of surplus to squeeze, and conversely Single Tax means
adding insult to injury for those bottom men, and the poor becomes poorer. This
is contrary to the government's original intention. However, the government can
also issue more targeted policies that single people with monthly income less
than 5000 yuan are exempt from single tax. This might be the most insidious conspiracy
because the only target group of tax revenue is unmarried leftover women. It is
also difficult to operate. Is it necessary to tax divorced women? Unqualified
sellers can avoid tax by divorcing immediately after marriage. All in all, everything
comes at a price, and the best way for government to solve the problem of
sex-service is to cheat. Love is the best way: brainwashing all women by love. Of
course, cheating is always the first choice in any case, because it costs
nothing in real axis. Irrational and emotional woman is men's favorite, because
everyone likes free things and services. Stupid women, you need to be a very
down-to-earth and rational person in marriage trade, but unfortunately most of
women are up-to-sky instead of down-to-earth. When the truth is revealed, how
many women would provide vaginal for free? We can conclude that there is no
solution to the problem of leftover women and men all over the world, and the phenomenon
of leftover women is the inevitable outcome after women get economic
independence and rationality back. I can teach government a trick to solve the
problem of leftover men, but I am afraid you dare not do that. Go back to previous
equilibrium: Don't let women go to school or work outside, and force them into
a marriage for survival, because any equilibrium is only related to interests,
and nothing to do with emotion. Women are still in Pseudo-Equilibrium, and the greatest
tragedy is fulfilling the obligations of prostitutes, but losing the income of
prostitutes. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Let's review what Dawkins said in <i>The Selfish Gene</i>: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">…Early
in the season they fight over territories, but after a while the losers seem to
accept that they have failed, and do not fight any more. They become outcasts
who never get territories, and by the end of the season they have mostly
starved to death. Only territory owners breed. That non-territory owners are
physically capable of breeding is shown by the fact that if a territory owner
is shot his place is promptly filled by one of the former outcasts, who then
breeds….On the face of it, this seems an awkward example for the selfish gene
theory to explain. Why don't the outcasts try, try, and try again to oust a
territory holder, until they drop from exhaustion? They would seem to have
nothing to lose. But wait, perhaps they do have something to lose. We have
already seen that if a territory-holder should happen to die, an outcast has a
chance of taking his place, and therefore of breeding. If the odds of an outcast's
succeeding to a territory in this way are greater than the odds of his gaining
one by fighting, then it may pay him, as a selfish individual, to wait in the
hope that somebody will die, rather than squander what little energy he has in
futile fighting. For Wynne-Edwards, the role of the outcasts in the welfare of
the group is to wait in the wings as understudies, ready to step into the shoes
of any territory holder who dies on the main stage of group reproduction. We
can now see that this may also be their best strategy purely as selfish
individuals. As we saw in Chapter 4, we can regard animals as gamblers. The
best strategy for a gambler may sometimes be a wait-and-hope strategy, rather
than a bull-at-a-gate strategy…. Similarly, the many other examples where
animals appear to 'accept' non-reproductive status passively can be explained
quite easily by the selfish gene theory. The general form of the explanation is
always the same: the individual's best bet is to restrain himself for the
moment, in the hope of better chances in the future. A seal who leaves the
harem-holders unmolested is not doing it for the good of the group. He is
biding his time, waiting for a more propitious moment. Even if the moment never
comes and he ends up without descendants, the gamble <i>might have </i>paid
off, though, with hindsight we can see that for him it did not. </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Everything should
have a threshold. Zero-threshold must inevitably lead to chaos. What is the
essence of market economy? It is the non-random differential trade of people. Sexual
satisfaction is not free, except you jerk your self. In the market economy, the
equilibrium price is the threshold in order to kick the unqualified consumers
and unqualified producers out of the market. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">There no such thing as a just
price. The price that equilibrium finds is the best price. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Moral preaching or love brainwashing, both from imaginary axis, only works
in the short-run, but any game must eventually return to real equilibrium state
which is concerned with real interests' balance in real axis from the long-run
view. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Might the sex-services have been provided by volunteers in long-run view?
Let the market works, suppliers come. The original intention of monogamy or
bride-price control is to make each poor man have free sexual life, but the
road to hell is paved with good intentions is a proverb or aphorism. Certainly,
some people do this out of stupid kindness in short-run. But we can't count on stupid
kindness forever. As Adam Smith wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their
regard to their own interest.” Force prices down, and you keep suppliers out. Price
controls affect market outcomes, and squeeze lots of women out of the
sex-service market. Finally, how should government solve the problem of poor
guy's sex satisfaction? I think there are two ways: One is prostitution. Like
house, we have two ways to deal with sex problem: the purchase and the rental. Apparently
poor guy can choose the rental price instead of the purchase price. The other
is substitution. I bet inflatable doll is a good choice in future. Leftover
bottom men have to accept the fact that they have no mating right.</span></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div><div class="Default"><br /></div>
bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-29159863856054764872019-02-15T01:23:00.001-08:002023-05-02T23:09:11.900-07:00Chapter 4: Government policy and so called “Justice”<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Market
economy VS Planned economy</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">At the end of previous
chapter, I ask you why <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
as an advocate of free trade, still chose monogamy and prohibition of prostitution.
Almost all western economists oppose such a barrier to free trade, and apparently
monogamy and the prohibition of prostitution are such barriers to free sex
trade. As the U.S. Supreme Court once put it, the antitrust laws are “a
comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and
unfettered competition as the rule of trade.” Apparently, the prohibition of
prostitution and monogamy violates antitrust laws. Recently I saw an
interesting news that 9 people were arrested in Pomona Prostitution Sting. I am
sure this is not the first time that the U.S. police have taken prostitution sting
action and it must not be the last time either. These policemen are only on
official business. I have nothing to say. But why does the U.S. government
still choose the prohibition? Is this intervention really good for women? Take
it easy; let's review what the market economy and strengths and weaknesses of it
are first. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Market economy allocates
resources through the decentralized decisions of many firms and households as
they interact with one another in markets for goods and services. In a market
economy, the decisions of a central planner are replaced by the decisions of
millions of firms and households. These firms and households interact in the
marketplace, where prices and self-interest guide their decisions. Prices are
the instrument with which the invisible hand directs economic activity. In any
market, buyers look at the price when determining how much to demand, and
sellers look at the price when deciding how much to supply. As a result of the
decisions that buyers and sellers make, market prices reflect both the value of
a good to society and the cost to society of making the good. What determines
the price of goods or services? Supply and demand are the forces that make
market economies work. They determine the quantity of each good produced and
the price at which it is sold. If an invisible hand guides market economies, as
Adam Smith famously suggested, then the price system is the baton that the invisible
hand uses to conduct the economic orchestra.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;">In west countries,
many industries have abandoned the centrally planned economies system and are
instead developing market economies. In a market economy, no one is looking out
for the economic well-being of society as a whole. Free markets contain many
buyers and sellers of numerous goods and services, and all of them are
interested primarily in their own well-being. From economics, we have known
that markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity, because despite
decentralized decision making and self-interested decision makers, market
economies have proven remarkably successful in organizing economic activity to
promote overall economic well-being. Adam Smith believed that participants in
the economy are motivated by self-interest and that the “invisible hand” of the
marketplace guides this self-interest into promoting general economic
well-being. We generally adopt the sum of consumer and producer surplus as a
measure of society's economic well-being. From economics, we know an allocation
of resources that maximizes the sum of consumer and producer surplus is said to
be efficient. That is, even though each buyer and seller in a market is
concerned only about his or her own welfare, they are together led by an
invisible hand to an equilibrium that maximizes the total benefits to buyers
and sellers.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">All the above are
the benefits described in the market economics based on Capitalist authorities.
What is the truth? Does the market economy sound good, perfect or just? Definitely
not! In my opinion, there is no essential difference between a market economy
and a violent civilization. The rule of allocating scarce resources in market
economy is surplus maximization, which means the rich hold more weight than the
poor in market economy. For example, Musk and I are thirsty in the desert, and there
was only one bottle of water in a shop. Who should drink this bottle of water? According
to the principle of market economy, Musk should drink this bottle of water
because his consumer surplus is larger than mine. Apparently, in market economy,
Musk and I are not equal, and the rich have more weight than the poor in
allocating scarce resources. What about in violent civilization, I can occupy
this bottle of water through muscles, which is also a way of allocating scarce
resources. Under this allocation rule, Musk and I are still unequal (Suppose I
am stronger than him), and strong body has more weight. What is a rule? It is
made by the winners. The rule is the tool of the winners to exploit the losers,
and it is the fence of the losers to get rid of the disadvantage. Unjust is rooted
everywhere in every civilization. To be exact, this is a defect of contract
civilization, not a market economy. In the scope of contractual civilization,
the market economy is indeed superior to monopoly. In-depth discussion on this
issue will appear in Part two. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Since the
market economy can maximize the total benefits to buyers and sellers, why
governments like to intervene in the market? Market economy is the application
of “survival of the fittest” named by <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Darwin</st1:city></st1:place>
in human sociology. The essence of market economy is to kick unqualified buyers
and unqualified sellers out of the market, so the invisible hand is powerful, but
it is not omnipotent as same as God, because it rewards people according to
their ability to produce things that other people are willing to pay for, but does
not ensure that everyone has sufficient food, decent clothing, adequate
healthcare, and free receptacle. Not everyone may be happy with the outcome of
this free-market process. In any trade, there must be zero-sum game between
buyer and seller, because buyer of any good always wants a lower price while
seller wants a higher price, the interests of the two groups conflict, and the
game between them determines how to divide the consumer surplus and producer
surplus. As same as survival of the fittest, the result of market economy must
eliminate some people. A common saying goes, business is as fierce as war.
Someone succeeds in the battlefield, someone loses. This statement is absolutely
correct, because it is the core of the trade civilization replacing the violent
civilization. What is difference is in animal worlds, their rule is survival of
the fittest, and it means the one, who has been eliminated, is wiped out or die
out immediately, but in human world, people were trying to replace the animal
rule of “survival of the fittest” with so called civilized rule of “market
economy”. In short, human tried to replace violence civilization with contracts
civilization. As a result, troubles appeared, because when they were eliminated
by contracts civilization, they became trouble-makers by resorting to violence civilization.
All the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you can not
completely eliminate them. Here I want to repeat an idea written in
Microeconomics by N. Gregory Mankiw: The Luddite Revolt. </span></div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">Over the long span of history, technological progress has been the worker's
friend. It has increased productivity, labor demand, and wages. Yet there is no
doubt that workers sometimes see technological progress as a threat to their
standard of living…. One famous example occurred in England in the early 19th
century, when skilled knitters saw their jobs threatened by the invention and
spread of machines that could produce textiles using less skilled workers and
at much lower cost. The displaced workers organized violent revolts against the
new technology. They smashed the weaving machines used in the wool and cotton
mills and, in some cases, set the homes of the mill owners on fire. Because the
workers claimed to be led by General Ned Ludd (who may have been a legendary
figure rather than a real person), they were called Luddites…. The Luddites
wanted the British government to save their jobs by restricting the spread of
the new technology. Instead, the Parliament took action to stop the Luddites.
Thousands of troops were sent to suppress the Luddite riots, and the Parliament
eventually made destroying machines a capital crime. After a trial in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">York</st1:city></st1:place> in 1813, seventeen
men were hanged for the offense. Many others were convicted and sent to
Australia as prisoners…. Today, the term Luddite refers to anyone who opposes
technological progress. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">This example is worth looking into.
Here I need to expand the scope of definition of Luddite. Whether the progress
of technology or knowledge, as a new mutation, must break the original equilibrium
state by creating new losers who can get more in original equilibrium state;
sometimes break the pseudo-equilibrium state by depriving someone of the benefits
they should not even have. These so-called “new losers” are combined to resort
to public opinion or violence to force the government to intervene in the
market economy. The authorities are always forced to intervene because anything
is better than nothing. Once the violence expands, the authorities may have nothing
left. All in all, those vested interests, who prevent the progress of society
for their own benefit, all should be called “Luddite”. In addition, market
economy is a game that caters to the public, so it means individual taste alone
doesn't determine individual satisfaction due to two simple conditions: (1) big
setup costs; (2) preferences that differ across groups. The market economy is
not omnipotent, never to be. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Government
intervention</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">How to judge whether
a policy is good or bad? I think deciding what is good or bad policy
is a pseudo problem, because there must be some one who gains from a policy,
and at the same time some other loses from the same policy. For instance, 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;
conversely 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. Would free trade make everyone better off? Probably not. All
people are in zero-sum game on any cross section of time because the total
quantity of goods and services supplied, as any cross section of time, must be
enslaved to the Natural rate of output such as the economy's labor, capital,
natural resources and technology. In other words, the long-run aggregate-supply
curve is vertical, only in the long run, technological progress may shift
long-run aggregate supply to the right side, but in short run, people face the
problem that how to distribute a limited goods and services, so don't be a
dream of communism where everyone are happy in. Whenever a mutation creates new
winners and losers, the stage is set for a political battle. Nations sometimes
fail to enjoy the gains from free trade because the losers from free trade are
better organized than the winners or kidnap the policy maker by cruel bind. The
losers may turn their cohesiveness into political clout, lobbying for trade restrictions
such as tariffs or import quotas. Monogamy is the compromise of this struggle,
because poor guys, who can't afford the equilibrium price in sex-service
market, are united together against the polygamy, or policy makers must cater
to poor guys if they find the bottom men more useful in violent revolution. What
is tariff? The essence of tariff is the government united with domestic
producers, uses the power to devour parts of consumer's surplus. Domestic
sellers are better off, and domestic buyers are worse off. In addition, the
government raises revenue. The essence of monogamy is purchase restriction. Bottom
men are better off, and all women and top men are worse off. In general, free trade
raises the economic well-being of a market in the sense that the gains of the
winners exceed the losses of the losers. Intervention makes not only the size
of the economic pie smaller, but also a surplus transfer between consumers and
producers. Welfare in sex-service market, like all markets, includes the welfare
of both consumers and producers. Unless men are for some reason more deserving
than women, free trade in sex-service should not be a social problem. Unfortunately,
God indeed prefer men than women, because women are too ignorant and deserved
to be sacrificed. This is deeper application of “Survival of the fittest” in
human society. The fiction is that the government represents the so-called the
weak; the truth is that it represents the financial interests of their own represents
the weak only reluctantly unless you bind it on interest. Beware particularly,
as the last piece of advice I shall give you, of sinister constructions and
venomous rumours, the secret motives of which are often more dangerous than the
actions at which they are levelled. You can't blame anyone if you don't know
where your interests locate as same as women can't blame men because you don't
know where you should rub. The human evolutionary rule is if you are suckers,
you must become victims in pseudo-equilibrium. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;">What are the
strengths and weaknesses of intervention? Smith's insight has an important
corollary: When the government prevents prices from adjusting naturally to
supply and demand, it impedes the invisible hand's ability to coordinate the
decisions of the households and firms that make up the economy. The policy
distorts prices and thus the decisions of households and firms. In Communist system,
prices were not determined in the marketplace but were dictated by central
planners. Central planners failed because they tried to run the economy with
one hand tied behind their backs-the invisible hand of the marketplace. Obviously,
weakness is that government intervention must cause deadweight loss. For the
same example, although a tariff improves the welfare of domestic producers and
raises revenue for the government, these gains are more than offset by the
losses suffered by consumers. The best policy, from the standpoint of economic
efficiency, would be to allow trade without a tariff. When a nation opens
itself up to free international trade, there are winners and losers, but the
gains to the winners exceed the losses the losers. Like most taxes, monogamy
distorts incentives and pushes the allocation of scarce resources away from the
optimum, and reduces the overall welfare from the economic view. Additionally, the
cost of regulation will be passed on to consumers and producers by devouring
surplus. Since it is so, why lots of governments choose tariffs
to intervene in the market? The answer is very simple: the idea of “cruel bind”
because the seller or buyer is given different weights by the government. On
the tariff issue, because governments are selfish, and the tariff produces
revenue for the government rather than profit for foreign producers. In other
words, the interests of foreign producers are not taken into government's
account. Similarly, government didn't take into account the women's interests, because
woman is still in the stage of ignorance. Now it reminds me of an old saying: There
are no permanent allies, no permanent friends, only permanent interests. The
same logic can be applied to the change from polygamy to monogamy. What are the
strengths of intervention? In other words, what is the best policy for the
government to pursue? Intervention has only one use: Maintaining stability, because
God has the same logic that after weighing all pros and cons, the God then
decides how to process: The truth or the liar? I think the government has to
intervene in the free market when the results of the free market are
unacceptable. Give you two examples here. One is one child policy in </span><st1:place style="font-family: 等线;" w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place><span style="font-family: 等线;">.
At that time, infant survival rates had already been very high, but
Chinese still had a strong desire to reproduce. On the principle of geometrical
increase, population numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no
place could support Chinese people. The other is monogamy. With war massacre
gradually disappeared, lots of bottom men can survive in society. In my view,
there is no good or bad policy, but only useful or useless policy. Winners and
losers must exist in any policy. Like I said the essence of monogamy is the
purchase restriction, but it can maintain the stability for the ruler. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
theory of “Trading space for time”<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I address that again
all the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you can not
completely eliminate them in the trade civilization, so regulation and victim are
necessary in human evolution. Here I give you my new theory of “Trade space for
time” (Figure 4.1) to help you to understand the strategy of God. We can regard
all governments as selfish God, and in making any decision, they have to weigh
two things: stability and justice. Here I don't use two words of efficiency and
equality, because I don't think there is a word named “equality”. This analysis
of the market for sex-service also helps to explain a seeming paradox of public
policy. When analyzing the effects of marriage policy, it is important to keep
in mind that what is good for men is not necessarily good for women. Monogamy
can be good for men, but it is surely bad for women. This policy aimed at granting
sex right to each man, but it does so at the expense of all women. To be honest,
I don't like the word: equality. All chaos is caused by equality, and human
beings can never be equal, or we must lose the power of evolution. There is a
word named “justice”, but no one knows the true meaning of it. The fact that justice
delayer is justice denied is inevitable, because what's actually happening is
often clear only in hindsight. Evolution is a function of time and space, and
people's cognition of justice is also a function of them. Does this
intervention work? Yes, it works only in short-run. From economics, we learned
that the more an economy is planned, the more it is plagued by shortages,
dislocation, and failure, but I want to say that before people have the ability
to reach the next equilibrium, please maintain going equilibrium, even Pseudo-equilibrium.
The only function of intervention is trading space for time, and the government
intervention is inevitable for maintaining going equilibrium in short-run. Might is right-that is the logic of
evolution. The idea of making optimal trade-offs is also an important theme in
human evolution. First, we must admit God has a preference, and apparently in
battle of pursuing orgasm God is on the side of men instead of women because of
cruel bind. Second, God choose stability rather than justice, because it has no
way out and maintaining stability is the primary task. Similarly, what governments
seek is something equivalent to an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), so selfish
governments made the same decision, and they have to choose monogamy in order
to maintain the stability. To be honest, governments are not visionary, and
only focus on solving the problems in short-run. What about in long-run? Are
governments as rational and informed as they often brag themselves to be? No, I
think. Policies often have effects that their architects did not intend or
anticipate in long-run. How to maintain equilibrium in long-run? What is God
waiting for? Next, I take the example of the change from polygamy to monogamy,
and tell you what the God's plan and why victims and pseudo-equilibrium must
exist simultaneously. No one can change that. </span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8ou8R_REARg/XGaBer-rt2I/AAAAAAAACi4/dBZOuDD4fYUNge9ABytYAslNc9GTWlOVQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E7%259F%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E9%2595%25BF%25E6%259C%259F-%25E7%25A9%25BA%25E9%2597%25B4%25E6%258D%25A2%25E6%2597%25B6%25E9%2597%25B44.1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1600" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8ou8R_REARg/XGaBer-rt2I/AAAAAAAACi4/dBZOuDD4fYUNge9ABytYAslNc9GTWlOVQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E7%259F%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E9%2595%25BF%25E6%259C%259F-%25E7%25A9%25BA%25E9%2597%25B4%25E6%258D%25A2%25E6%2597%25B6%25E9%2597%25B44.1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Let me tell you how
God elaborately arranged the plan of “Trade space for time” by illustrating the
Figure 4.1 above. This plan made by God is very marvelous, and please be sure
to follow my thought. When analyzing demand and supply, we must distinguish
between the short-run and the long-run. In general, for many goods and services,
supply and demand curves are both inelastic in short-run; when we refer to the long-run
we mean that enough time is allowed for consumers or producers to adjust fully
to the price change. During panel (a), the graph shows how the supply curve
changes from short-run to long-run in marriage. In short-run, supply curve in
sex-service is completely inelastic; and in long-run, supply curve is horizontal
depending on the costs in completely competitive sex-service market, and simply
reflects the cost of producing a girl. We can assume the cost of raising a girl
is constant. There are two reasons: (1) under patriarchy, as you might expect fathers
face capacity constraints in the short run and need time to adjust their
reproduction strategies; once the price of girls falls, the kinds of decisions
that fathers can make are very different in the short-run from those made in
the long-run, because the girls have been produced with some sunk cost already
which father can't recover back, the best counter-strategy in short-run is that
girls must be on sale, but in long-run father can refuse to produce girls, as a
producer can free enter sex supply market or exit sex supply market at given
market price; (2) after the collapse of patriarchy, women have the right to
abuse freedom before they really get rational; but Pseudo-equilibrium is always
Pseudo-equilibrium after all, as women become more and more rational, more and
more women choose to exit the sex-service market, because they are unqualified
supplier and what they get from marriage is smaller than the opportunity costs,
so they make a rational choice. We can view this process as the price that women
must be paid for growing up. In short, the supply curve rotates from vertical
to horizontal clockwise in marriage market with the return of women's sanity. The
key is the speed of rotation of supply curve, depending on how fast women wise
up I think. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Similarly, for many
goods, demand is much more price elastic in the long run than in the short run.
For one thing, it takes time for people to change their consumption habits. During
panel (b), the graph shows how the demand curve changes from short-run to
long-run in sex-service market. In short-run, sex satisfaction, as a necessity,
tends to be inelastic, because there is no close substitute for women's sex
service, and additionally without old-age pension each man indeed need some offspring
to support their old ages; in long-run view, goods and services tend to have
more elastic demand over longer time horizons, and to be honest there is no
specific time horizons, such as one year, that separates the short run from the
long run. In short, the demand curve rotates from inelasticity to elasticity anticlockwise
in sex-service market. The key is the speed of rotation of demand curve. I
think it depends on technological changes including inflatable dolls,
reproduction machines and pension and so on. With the emergence of alternatives,
demand quantity of women falls from Q<sub>S</sub> to Q<sub>M</sub>, then to Q<sub>L</sub>
in the end. I'm not kidding. This isn't a joke. it is reported that thousands of
Japanese men are turning their backs on real women and choosing ultra-realistic
sex dolls as their life partners. In Japan, sex dolls are becoming more
advanced and acceptable, and a love affair with the silicon sex machines is
becoming increasingly acceptable. One in five Japanese men have never been
married by the time they reach 50 - and the stats are expected to rise even
further over the next 20 years. The 61-year-old sleeps with his doll, who he
named Saori, every night after buying her six years ago to fill the gap as he
lived away from his wife. Around 2,000 of the life-like sex robots, which cost
around 6,000 USD and come with adjustable fingers, removable head and life-like
genitals are sold each year in Japan. I bet mostly of men will have sex with
robots instead of women in fifty years. The reasons are simple: (1) Compared
with complex women, robots are cheaper and more obedient; (2) Women have higher
and higher opportunity costs as time goes by. In short, robots will have greater
comparative advantages than women as sellers. As a result, women will be gradually
kicked out of the sex-service market. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Panel (c)
illustrates God's strategy of “Trade space for time” perfectly. Let me explain
to you step by step. D<sub>P</sub>, S<sub>L</sub> and S<sub>S</sub> intersect
at point O, and point O is equilibrium point under patriarchy and polygamy, and
P<sub>0</sub> is equilibrium price which simply reflects the cost of producing
a girl under perfectly competitive market. With the disappearance of war, many
bottom men had the survival rights, and then they united together and asked
authorities for mating right. The government can not completely eliminate them
all, but only compromised. Government enacted monogamy, and woman became a placebo.
The change from polygamy to monogamy shifted the demand curve (D<sub>P</sub>)
to the left (D<sub>MS</sub>), but in short-run the supply curve is vertical, so
D<sub>MS</sub> and S<sub>S</sub> intersect at point A. At point A, each man can
get a woman for free because the sex ratio with1:1. Under patriarchy, rational
fathers responded by choosing female infanticide in order to exit the supply
market, but authorities are forced to enact laws to ban abortion girls. In
addition to the prohibition of exit from the supply market, they tried to
completely disintegrate patriarchy in order to endow irrational and emotional
women with right of free mating, and then stupid women were exploited under the
guise of love and human rights. There is an old saying, “Good times do not
last long.” With the improvement of women IQ, the supply curve started to rotate
clockwise. From now on, script can be split into two scenarios. In scenario one,
women quickly get rational, but demand curve doesn't make any response to the rotation
of supply curve, therefore S<sub>S</sub> is replaced by S<sub>L</sub> immediately,
and S<sub>L</sub> and D<sub>MS</sub> intersect at point B. What does it mean? It
means (Q<sub>1</sub>-Q<sub>2</sub>) of men have to be squeezed out of the
sex-service market immediately without any substitutes. Technology moves a step
late, and now substitutes start to emerge, therefore equilibrium point moves
long S<sub>L</sub> from point B to point C, and it means (Q<sub>2</sub>-Q<sub>5</sub>)
of men are squeezed out of the sex-service market then with other substitutes. We
can view this scenario as hard landing in evolution. In scenario two, when
women begin to quit sex-service, demand curve makes positive response to the rotation
of supply curve. Technology moves a step early, and substitutes have emerged
already. What does this mean? It means with the rotation of supply curve, the
equilibrium point moves along D<sub>ML</sub> from point A to point C, therefore
(Q<sub>1</sub>-Q<sub>5</sub>) of men are squeezed out of the sex-service market
with other substitutes from the beginning to the end. We can view this scenario
as soft landing in evolution. There two scenarios are extreme cases, and the real story is
likely demand curve is forced to make a reluctant response to the rotation
of supply curve, and the real path lies in gray area between scenario one and
scenario two, and the magenta arrow represents a possible path. This game is
very like the game of robots and population reduction. With the decrease of the
labor force, the robots have to appear. There is an important thing I should
address here: women getting rational and choosing to exit is an only trigger for
subsequent all games. In other words, if women keep stupid and not choose to
exit the demand market, there is no any substitute at all, because everyone
wants to enjoy goods and services for free. Additionally, for simplicity I made
two assumptions in this model: (1) supply curve in long-run is horizontal; it
means the price of equilibrium C is equal to the price of equilibrium O, but the
fact is the former is bigger than the latter, because under patriarchy women
don't have any opportunity cost but now women have a great opportunity cost. For example,
I know I have a huge opportunity cost, so I can't give up my opportunity cost
for such millions. Maybe I will get into P-V model for several billion. (2) D<sub>MS</sub>
and S<sub>S</sub> intersect at point A where the price is equal to zero, but
the fact is the two lines intersect at some point where the price is equal to negative.
You will find a common phenomenon that under monogamy rich men are not in a hurry
to get married, and for the sake of his daughter's long-term interests, father
has to give expensive dowry so that the rich man chooses to marry his daughter,
or he choose to marry another girl. Rich men become scarce resources, and they
start to be picky about choosing wives because of monogamy, and prefer
a woman who is more useful off the bed, instead of a woman who has only vagina
on the bed. The women completely turned into a money-losing proposition under monogamy.
There is an old saying in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>,
“Man in his forties is a flower in bloom, but woman is soybean residue.” Why do
they say that? Apparently a forty-year-old woman is richer, more knowledgeable
and more experience than a woman of the age of twenty. But why? It is because
marriage market means sex-services market where women always sell sex no matter
how good women are, and obviously twenty-year-old women have better sex
resources than forty-year-old women; conversely men always buy sex, and
obviously forty years old men have more money than twenty-year-old men. Not
only are woman a depreciating asset, her depreciation accelerates in marriage! This
is the strategy of “Trade space for time”; it means God sacrifices the
interests of women in exchange for enough time to make preparations for next
equilibrium, because victims need time to react and there is a time lag between
the two equilibriums. The strategy of “Trade space for time” is a commonly used
strategy in many areas. Here I give you a classic example in modern game. In
the game of Plants V.S. Zombies, the strategy of “Trade space for time” is very
useful and practical in playing “Vasebreaker Endless”. Hold your temper and
break the vase one by one. By the way, I have met four Gargantuars. Besides the
strategy of “Trade space for time”, God prefers another strategy as well called
“Crowd tactics”, which I will talk about in later chapter.</span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Do you think which
scenario God or authority is more inclined to? Apparently, God or authority prefers
scenario two, because (Q<sub>1</sub>-Q<sub>2</sub>) of men, squeezed out of the
sex-service market immediately without any substitutes in scenario one, are the
biggest threat to stability. I said stability is the most important for both
God and authority. In order to meet the next equilibrium, God and authority have
to arrange either of the two things in going pseudo-equilibrium: (1)
Psychological changes that with the development of human civilization, some
consumers accept the reality that they are unqualified consumers and renounce
violence, including strengthening legal system construction, protecting women
from sexual assault, teaching people thinking rationally and accepting the
reality and so on. (2) Technological changes that with the development of technology,
substitutes for women emerge, and unqualified consumers can shift, at least in
part, to new substitutes. Before either of the two gets preparation, God or authority
will not let the supply curve rotate in order to maintain the stability. Might is right-that is also
the logic of human evolution. How would they stop the supply curve from
rotate? In other words, how would they stop women getting rational and exiting
the sex-service market? There is only one answer: Introducing love to balance
sheet and brainwash women. We can view the introduction of imaginary axis as a stalling tactics.
The whole idea of God is the idea of “trade space for time” that they broke the
original equilibrium by monogamy, and sacrificed the interests of women to gain
some time to prepare for the next equilibrium point C without collapse. That is
the true face of politics. Politics requires sacrifice, the sacrifice of others
who are stupid, of course. Here three lessons for you: (1) Rational people in
decision-making face an important tradeoff between self-interests in short-run and
self-interests in long-run. Frankly speaking, interests in short-run is more
important than that in long-run, because if chaos in short-run lead to
extinction, not to speak of interest in long-run. (2) The victim and pseudo-equilibrium
are required in human evolution. Because all the concessions of the
authorities, all from all, based on you can not completely eliminate them. Lies
maintenance illustrates an important principle: the practices that appear
unfair may in fact have legitimate purposes. So how to avoid becoming victims
of evolution? Please recall the tax incidence: A tax burden falls more heavily
on the side of the market that is less elastic. Similarly, this logic can be
applied to any game in social evolution. Keep that in mind: No one can restrict
you, when your supply and demand are very elastic. (3) Do not play a strictly
dominated strategy. In the game of sex-service, paid sex strictly dominates
free sex for women, and you need to be down-to-earth woman because any
imaginary is not involved in any real-equilibrium, except pseudo-equilibrium. In
the end, there is no consensus about whether government intervention is good or
bad for human evolution. Like many institutions, their influence is probably
beneficial in some circumstances and adverse in others, but one thing I am sure
that government intervention is inevitable. Like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
said, “taxes are what we pay for civilized society”, similarly, the government
intervention and victims are what we have to pay for human civilization, because
you cannot completely eliminate them immediately . Here, “civilized society” refers
to contract civilization. This is the process of democratization, and victims
and lies exist simultaneously in the pseudo-equilibrium because some are
irreconcilable contradictions. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">Two
ways of interventions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">What means does the
government take to intervene in the market in general? I think there are two
ways: One is to resort to laws for mandatory constraint; the other is to
resort to lies (morality, religion and love) for Non-mandatory constraint. What
is the difference between the two? Let me illustrate to you one by one. We
always go through a cycle of “Trade space for time”: Step 1: The mutation
happens in law and victims appear (the change from polygamy to monogamy); Step
2: Try to stop victims exiting the market by brainwashing (moral preaching and love);
Step 3: Watch the laws of economics unfold (the suckers awakening). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></st1:city></st1:place></div><div class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Newton</span></st1:city></st1:place><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'s laws of motion are also applicable to social
evolution: In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or
continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force. The law
is the force to change the original equilibrium. First, what kind of reasons
can be used to change the original law? In general, it is tempting to decry original
system for “profiteering” at the expense of the public. In other words, authorities
could change the original system under the guise of “unfairness” or “market failure”.
Because externalities lead markets to allocate resources inefficiently, and the
policymakers must choose control policies, which they think can move the
allocation of resources closer to the social optimum, to regulate behavior
directly under the guise of externalities. Indeed, policymakers are led to
control prices because they view the market's outcome as unfair. Price controls
are often aimed at helping the poor. To be honest, politicians are people too and
subject to the limitations of the times, so their cognitive ability is very
limited. Before we embrace an activist government, we need to consider one more
fact: The government is also an imperfect institution, including democratic
government. The government rarely has more information than the private
parties. I don't know who first proposed a monogamous policy, and whether he
claimed this monogamy was both equitable and efficient, but what I am sure is
his ideas won him a large political following. Obviously, monogamy was intended
to cater to lots of poor guys. Any policy is used to maintain stability. Prohibition
of sex selective abortion is to stabilize the aggregate supply of sex-service. What
is the nature of policy intervention? It uses outside force to change the
payoffs of the game players in original game, so there must be someone who can
gain a benefit from a policy, and someone who would suffer a loss from the same
policy. So, who loses, who benefits? I think the one who is closer to authorities
or kidnaps them with cruel bind is the beneficiary; conversely the one who is
sucker or has no common interest with authorities is the loser. Each dictator has
tried to replace market prices with his own. In a planned economy such as that
of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Cuba</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">North Korea</st1:country-region>, or the former <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet
Union</st1:place>, these allocation decisions are made mostly by the
government. The benevolent social planner always thinks he is an all-knowing,
all-powerful, well-intentioned dictator and wants to maximize the economic
well-being of everyone in society by altering the market outcome in his way,
but unfortunately dictators are rarely benevolent, and even if we found someone
so virtuous, he would lack crucial information. Ridiculous laws also happen in
democracies. Like I said the essence of democracy is a game to cater to the
public, and this is a political bandwagon effect. This is fatal injury of democratic
system; the voters are ultimately to blame. So, as we see, monogamy not welfare
at all! It's sex bribery. We know from microeconomics that if everyone trades
in the competitive marketplace, all mutually beneficial trades will be
completed and the resulting equilibrium allocation of resources will be Pareto
efficient. If an allocation of resources maximizes total surplus, we say that
the allocation exhibits efficiency. If an allocation is not efficient, then
some of the potential gains from trade among buyers and sellers are not being
realized. Prohibition of prostitution is not efficient. Apparently,
prostitution is win-win game for both suppliers and demanders, but still why
prohibition? The answer is the legalization of prostitution must cause free
sex-service to be a strictly dominated strategy for rational women, and women
must delete it immediately, therefore there is no free sex-service in society. The
key problem is many poor guys who can't afford the price of prostitution must
inevitably lead to social instability. When thinking about any policy, remember
that this policy is made not by a benevolent king but by real people with their
own all-too-human desires. Sometimes they are motivated to further the national
interest, but sometimes they are motivated by their own political and financial
ambitions. We shouldn't be surprised when policy fails to resemble the ideals
derived in fiction, because the individuals who set government policy may be
motivated by self-interest rather than the national interest. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The government indeed
can maintain stability in very short-run by make certain law either required or
forbidden. Why, to the perplexity of naturalists, has nature condescended to
the tricks of the stage? Because the situation will fall into chaos immediately
after the new losers caused by the new law can respond by choosing to exit the
market. The controls also have led to frequent product shortages and the
emergence of a thriving black market. Rich men still have more than one wife,
and some rational women are skirting the rules rather sell them at a loss. With
the development of human rights, they can't force women into the free
sex-service market with a knife or a gun. What should authorities do? God had
to resort to trickery and liars. Their first ruse having failed, they tried
another. They turn to imaginary part which substitutes for the law and
enforces. Any authority must weigh the costs and benefits of himself before
making a regulation. Of course, the lie is necessary. Love and morality have never
been so useful in pseudo-equilibrium. In my view, the moral system, which ignores
all vicious conditions, defects, incapacities and human nature, is based on the
avoidance or concealment of contradictions aimed at maintenance of pseudo-equilibrium
by rationalizing some foolishness and irrationalizing some rationalities, while
love is like a pyramid selling scam aimed at brainwashing women to be free sex
slaves. As a result, stupid women were exploited to be stabilizers under the
guise of love, and inculcated that prostitution is immoral, aiming at maintaining
free sex-service market. Bullying and moralism have a lot in common. They
both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich
someone else at your involuntary expense. Frankly speaking, morality forms loopholes
where rational people can arbitrage from. The rise of moralism or love was a
bugbear to the world. Hume has a famous like “if all factual questions were
resolved, no moral questions would remain.” If we can regard law as a kind of external
sanctions, we can view the morality as a kind of internal sanctions. You use
external force to save an antelope because you think it is unfair that a tiger kills
an antelope, but you never thought it is unfair to tiger because the tiger
would die soon without food. Intervention only transfers costs, instead of
eliminate them. The West has fallen into mediocrity. Don't change an original equilibrium
if you can't find next advanced equilibrium to replace it. To be honest, at
least in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>,
no men can force women into marriage. Except love, there is another thing
forcing women into marriage: Custom. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Cicero</st1:city></st1:place>
said, “Custom is a second nature”. To be honest, after the first-time women
went out to work outside (economic independence), they should quit the marriage
market which is based on demand-supply sex-services. They don't, because of
inertia. Similarly, after the first-time people entered the pension system,
they should refuse breeding, because children became a losing business only from
an economic point of view. They don't, because of inertia. About human
reproduction, I would talk about in latter chapter of Chinese. Women viewed
entering marriage as a compulsory subject, or took it for granted. We can
view custom in human world as inertia in physics. Inertia carries women into free
sex-service market named marriage. This inertia depends on people's stupid
cognition. Because sexual mating is the only way of reproduction chosen by God,
people take P-V model for granted. Every man takes the mating rights more or
less for granted as a privilege of having been born given by God. We human are
too shortsighted, and to be honest, nothing should be taken for granted. Custom
is a very terrible thing. If one truth shines through, it is that people are
not consistent or fully rational decision makers. We have nothing to do about
it, because victims and lies should exist simultaneously in the pseudo-equilibrium.
In short, there are two factors to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium: One is
lies; the other is custom. If the law is used to change the original equilibrium
to pseudo-equilibrium, the lies are used to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium. How
to break the pseudo-equilibrium? Cheat is always eternal stability strategy in
evolution, and the only reason for the existence of cheat is the existence of
sucker. Then how to wake up these suckers? We must go beyond this general
framework that women must benefit from P-V model because men can benefit from
it. The biggest misconception is that God is fair. People are unfair forever. We
have to learn to accept this inequality, and poor guys have to learn to accept
that mating right is a luxury. Benjamin Franklin says, “If you would persuade,
you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.” That is fate when I cannot awaken them by
appealing to interests either. In the end, it must be a selfish heart to break
this pseudo-equilibrium, and my mission in my life is to awaken the rational
egoism of women, but it takes long time. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Frankly speaking, the
problem of pseudo-equilibrium is almost unsolvable. But often stupid human tries
to solve this problem with a limited human intelligence, which often leads to a
more tragic situation. For instance, G-spot and vagina orgasm. The doctrine of
G-spot has been carried to an absurd extreme by some authors. Various cults
made by scientist attempt to maintain pseudo-equilibrium from the real axis. To
suppose this, would be to show equal ignorance of human nature and of fact. There
is no word named “rape” in logic, if vagina orgasm or G-spot really exists. Essentially
speaking, the change in law is intervention from real axis, and the moral or
love, all lies I think, is intervention from imaginary axis. The only purpose
of them is to distort incentives, and then change the people's choice, and then
change the equilibrium point to maintain pseudo-equilibrium, because human don't
have ability to achieve the next natural equilibrium. There is no perfect thing
in the world, and under all perfection there are only two things: One is
sucker; the other is cheater. There is an old saying, “The road to hell is
paved with good intentions.” Pseudo-equilibrium is inevitable in human
evolution, and there is no short-cut. From the standpoint of a practical
policymaker, there may be little that can be done to improve it. If there is a
unifying theme to these topics, it is that life is messy. Information is
imperfect, government is imperfect, and people are imperfect, because everyone
is destiny taker, including me. This fact is not surprising, but it is not
obvious why it is true. What is a good government? Market economy is based on
private ownership which clear property rights is the key of. To establish a
legal system with clear property rights is the core of all production and
trade. Good government aims to protect property right, and should not interfere
with what kind of contract the two sides make based on both voluntary, but
force both sides to perform the contract, because it is difficult to say
something perfectly, precisely false. In my view, good government means you can
cheat me into a market, but you can't force into a market. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">Individual
selection VS Group selection<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">First of all, I must confess that I am a staunch individual selectionist,
but here I have to defend “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">group
selec</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">tion”
for a little bit especially in pseudo-equilibrium, a stage peculiar to mankind.
Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection
acts at the level of the group, instead of at the more conventional level of
the individual. I do not completely deny the theory of “group selection”, and
this is my second disagreement with Dawkins who wrote following words in <i>The Selfish Gene</i>: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">…This
book will show how both individual selfishness and individual altruism are
explained by the fundamental law that I am calling gene selfishness. But first
I must deal with a particular erroneous explanation for altruism, because it is
widely known, and even widely taught in schools. This explanation is based on
the misconception that I have already mentioned, that living creatures evolve
to do things 'for the good of the species' or 'for the good of the group'. It
is easy to see how this idea got its start in biology. Much of an animal's life
is devoted to reproduction, and most of the acts of altruistic self-sacrifice
that are observed in nature are performed by parents towards their young.
'Perpetuation of the species' is a common euphemism for reproduction, and it is
undeniably a consequence of reproduction. It requires only a slight
over-stretching of logic to deduce that the 'function' of reproduction is 'to'
perpetuate the species. From this it is but a further short false step to
conclude that animals will in general behave in such a way as to favour the
perpetuation of the species. Altruism towards fellow members of the species
seems to follow…. If it is species that are competing in what <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Darwin</st1:city></st1:place> called the struggle for existence, the
individual seems best regarded as a pawn in the game, to be sacrificed when the
greater interest of the species as a whole requires it. To put it in a slightly
more respectable way, a group, such as a species or a population within a
species, whose individual members are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the
welfare of the group, may be less likely to go extinct than a rival group whose
individual members place their own selfish interests first. Therefore the world
becomes populated mainly by groups consisting of self-sacrificing individuals.
This is the theory of 'group selection', long assumed to be true by biologists
not familiar with the details of evolutionary theory, brought out into the open
in a famous book by V. C. Wynne-Edwards, and popularized by Robert Ardrey in <i>The Social Contract</i>. The orthodox
alternative is normally called 'individual selection', although I personally
prefer to speak of gene selection. The quick answer of the 'individual
selectionist' to the argument just put might go something like this. Even in
the group of altruists, there will almost certainly be a dissenting minority
who refuse to make any sacrifice. It there is just one selfish rebel, prepared
to exploit the altruism of the rest, then he, by definition, is more likely
than they are to survive and have children. Each of these children will tend to
inherit his selfish traits. After several generations of this natural
selection, the 'altruistic group' will be over-run by selfish individuals, and
will be indistinguishable from the selfish group. Even if we grant the
improbable chance existence initially of pure altruistic groups without any
rebels, it is very difficult to see what is to stop selfish individuals
migrating in from neighbouring selfish groups, and, by inter-marriage,
contaminating the purity of the altruistic groups. The individual-selectionist
would admit that groups do indeed die out, and that whether or not a group goes
extinct may be influenced by the behaviour of the individuals in that group. He
might even admit that if only the individuals in a group had the gift of
foresight they could see that in the long run their own best interests lay in
restraining their selfish greed, to prevent the destruction of the whole group.
How many times must this have been said in recent years to the working people
of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region></st1:place>?
But group extinction is a slow process compared with the rapid cut and thrust
of individual competition. Even while the group is going slowly and inexorably
downhill, selfish individuals prosper in the short term at the expense of
altruists. The citizens of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>
may or may not be blessed with foresight, but evolution is blind to the future.
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 in the <i>Nuffield Biology Teachers' Guide</i>,
written for advanced level biology schoolteachers in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region></st1:place>, 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…. 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. </span></p><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Actually, behaviour taken the
form of individual suicide to ensure the survival of the species did happen in the past
in human history called “Sacrifice yourself for communism.” I think there is
only one possibility that can make individual sacrifices himself/herself: He/She
was brainwashed or deceived completely into sacrificing for some certain
cheaters, while at the same time these certain cheaters kidnapped the good of
the species by “cruel bind” idea. We can view this scenario of group selection as
a special case of individual selection. In other words, any individual would
not sacrifice for the species if the fundamental unit of self-interest is
individual, but what happens if the fundamental unit of self-interest is gene? I
believe that individual selection is just the matter of frame. When you stand
at a personal point of view, altruism is absurd, and no rational individual
would choose to sacrifice himself/herself for the group, so selfish individual
could choose to benefit from cheating group; similarly, when you stand at a
gene point of view, altruism is also absurd, because no rational gene would
choose to sacrifice itself for the individual, so selfish gene could choose to
benefit from cheating individual. One of the most striking properties of
selfish gene behaviour is its apparent purposiveness, so from a genetic
standpoint, what is the purpose of the gene? I think the true purpose of genes
is to be eternal, so they chose to </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">make all kinds of survival machines for themselves containers, vehicles for
their continued existen</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ce, and chose asexual or sexual
reproduction for their eternity. The fact that genes are motivated by purpose
causes that the survival machines made by genes behave as if motivated by purpose.
To be honest, genes never care about the happiness of any individuals, but only
their own eternity, and that is why God chose to snipe homosexuality because homosexuality
must lead to the demise of genes before the emergence of Tube baby. I bet that gay
genes did it. Similarly, for their eternal, genes had to snipe women's orgasm
because the truth of female orgasm must lead to the demise of all genes before
the emergence of fertility machine. I bet all genes did it in collusion. My
view is that no individual would choose to sacrifice for the good of species actively,
but sometimes particularly in the pseudo-equilibrium some individuals have to
be sacrificed for the good of species passively and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 11.0pt;">selfish individuals prosper in the
short term at the expense of altruists. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I do not deny the correctness of the theory of
individual selection, but there is another situation that cheaters taking
advantage of suckers would not lead to the demise of suckers. Parasitism is a
typical example. The host is the complete loss of the side, while the parasite
is the full benefit of the party. But this loss does not lead to the demise of
the host. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">How do you explain the altruistic behavior
of the host? I can assert that host chooses altruism passively as same as women
because it has no choice. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Self-interest VS General-will<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">In our human Social Sciences, we can see that the ideas of
“self-interest” and “general-will” alternately dominate human. We can view
self-interest as an extension of individual selection in social sciences and
general-will as an extension of group selection. They come from two different
cultures and two different races. The idea of “self-interest” comes from
British, and the idea of “general-will” comes from France and German. Here I
would like to briefly introduce them one by one. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="Default"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">The representatives of British individualism are Thomas Hobbes,
Adam Smith, John Stuart Mills, Charles Robert Darwin and Richard Dawkins. They
thought the analysis should start always with individual, and society should
start always from the individual. Hobbes was first rational choice theorist,
and thought people are quite evil. People all have appetites, desires and
needs, and in order to satisfy our needs, it always has costs, therefore we
have to measure up what the price of our action will be, and then we decide
whether it is worth to pay this price or it is not worth to pay this price. In
other words, we have to somehow negotiate out between our desires, appetites,
and our fears or aversions. Hobbes' theory is very close to Adam Smith's theory
of “Self-love” in economic theory, John Stuart Mills' theory of “Utilitarianism”,
Darwin's theory of “Survival of the fittest” and Dawkins' theory of “Selfish
gene”, who can be considered as rational choice. He is the sort of inspiration
for neoclassical economics and rational choice theory, and methodological
individualism, to put it this way. Smith is saying that everyone is motivated
by self-interest and that the “invisible hand” guides this self-interest into
promoting general economic well-being. Each person neither intends to promote
the public interest, nor know how much he is promoting it, but only intends his
own gain. We address ourselves not to their humanity, but to their self-love,
and we never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. It is
appealing to the self-interest of the person for whom I expect something, and
not is benevolence. Good relationships are always based on self-interest. You
want people acting out of self-interest. By pursuing his own interest he frequently
promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to
promote it. In other </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">words, only “self-interest”, as invisible
hand, can lead self-interested buyers and sellers to maximize the total
benefit. 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. In a cold rational world filled with competitive and isolated
individuals</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">, all people are led by self-interest, and then we figure
out the way how to live with them, by interacting with them. This is what
contract world Enlightenment produced. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">Mills thought the correct
action of people is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:city> thought natural selection is based on
individual differences, and acts </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">by life and death, – by the preservation of individuals with any favourable
variation, and by the destruction of those with any unfavourable </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">deviation of
structure. Fro</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">m his book, you
would find that Dawkins is a typical and firm 'individual selectionist'. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The French and
Germans are methodological collectivists. They believe there is such a thing as
society which is more than the sum total of the individuals. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">The representatives
of collectivism are Montesquieu and Rousseau, and later Karl Marx. The argument
what Montesquieu makes, repeated by Rousseau and Durkheim, that you can't
explain society from the individual, there should be some general-will, or
there must be some consciousness above the individual consciousnesses. Our
individual interests have to be overruled by the general will. Individuals can
not just follow their self-interests, because the general-will has to prevail.
The individuals will have to be constrained otherwise we are in trouble. Individuals
occasionally have to be forced to go by this general will, by the public good.
Rousseau believed that the individuals will have to be forced to be free, which
paves the road to totalitarianism. This is a very disturbing idea which opens
Rousseau up to a totalitarian interpretation that he argues that the government
knows better, so there must be a central planner rather than an individual
actor which tells people what their needs are. Totalitarian regimes very often
advocate it, because the idea of general paves the foundation towards Marxism
and Communist ideologies. Collective education is particularly important. I
dare say the initial personal education was derived from skill learning, and
the initial collective education must be derived from indoctrinating the public
with general-will. In childhood we learn, we internalize those ideas. I do
believe that education has two faces: One is positive, the other is negative.
The positive effect of education is we can stand on the shoulders of our predecessors
because many relationships have already been in equilibrium, so education
allows us to have a cumulative effect on knowledge, instead of every generation
starting from zero; the negative effect of education is we also inherit the
fallacy, so education should be purely negative because we need opportunity to
correct mistakes we made before. It consists not at all in teaching virtue and
the truth, but in securing the heart from vice and the mind from fallacy. I
think the really good education is giving an opportunity for people to use
their mind, rather than indoctrinating them, and the task of education is to
help your brain operate sufficiently to tell what fallacy is and to figure out
when you are making an error. Education is the process in which we force you to
think on your own. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">In my theory, self-interest and general-will are both important
in human evolution, because equilibrium must be based on self-interest and
pseudo-equilibrium should be based on general-will. We can regard general-will
as a kind of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">expediency-philosophy</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"> in
pseudo-equilibrium when self-interest would lead to extinction. The pendulum of
social dominant consciousness should swing back and forth between self-interest
and general-will. In my view, the general-will is an intervention from selfish
genes in order to prevent the death of genes, but sometimes they failed. For
example, like I said before gay genes tried to do everything to stop
homosexuality legalization by general-will, because the legalization of
homosexuality must lead to the demise of gay genes before tube baby, so for
their eternal, selfish gay genes have to create a general-will of homophobia to
push gay people into P-V model which is based on sexual reproduction, but their
intervention failed on some people, like Alan Mathison Turing, so his genes
disappeared as same as dinosaurs. What blocks the truth of female orgasm</span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">?<span lang="EN-US">The only
answer is reproduction. God would try everything possible or impossible to
prevent the truth of female orgasm until reproduction machine appears. Eternity
is always selfish gene's primary purpose, and individual liberty</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> can't </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">interfere with eternity
because everyone including Saviors has to face the limitation by times, and any
general-will, as a threshold, is always used to maintain stability. I agree
that the government's actions are not necessarily just, but the public must be
just? The human mind is far from mature, and don't figure out what is right or
what is wrong. Just has been thought about differently in different times, and
everyone are ruled by the external world. The workshops where ideals are
fabricated, they stink of lies, and what is in our mind is a distortion of the
reality at any time. Modern contract civilization is coming from repression,
and people must learn to acknowledge and accept that you are an unqualified
trader. </span></p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">We have a certain degree of freedom, limited by space and time.
We can't do whatever we want to do, because we may not have enough ability to
afford it. That is when we are actually beginning to figure out we deliberate
what on earth is worse for us. God will give people a proper freedom as long as
no harm principle. We can view human history as the unfolding of human
consciousness step by step, and material advance goes first and ideological
awakening goes second. The government and the law represent the general-will,
at the beginning of pseudo-equilibrium people can get along with each other
peacefully because victims are controlled by the general-will, but in the end
of pseudo-equilibrium there are all conflicts and contradictions in this system
because self-interest begins to awaken. Conflicts and contradictions drive the
change. Marx thought technology is always advancing, but the growing, evolving
technology eventually gets into conflict with the relations of production
between the property relationships and social relationships in society. Eventually
these outmoded social relationships become in a conflict with the forces of
production. Therefore, at one point there will become a tension between the
outmoded, outlived, old relations of production and the need to create new
spaces for the development of forces of production. This is the revolutionary
moment, as Marx defines it. This is the time when the revolution will come,
because this is when we will rise against the old social relationships and
replace them with new social relationships which will create new space for
further growth after development of forces of production. I basically agree
with Marx that productivity determines production relations, and relations of
production should change with the change of productivity, but he did not take
into account the lag problem. The lag problem is unavoidable at all times. Additional,
the revolutionary moment which Marx mentioned, is easy to lead people to back
to the violent civilization after abandoning the contract civilization. There
is a big tendency for history that we are becoming increasingly rationalized,
but rationalism is also a terrible thing, because it includes the balance
between short-term and long-term interests. The proletarian revolution is an
example of only caring short-term interests, because they only want to occupy
the property owners' assets by violence, but do not realize that other
proletarians also can occupy their assets by same violence when they become property
owners. The violent revolution of the proletariat will only lead human to a
vicious cycle. </span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">Fate<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">When rationality would lead to death, God chooses to cover up
the victim's rationality to complete the strategy of “Trade space for time” by
general-will, or by all kinds of Religions. In my eyes, G-spot or vaginal orgasm
is a kind of obscurantism as same as religions. According to Wikipedia, obscurantism
is the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and
recondite manner, often designed to forestall further inquiry and understanding. There are two historical and intellectual
denotations of Obscurantism: (1) the deliberate restriction of
knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge; and, (2) deliberate
obscurity—an abstruse style (as in literature and art) characterized by deliberate
vagueness. I can't say all religions are bad, but religions are indeed
stabilizers, especially in pseudo-equilibrium. Religion is a deep and complex
subject, and so are its interactions with deceit and self-deception, because
almost all religions encourage deceit and self-deception. In my opinion, there
is no good or bad in religion, but only useful and useless. Useful religions
tend to brainwash victims to maintain pseudo-equilibrium before we have the
ability to achieve next real equilibrium, conversely useless religions tend to
break going equilibrium or pseudo-equilibrium before we do have the ability to
achieve next advanced real equilibrium. Certain features of useful religion
provide strong placebo to at least part of victims for self-deception, and various
phantasmagorical things are easily imagined, and general-will should take the
place of self-interest. We can view any religion as association with in group deceit
and self-deception. And here comes the critical, all-encompassing
self-deception: we are the measure of what is good, we represent the best, we
have the true religion, and as believers we are superior to those around us,
because we have been saved but they have not. Our religion is one of love and
concern for the world, our God a just God, so our actions can't be evil when
they are done in God's name. Religion encourages parochial idolatry and
unconditional obedience because that is the will of God, so women never
questioned the justice of P-V model because God chose it. Can we abolish
religion? No, because we are in the stage of orcs, we would go back to the
complete barbarism if religions all disappear now. Like I said before lies are
shameless, but useful. In the end of pseudo-equilibrium when the truth does not
lead to death or selfish genes find another way out or we get ready for the
cruel truth, self-interest rises again on the history and leads to the collapse
of the pseudo-equilibrium. Civilization evolution is coming from technological
change. Like I said before there is no such thing called “equality” because
everyone was made by different genes and you never ever expect me to beat
Tyson; there is a thing called “justice” but people never ever know what the
justice is, because justice should to be diluted in pseudo-equilibrium by
general-will. There is no universal justice, because the law is changing over
time. Nowadays homosexual acts were defined as a crime in many countries;
otherwise Turing won't be forced to suicide. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">What is rationalism? We act controlled by self-interest instead
of any emotion. Rational economic calculation is the key of self-interest spirit.
The essence of self-interest based on rationalism and calculation is the only
driving force for human evolution. 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. When rationalism would lead to
extinction, God must choose someone to be irrational, because exist prior to
human rights. Unlimited competition is not right, unlimited egoistic behavior
is not right. There is a strong element of coercion involved. God coerced
people to obey its command. As a destiny taker, you are not in control of your
own life, of your own fate. Power means that God can impose its will on
somebody else, even if that other person opposes it. We can't beat God, or we
would perish. If you keep breaking these God's plan, there will be penalties
against you. God seemed to have two faces: Collectivism and individualism, like
check and balance in western political system. God guides us to have a proper
balance between passion and sympathy, and that is somehow God's will, what we
follow. I have to admit I am a determinist; at least I can't change my destiny.
We human beings need dictators as same as Saviors, and they are just chess
pieces in God's plan of “Trade space for time”. We can view “self-interest” as
a offense while “general-will” as a defense. I agree with Adam Smith that an
invisible hand controls people's fate and cognitive abilities. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Here, are you
surprised how unfairly God treat women? Yes, it is true, and the truth is
always cruel. “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. Have
you ever thought that whether men would give in when issue of female orgasm comes to light?
Maybe men don't, but genes do, because in its long journey down the generations
therefore, an average gene will spend approximately half its time sitting in
male bodies, and the other half sitting in female bodies. Let's apply the
theory of “veil of ignorance” developed by John Rawls in this problem. In this
life, the fact you can have the privilege of orgasm, not because you are made
by excellent genes, but only because all your genes are located in the
environment of androgen. Are you willing to give up the 5 seconds of shiver if
you made by the same genes in this life are located in the environment of estrogen
in your next life? What is justice? Imagine that before any of us is born, we
all get together for a meeting to design the rules that govern society. At this
point, people do not know in advance what their individual endowments will be;
in other words, we are all ignorant about the station in life each of us will
be a woman or a man. In Rawls's words, we are sitting in an “original position”
behind a “veil of ignorance.” In this original position, do you think women
have the right to enjoy the 5 seconds of shiver? I know I can't convince men to
compromise from the individual perspective, but I have confidence to convince
them from the gene perspective. Please put yourself in women's shoes, because
maybe you are sitting in female bodies in your afterlife. This can make a man give
way who believes in reincarnation, not a bandit or a rascal. The veil of
ignorance is also an important part of my thinking. To be honest, I came up
with this idea to persuade men to give in independently, later I found I happened to coincide with
Rawls on this theory. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">We also can apply
the idea of “veil of ignorance” to public policy designed. If I will be a
disabled person in my next life or a person without any talent, what benefits I
want to get? Conversely, what benefits I would like to give up if I am a
millionaire in next life? First, I present my view that I oppose egalitarianism
and high welfare. Like I said God has a preference, people can never be equal. The
gap between people and self-interest are the only two driving forces for human evolution.
I think all governments should adopted equality of opportunity rather than
equality of outcome. Equality of opportunities is more important than equality
of incomes, so the government should enforce individual rights to ensure that
everyone has the same opportunity to use his or her talents and achieve
success. To use Adam Smith's famous metaphor, the “invisible hand” of the
marketplace leads self-interested buyers and sellers in a market to maximize the
total benefit that society derives from that market. Under legal society, the
essence of the welfare is a kind of compensation the winners from free trade
compensate the losers. No talking about the idea of “cruel bind”, Should the
winners from free trade compensate the losers? Suppose, after years of buying shampoo
at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less
money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If
you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? Public policy
should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of
our lives. Let's look at what the essence of evolution is? The essence of
evolution means that some genes have to be eliminated, and some genes can
spread through the population, and it has nothing to do with egalitarianism, or
the dinosaurs would not die out. The human society evolution is the same way. The
appearance of digital camera eliminated film camera, and car eliminated gharry.
So, the economy suffered when automobiles caused the disappearance of the jobs
of most blacksmiths, buggy makers, operators of livery stables, etc.? We must
accept that some jobs are not coming back; government should choose to educate
and retrain the workers for new jobs. If the government adopts the strategy of
high welfare, people would have no incentive to work hard, society's total
income would fall substantially, and the least fortunate person would be worse
off. To be honest, facing the tradeoff between equity and efficiency,
efficiency is more important than equity, because only efficiency can increase
the size of the economic pie. Making the pie bigger is the first step, and next
we are qualified to talk about how to allocate. If there is no pie, no one can
get anything. We must require some difference between the best and worst-off
member of society in order to make pie bigger. There is no word named “equity”, because different
people have different views on so called “equity”. When more than two people
are involved, the meaning of the word equity becomes even more complex. What
you call equity is at the expense of other's benefits. I think the outcome of
the competitive market process is justice because it rewards those who are most
able and who work the hardest. However, many people can not accept the results
of justice, began to resort to violence to force the government to compromise. Like
I said before, governments should aim at maintaining the contract society and
the legal society, and the good government means you can cheat me into a
market, but you can't force into a market. Lies are shameless, but useful.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I do believe that,
at very least, the governments should establish a “safety net” to help those
most in need, but the key problem is where the government should set the
threshold? What is the role of threshold? Its main function is to absorb all deviations
less than the value of the threshold in order to maintain the stability. First
of all, what the value of threshold the governments should set is very important
and crafty, it determines how many people you let in. Additionally, the
threshold should not be constant. Even within a country, you have to constantly
adjust your threshold over time, because the environment has changed or
people's preferences have changed. Keep in mind that people face trade-offs. When
the government enacts policies to make the distribution of income more equal,
it distorts incentives, alters behavior, and makes the allocation of resources less
efficient. Here are two extremes: One is to adopt the strategy of “laissez-faire”,
and in other words, they are losers of the economic economy and leave them to
die. This is the idea of “Survival of the fittest” in animals. The other is to
set the value of threshold so high that lots of people choose to stay in this “safety
net”. High welfare creates incentives for people to become “needy”. I'll give
you a ridiculous example in China. There is a “culture of poverty” in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
Because every year the government will give a lot of financial subsidy to poverty
counties, this leads to a funny phenomenon that lots of middle counties fight for
being poor counties. Some middle families are worse off when they earn more. By
trying to help the poor, the government discourages those families from
working. Many policies aimed at helping the poor can have the unintended effect
of discouraging the poor from escaping poverty on their own. What effect would
you expect this policy to have before you make your policy? Please use backward
induction. Frankly speaking, I would choose to stay at home if Chinese
government sends me 1000 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>$.
Welfare inevitably leads to moral hazard. Secondly, what manners governments
choose to help the poor is also important. Give them money or in-kind transfers?
By providing the poor with food and shelter, society can be more confident that
it is not helping to support such addictions. This is one reason in-kind
transfers are more politically popular than cash payments to the poor. For
food, supermarket vouchers are a good choice to make sure what kind of foods
can be purchased, both limited and free. For shelter, I have another real story
to tell you. There is serious shortage in low-cost housing in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>. Why? The threshold was set
too high. Many people with cars live in low-cost housing. Only low standards can
widely cover. I suggest that private bathroom should be replaced by public bathroom
in low rent housing. How severe are these potential problems with the welfare
system in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>?
No one knows for sure. Tax and subsidy are sensitive in every country, because
they mean redistribution, as a supplement to the market economy. Policies that
penalize the successful and reward the unsuccessful reduce the incentive to
succeed. Thus, policymakers face a trade-off between equality and efficiency. Finally,
I don't approve of high welfare in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>. We must get lessons from “PIGS”
in the European debt crisis, which triggered by high welfare. Of course, their
high welfare is also purposeful. We will talk about it in detail later. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I don't like
government intervention, but I must admit it is inevitable in human evolution. I
am for passive stabilization policy, because God adopted the same strategy. Please
keep in mind both long-run and short-run goals: One is stability; the other is
justice. Policymakers use of policy instruments or lies to stabilize aggregate
demand or supply and, as a result, society. Social stabilization has been an
explicit goal of any government, also a continuing policy and responsibility of
any one. All the concessions of the authorities, all from all, based on you can
not completely eliminate them in contract civilization, because the result of
the barbaric civilization is life or death but the result of civilization is trading
or not trading. The losers would resort to violence when they are the winners
in barbaric civilization but losers in contract civilization. I don't like pseudo-equilibrium,
and hate lies more, but I know these are necessary. The problem is: facing
pseudo-equilibrium, the fast the victims react, the more aggressive and radical
the society is. The God prefer soft landing. Lies are shameless, but very
useful, so lies may even be a good thing in evolution. Victims are what we have
to pay for so-called harmonious society, because so-called civilized people try
to replace the savage civilization with contract civilization when we human are
in half-orcs period. Authorities tried to replace violence by market economy through
introduction of intelligence and knowledge, but apparently the losers in the
market economy were not the same losers in barbarism civilization, and frankly
speaking lots of the losers in the market economy are the winners in barbarism
civilization. The key problem is that losers in barbarism civilization will be completely
eliminated but the losers in market economy can not be completely eliminated,
so as a result these new losers begin to resort to violence which they are good
at. When the new losers become more and more, they can use violence to
negotiate with the government, and the government, for the sake of their own
interests, has to produce victims in order to cater to the new losers. If
policymakers are farsighted, they should be willing to sacrifice some suckers for
the temporary stability. The only reason why authorities adopt a policy is to
maintain social stability, but from long-run view also plant hidden dangers. The
G-spot is the result of irrational exuberance, but the bubble has to end.
The coming boom, and the coming collapse. Lies can affect the social with a
long lag, and that is the strategy of “Trade space for time”. Indeed, by
clarifying the inevitable trade-offs that you face, it can make the choice more
difficult, because victim is always inevitable in evolution. Everything is
predestined, as a destiny taker, we can do nothing about destiny. It is a very
normal phenomenon for fools to be exploited. With the development of
civilization, it is clearly easier to make a decision when everyone agrees on
the objective. Keep in mind that prostitution is always equilibrium in the game
between two sexes. Here I end this chapter in some words said by Gregory Mankiw
in his book of Microeconomics, “Difficult choices, however, have no right to
seem easy. When you hear politicians or commentators proposing something that
sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If they sound like they are
offering you a free lunch, you should look for the hidden price tag. Few if any
policies come with benefits but no costs. By helping you see through the fog of
rhetoric so common in political discourse, the study of economics should make
you a better participant in our national debates.”</span></p>
bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-25549401071067121732019-02-13T07:30:00.008-08:002023-05-02T22:49:13.734-07:00Chapter 3: Evolution of relationship between two sexes<div><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Couple of questions?</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">I have a habit of listening to
the radio, and</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">I can always hear some girls say like this: my boyfriend
or husband treat me like shit, but he disagrees to break up with me. Why is that?
The host of a live radio answers them like this: because you are free, without
you he has to spend money to find a woman to have sex. I always hear a man
complains like this: do you see that in all non-human animals, females take
responsibility for rearing children alone, but why men have to take care of
women and children? Do you think his complaint makes sense? As a mammal, why do
other animals' males abandon females and children after mating, why do men not
abandon them? Is it really because of love? Apparently both sexes are not
satisfied with the going relationship. Why? Let's see how Dawkins describes the
relationship between sexes in <i>The selfish
gene</i>: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt; text-align: justify;">There are species, however, in which the male actually does
more work in caring for the children than the female does. Among birds and
mammals these cases of paternal devotion are exceptionally rare, but they are
common among fish. Why? This is a challenge for the selfish gene theory which
has puzzled me for a long time. An ingenious solution was recently suggested to
me in a tutorial by Miss T. R. Carlisle. She makes use of Trivers's 'cruel
bind' idea, referred to above, as follows.</span></p><p class="Default" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">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 one of the partners. This is probably how sexual
reproduction first began. Land animals like birds, mammals and reptiles, on the
other hand, cannot afford this kind of external fertilization, because their
sex cells are too vulnerable to drying-up. The gametes of one sex—the male,
since sperms are mobile—are introduced into the wet interior of a member of the
other sex—the female. So much is just fact. Now comes the idea. After
copulation, the land-dwelling female is left in physical possession of the
embryo. It is inside her body. Even if she lays the fertilized egg almost
immediately, the male still has time to vanish, thereby forcing the female into
Trivers's 'cruel bind'. The male is inevitably provided with an opportunity to
take the prior decision to desert, closing the female's options, and forcing
her to decide whether to leave the young to certain death, or whether to stay
with it and rear it. Therefore, maternal care is more common among land animals
than paternal care. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default" style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">But for fish and other
water-dwelling animals things are very different. If the male does not
physically introduce his sperms into the female's body there is no necessary
sense in which the female is left 'holding the baby'. Either partner might make
a quick getaway and leave the other one in possession of the newly fertilized
eggs. But there is even a possible reason why it might often be the male who is
most vulnerable to being deserted. It seems probable that an evolutionary
battle will develop over who sheds their sex cells first. The partner who does
so has the advantage that he or she can then leave the other one in possession
of the new embryos. On the other hand, the partner who spawns first runs the
risk that his prospective partner may subsequently fail to follow suit. Now the
male is more vulnerable here, if only because sperms are lighter and more
likely to diffuse than eggs. If a female spawns too early, i.e. before the male
is ready, it will not greatly matter because the eggs, being relatively large
and heavy, are likely to stay together as a coherent clutch for some time.
Therefore a female fish can afford to take the 'risk' of spawning early. The
male dare not take this risk, since if he spawns too early his sperms will have
diffused away before the female is ready, and she will then not spawn herself,
because it will not be worth her while to do so. 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
Trivers's dilemma. So this theory neatly explains why paternal care is common
in water but rare on dry land. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt; text-align: justify;">I have not explicitly talked
about man but inevitably, when we think about evolutionary arguments such as
those in this chapter, we cannot help reflecting about our own species and our
own experience. Notions of females withholding copulation until a male shows
some evidence of long-term fidelity may strike a familiar chord. This might
suggest that human females play the domestic-bliss rather than the he-man
strategy. Many human societies are indeed monogamous. In our own society,
parental investment by both parents is large and not obviously unbalanced.
Mothers certainly do more direct work for children than fathers do, but fathers
often work hard in a more indirect sense to provide the material resources that
are poured into the children….</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; text-indent: 21.75pt;">Wow!!!!!!Dawkins described the
man as a Communist fighter or the sage. I don't blame him, because wise John
Locke also believed that men choose to live with women in order to raise their
children together. But I don't agree with them on this point. Do you wonder why
man doesn't abandon his wife and children after mating? Don't tell me because
of love, the stupid. Adam Smith said that “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.” A body is really a machine blindly programmed by its
selfish genes. As a selfish machine, man is trying to do the best for himself. For
brevity, we shall again use the convention of thinking of man as though it had
a conscious purpose. What is the conscious purpose of a man which drives man
not leave after mating? This purpose must be different from that of non-human
males in mating, because if they share the same purpose, male must take
advantage of the idea of “cruel bind”. This chapter, I am going to trace back the
history of the relationship between sexes. I am going to tell you a very true,
cruel and unexpected history. As before, to trace back this history, we can
follow the three steps for analyzing mutation and counter-strategy: (1) We
start from original equilibrium. (2) How a mutation breaks the original
equilibrium? (3) After a series of counter-strategies, a new equilibrium state
arises. </span></p></span></div><div class="Default" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">A series of counter-strategies triggered by a
mutation<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">To see why, let's start with a
choice. All men must pick one of the two options: one is to choose a woman, who
has a vagina but no uterus; the other is to choose a woman, who has a uterus
but no vagina. People's desire is always endless, but they have to face
tradeoffs because of the limitation of their abilities. How do men choose? It
depends on the hierarchy of all desires. The hierarchy of interests of every
person is like an onion layers. The central interest is the core interest which
person could give up anything to defend. Every rational person would give up
the interests of the outer layer, in order to get the interests of the inner
layer. People's choice reflects a complete ranking of their preferences. Do you
think men would choose whether vagina or uterus? I bet vagina. Verbal
statements are no guarantee. Let's examine another question. One of the most
striking properties of survival-machine behaviour is its apparent purposiveness.
What is the purpose of a man getting into a marriage? Don't tell me a love, the
stupid. In ancient china, a man can't see his wife until they are married. Don't
tell me for taking care of the children together, the stupid. You should check
the idea of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">“cruel bind” in<i> </i></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">the selfish genes</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">, which neatly explains why paternal care is common in water but rare on
dry land. In addition, it is not uncommon for a man abandoning his wife and
children. Other non-human mammals mate only during female ovulation, and after
mating season most males immediately leave females to live alone, but human
males want to mate at all times, and after having children they still want to
live with women. Why is that? If we can say that the purpose of animals mating
is for reproduction, definitely human's purpose of mating is not for only
reproduction. What causes men can't leave women, but non-human males can. I bet
sex. Sex is the main driving force to push a man staying with a woman. So,
facing the tradeoffs between vagina and uterus, men prefer vagina to uterus. In
these two purposes, sex is main one, and reproduction is a tying or by-product. </span></p></div><div><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Here I
am going to tell you an</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">unconfirmed story I made up
for you. At the original equilibrium, human, as same as non-human mammals, only
mates during female ovulation only, because they have only purpose of
reproduction. Beyond female ovulation, males don't want to mate with females. At
this time, males' actions are driven by purpose of reproduction. One day, suppose
a mutant gene arose that changes the mating purpose from reproduction to physically
enjoy. We can call this mutant gene as orgasm gene, before this mutation, the
purpose of male mating is reproduction, so males only want to mate females
during female ovulation, but after this mutation, the purpose of male mating is
for his orgasm enjoy. As a selfish machine, purpose determines action, and new
purpose determines new action, so males have to choose to stay with female in
order to enjoy the sex release anyplace and anytime. This new mutation breaks
the original equilibrium, because compared with mating only during female ovulation,
mating everyday has an absolute advantage, so as a result, this mutant gene
which purpose is for orgasm, could spread fast in species, and the old gene which
purpose is for reproduction only, was completely eliminated. From now on, for
men, the use of women has changed, or to be more exact,
males need females as a passive tool to vent his turpitude upon her. I firmly
believe that this is a credible story. By the way, I also wonder which animals
have orgasms as same as men. Birds certainly do not, because they use cloaca to
mate. Do all mammalian males have orgasms? Those males who only mate at the
time of female ovulation are certainly not. </span></p></div><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Let's
go back to what kind of best conter-strategy women can evolve? After the orgasm
gene mutation, the original balance of two sexes was broken, and the
relationship of sexes enterd into new stage: rape, everywhere and everyday. Do
not doubt that rape takes quite a long time in human history, even not rare
today. About rape, you can check the book <i>half
the sky</i> written by and Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, which can
tell you how common rape is in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Arica</st1:city></st1:place>
right now, even though I don't agree with many of the ideas in this book. Roma
was not built in a day, and I'm a member of the
conservative party. Don't break the original balance, till you can build a new advanced
equilibrium for them. Radical behavior can only push them into a more tragic
situation. They write like this: </span></div><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;">Rape
has become endemic in </span><st1:country-region style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">South
Africa</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;">, so a medical technician named
Sonette Ehlers developed a product that immediately gathered national attention
there. Ehlers had never forgotten a rape victim telling her forlornly, “If only
I had teeth down there.” Some time afterward, a man came into the hospital
where Ehlers works in excruciating pain because his penis was stuck in his
pants zipper. Ehlers merged those images and came up with a product she called
Rapex. It resembles a tube, with barbs inside. The woman inserts it like a
tampon, with an applicator, and any man who tries to rape the woman impales
himself on the barbs and must go to an emergency room to have the Rapex
removed. When critics complained that it was a medieval punishment, Ehlers
replied tersely, “A medieval device for a medieval deed.”</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: 等线;">What
is the nature of strategy of “A medieval device for a medieval deed”? The
nature of this strategy is “Tit for Tat.” To be honest, I don't think Rapex is
useful like people expected because it only works for one shot rape, and then the
rapist would choose forcing woman to take out of rapex before penetration as a
counter-strategy, or using woman's mouth and anus, anyway, what they need is
just a hole. Some men even think raping women is his human rights. I wonder what
the difference of this idea is among men between West and </span><st1:place style="font-family: 等线;" w:st="on">Africa</st1:place><span style="font-family: 等线;">.
Men in West still believe that P-V model is human rights and take it for
granted, because it is chosen by God. In my view, there is not much difference
between the two ideas. In fact, P-V model is just a kind of sexual assault. </span></div><div><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">It is
not easy to be misled when thinking about any situation as a result of a series
of counter-strategies. What is the counter-strategy for woman, while man's
strategy is to rape everywhere? I guess woman developed two counter-strategies without
any brainwashing like G-spot or love at the beginning: one is seeking
protection from the strongest man, the other is prostitution. I agree with a
statement that prostitute must be the first one in woman' career history. There
is no fundamental difference between the two strategies, and the former called
wife is selling sex to one man, and the latter is called prostitute selling sex
to every man. I agree with Marx: marriage is a kind of variant prostitution. What
we seek is something equivalent to an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS),
apparently prostitution can hardly be a stable strategy, because of the congenital
physical gap, and women don't have the power to bargain with men. Note that
there are two important categories here: rape belongs to violent civilization
while prostitution belongs to contract civilization. It is impossible to force
a man into a contractual civilization by relying on a woman herself because rape,
without any payment, is always the best strategy for men. what is to be done? Don't
worry about that. Men find the business opportunities and join it. They hired
muscle and organize women together to run a brothel. In prostitution,
this is a win-win-win game. In short, the change of mating purpose must lead to
the emergence of prostitution. Where there is a demand, there is a supply. </span></p></div><div><div class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">One principle of microeconomics is trade can make
everyone better off, b</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ecause trade
allows each person to specialize in the activities he or she does best. By
trading with others, people can buy a greater variety of goods and services at
lower cost. Prostitutes as well as Clients also can benefit from the trade with
each other, and from then on, the prostitutes become a very important profession.
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Those women
providing you sex-services are not acting out of generosity. Nor is some
government agency directing them to satisfy your desires. Instead, women provide
men with the sex-services because they get safety and foods in return. Women
can totally take advantage of vaginal at the best tool of making money, which
given by God. A new equilibrium has established followed by, and there is no
free sex-service or love between sexes at all, and all P-V models are charged.
People face trade-offs, and s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ex-service
and money are the two sides of a coin, and women or men must to give up one
thing to get the other. The key of trade is not only absolute advantage, but also
you have some goods or services what I want from you. Since then, women opened
the road of alienation from professionalism of being prostitutes. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Women are welcome formally into the role of prostitutes.
Trade will inevitably lead to division of labor based on each comparative
advantege, and further to specialization, and final to alienation. Since then,
women have embarked on the path of alienation. What is alienation? In my words,
alienation means people lost themselves in occupation, like actor can't distinguish
between acting and living. What is woman alienation? It means women lost
themselves in occupation of prostitutes, because previously women get survival
resources by their hands from nature like other non-human female animals but afterwards
women get survival resources by vagina, face and from men. Let us recall
Dawkins's question in <i>The selfish gen</i>e:</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">One feature of our
own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual
advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary
grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and
the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in
this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some
women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society
the equivalent of the peacock's tail is exhibited by the female, not by the
male. Women paint their faces and glue on false eyelashes. Apart from special
cases, like actors, men do not. Women seem to be interested in their own
personal appearance and they are encouraged in this by their magazines and
journals. Men's magazines are less preoccupied with male sexual attractiveness,
and a man who is unusually interested in his own dress and appearance is apt to
arouse suspicion, both among men and among women. When a woman is described in
conversation, it is quite likely that her sexual attractiveness, or lack of it,
will be prominently mentioned. This is true, whether the speaker is a man or a
woman. When a man is described, the adjectives used are much more likely to
have nothing to do with sex.</span></p></div>
<div class="Default">
</div>
<div class="Default" style="margin-left: 0.25pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.85pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Faced with these
facts, a biologist would be forced to suspect that he was looking at a society
in which females compete for males, rather than vice versa. In the case of
birds of paradise, we decided that females are drab because they do not need to
compete for males. Males are bright and ostentatious because females are in demand
and can afford to be choosy. The reason female birds of paradise are in demand
is that eggs are a more scarce resource than sperms. What has happened in
modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one
that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why? </span></div><div class="Default" style="margin-left: 0.25pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 9.85pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;">One
feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of
sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on
evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that
advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly
exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress
flamboyantly and some women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt
that in our society the equivalent of the peacock's tail is exhibited by the
female, not by the male. Women paint their faces and glue on false eyelashes.
Apart from special cases, like actors, men do not. Women seem to be interested
in their own personal appearance and they are encouraged in this by their
magazines and journals. Men's magazines are less preoccupied with male sexual
attractiveness, and a man who is unusually interested in his own dress and
appearance is apt to arouse suspicion, both among men and among women. When a
woman is described in conversation, it is quite likely that her sexual
attractiveness, or lack of it, will be prominently mentioned. This is true,
whether the speaker is a man or a woman. When a man is described, the
adjectives used are much more likely to have nothing to do with sex.</span></div><div class="Default"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Faced with these facts, a biologist would be
forced to suspect that he was looking at a society in which females compete for
males, rather than vice versa. In the case of birds of paradise, we decided
that females are drab because they do not need to compete for males. Males are
bright and ostentatious because females are in demand and can afford to be
choosy. The reason female birds of paradise are in demand is that eggs are a
more scarce resource than sperms. What has happened in modern western man? Has
the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex
that can afford to be choosy? If so, why?</span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Before
I answer his question, let me clarify my view some different from his. Dawkins
believes because of the idea of cruel bind, in land animals like birds, mammals
and reptiles, the females are in a very disadvantageous position, and always abandoned
after mating. The female is potentially in a position to drive a hard bargain
before she copulates. Once she has copulated she has played her ace—her egg has
been committed to the male. In response to this unfavorable situation, females evolved
two counter-strategies: one is called domestic-bliss strategy; the other is
called he-man strategy. In the domestic-bliss strategy, courtship rituals often
include considerable pre-copulation investment by the male. The female may
refuse to copulate until the male has built her a nest. Or the male may have to
feed her quite substantial amounts of food. In he-man strategy, the females
resign themselves to getting no help from the father of their children, and go
all-out for good genes instead. Once again, they use their weapon of
withholding copulation. They refuse to mate with just any male, but exercise
the utmost care and discrimination before they will allow a male to copulate
with them. Dawkins doesn't discuss what might predispose a species towards one
form rather than another. He emphasizes those species in which the differences
between the sexes are slight, these being in general the ones whose females
have favoured the domestic-bliss strategy. </span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Here I give you my opinion about the two strategies which seems females
choose actively. Apparently, you can find that females' birds basically adopt
domestic-bliss strategy, and conversely females' mammals basically adopt he-man
strategy. Why is that? Which one is more advanced? Can they exchange
strategies? In my view, he-man strategy is not chosen by females, because of physical
gap, and males must adopt rape as mating strategy rather than courtship rituals
or any pre-copulation investment. Suppose I am a male non-human mammal, much
stronger and bigger than females, fuck off all “mammal rights”, I don't care
whether a female is willing to mate with me or not. Only one thing I need to do
is catch them and rape them as many as possible during mating season, and after
that I choose to abandon them. You don't have to doubt my view, because have a
look at Africa right now, the barbarians still do it in 21<sup>st</sup> Century,
and the only difference between human and non-human mammals is rape happens not
only during female human ovulation but also during everyday, every hour even
every minute. What is female strategy in response to male rape? To be honest,
female does not have much option except toleration, because male beats her up
if she refuses to mate. You can find a common phenomenon in he-man strategy:
when males are in fighting for the possession of females, females always stand
by and look at the fight chillily, and finally walk away with the winner. The
war is severest between the males for mating right in animals, where it is not
necessary for women to participate in. Additional you can find that sexual
advertisement happens only in birds not in mammals, because male mammals don't
need to adopt sexual advertisement to pander to female, and rape is his best
choice, which maximize his payoffs and minimize his cost. P-V model, strictly
speaking, is no more than a sexual assault, not related to the desire of women,
regardless of whether female is willing or not. Let's go back to birds. Apparently
even as the simplest and most brutal strategy, rape is not adopted by male
birds, why they don't choose to rape? Rape can save all pre-copulation
investment and time, and should be best strategy for all males. Why? Because of
love or “birds' rights”? Of course not. To be honest, male birds prefer to rape
females, but they can't. I guess there are two reasons: one is no significant
difference in size and muscle between sexes; the other is male bird have two wings
instead of two arms. Intuitively speaking, wings are good at flying, but not at
catching or controlling or thrashing, so it is difficult for him to violate the
female bird's will. This is the truth, cruel truth. As a result, male birds
have to choose the second-best strategy: pandering to the females. This is just
my guess, actually we can examine the bat, which is mammal but with two wings
instead of arms. My theory would be correct, if male bat chooses domestic-bliss
strategy; my theory would absolutely break down, if male bat chooses so called “he-man
strategy”. Summary, our ignorance of the sexual selectioin is profound. Additionally,
I guess at the beginning, female and male mammals have the same size and
muscles, and males are force</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">d
to mate with females by domestic-bliss strategy. But one day males would have
been some that just happened to be slightly stronger than females, and instead
of catering to females they find that rape can make them better off. There
might therefore have been an evolutionary trend towards difference gap between
sexes, because stronger males and weaker females are more likely to spread
genes, as long as an abandoned woman has the ability to raise the children
alone. Once the divergence between the two sexes had started, it would have
continued in runaway fashion, because medium-sized intermediates would have
been penalized. It is the steady accumulation through natural selection. We can
find a common phenomenon that the species with smaller size and muscles between
sexes prefers domestic-bliss strategy, and species with bigger size and muscles
between sexes prefers he-man strategy. Do you believe that female birds have
more “animals' rights” than female mammals in some sense? I believe so,
according to values of Western. In short, domestic-bliss strategy and he-man
strategy are both chosen by male instead of female. Her behaviour depends on
the behaviour of her opponent. What disappoints me is Dawkins never mention a
word about “rape” in his book of <i>The
Selfish Gene</i>. Rape exists today even in our human beings, and why it is impossible
not to exist in non-human animals? I think this is the biggest mistake of the
book. For the point of best response, I even suspect the matriarchal society really
existed in human history. If matriarchal society really existed, the only
possible explanation is that, human were still in animals stage where they only
had desire to reproduce genes and no desire to vent libido, so women were
useless for men not in the heat period.</span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">The
beginning of alienation</span></div><div class="Default"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: justify;">Go back to keep answering Dawkins's
question. Like I said before, trade must inevitably lead to division of labor,
and further to specialization, and finally to alienation. As a result, women are
alienated during the new role: prostitutes. In other words, the process of
women alienation is the inevitable outcome of pandering to men. When women are
forced into the business of prostitution, they start to become an object, and
lost the subject. I agree with Simone de Beauvoir in <i>The Second Sex</i> that “First violated, the female is then
alienated.” Since then, woman has not only the property of goods for men's
consumption, but also has the price of goods. She totally becomes a commodity
or private goods interchange between men. What happens to women after being a
commodity? In any transaction, if the sellers want to make money, they must
produce some goods which can cater to the needs of buyers. Man is not satisfied
merely to find in his partner sex organs complementary to his own, he needs
more. John Stuart Mill gives a wonderful presentation in the book of <i>The Subjection of Women</i>: </span></div><div class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div><div class="Default"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;">All causes, social and natural, combine to
make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of
men. They are so far in a position different from all other subject classes,
that their masters require something more from them than actual service. Men do
not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments. All men,
except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected
with them, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a
favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their
minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on
fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of women wanted
more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to
effect their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in
the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men;
not self will, and government by self-control, but submission, and yielding to
the control of other. All the moralities tell them that it is the duty of
women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live
for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but
in their affections. And by their affections are meant the only ones they are
allowed to have—those to the men with whom they are connected, or to the
children who constitute an additional and indefeasible tie between them and a
man. When we put together three things — first, the natural attraction between
opposite sexes; secondly, the wife's entire dependence on the husband, every privilege
or pleasure she has being either his gift, or depending entirely on his will;
and lastly, that the principal object of human pursuit, consideration, and all
objects of social ambition, can in general be sought or obtained by her only
through him, it would be a miracle if the object of being attractive to men had
not become the polar star of feminine education and formation of character. And,
this great means of influence over the minds of women having been acquired, an
instinct of selfishness made men avail themselves of it to the utmost as a
means of holding women in subjection, by representing to them meekness,
submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man,
as an essential part of sexual attractiveness. Can it be doubted that any of
the other yokes which mankind have succeeded in breaking, would have subsisted till
now if the same means had existed, and had been so sedulously used, to bow down
their minds to it?</span></div><div class="Default">
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;">I am far from pretending that wives are in
general no better treated than slaves; but no slave is a slave to the same
lengths, and in so full a sense of the word, as a wife is. Hardly any slave,
except one immediately attached to the master's person, is a slave at all hours
and all minutes; in general he has, like a soldier, his fixed task, and when it
is done, or when he is off duty, he disposes, within certain limits, of his own
time, and has a family life into which the master rarely intrudes. “Uncle Tom “
under his first master had his own life in his “cabin, “ almost as much as any man
whose work takes him away from home, is able to have in his own family. But it
cannot be so with the wife. Above all, a female slave has (in Christian
countries) an admitted right, and is considered under a moral obligation, to
refuse to her master the last familiarity. Not so the wife: however brutal a
tyrant she may unfortunately be chained to—though she may know that he hates
her, though it may be his daily pleasure to torture her, and though she may
feel it impossible not to loathe him—he can claim from her and enforce the
lowest degradation of a human being, that of being made the instrument of an
animal function contrary to her inclinations.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">When women become a commodity aimed
for pandering to the male low, malignant and vulgar sexual desire, men must
choose to shape so-called qualified women according to their sexual needs, as
same as the businesses in order to pandering to buyers' needs to produce and
shape the products aimed for getting higher returns. Men need submissive sex
slaves, so women are trained by men to become submissive sex slaves to pander
men for a good price. I agree with that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'The reciprocal bond basic to marriage is not set up
between men and women, but between men and men by means of women, who are only
the principal occasion for it,' says Lévi-Strauss. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Women completely become private commodity during marriage system. Let's
think about what men want from women. That is key question, because as goods
women must be shaped into what men need. Next, we are going to examine what
kind of women men need. I think there are three things a man wants to get from
women: (1) sexual release; (2) love (precisely speaking respect and worship);
(3) children and housemaid. Let's illustrate them one by one. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default" style="margin-right: .5pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The main alienation of women
is to pander to the sexual desire of men, because a market economy rewards
people according to their ability to produce things that other people are
willing to pay for. We must admit that human sexual desire is gross appetite,
but as a product, women have to embrace this degrading duty. For, in his own
body, man feels the sexual need only as a general need analogous to hunger and
thirst, a need without particular object: the bond that holds him to this especial
feminine body has, then, been forged by the Other. The adage “any port in a
storm” is grossly cynical; man seeks something more than brute sexual pleasure;
nevertheless, the prosperity of houses of prostitution is enough to prove that
man can obtain some satisfaction from whatever woman is available. Desire,
which frequently shrouds disgust, reveals disgust again when it is satisfied. I
can understand that disgust immediately after my shiver for few seconds. I don't
like porn video at all, because I feel that is malignant and vulgar, but I need
to see it, and it is very useful for me. I see it with clear purpose only at
the time when I need a sex release. Man pursues that chimera, a companion half
sex slave, half free. When man takes possession of woman through the pleasure
he gets from her, he also awakens in her the dubious power of fecundity: the
organ he penetrates is the same as that which gives birth to the child. Evey
man knows that morality is a vast hoax in sexuality, and the nature of pursuing
orgasm must be obscene, vulgar, perverted and debauched, and he forgets
anything about dignity when he is driven by libido. On the one hand, he lauds
chaste and faithful wives, on the other hand, he asks his neighbour's wife to
commit adultery. Man does not act according to the principles he professes and
asks her to disobey them; he does not wish what he says he wishes. All women
serve as sewer to the shining, wholesome edifice where respectable people have
their abode. Gentlemen condemn vice in general but view their own personal whims
with indulgence in sexuality, because they take P-V model for granted. In a
word, man needs a passive flesh prey in sexuality, and then women are shaped
into fresh preys and the plaything of disdain. The key is, as a commodity, women
must cater to consumers. Since woman is destined to be possessed and consumed,
her body must present the inert and passive qualities of an object, and lost
all qualities of a subject. They have to dress up like an erotic
object, and suffer further alienation during professionalism. She exaggerates
her femininity, she adorns herself, she uses perfume, she makes herself all
charm, all grace, pure immanence. She delights in the display of her “interior”,
even of her own appearance. Women start to shape themselves according to males'
desire. High heels, clinging satin, heavy make-up, and strong perfumes of today
advertise her profession. The skirt is less convenient than trousers,
high-heeled shoes impede walking. Her erotic capacities are integrated with the
life. It is indeed to preserve this mystery that men have long begged women not
to give up long skirts, petticoats, veils, long gloves, high-heeled shoes,
because those mean feminine trait. A woman is changed into a doll of flesh. She
was always dressed like a picture. What she treasures is herself adorned, and
not the objects that adorn her. Neglected, “misunderstood”, they seek
consolation in narcissistic fancies: they view themselves as romantic heroines
of fiction, with self-admiration and self-pity. Clothes and conversation will
satisfy much of this feminine taste for display. Woman, who would be men's
idol, makes herself the slave of her admirers; she dresses, lives, breathes,
only through men and for them. Of course, society controlled by men would give
a positive feedback to her alienation, and men are more willing to spend money
on a woman dressed up, because prostitute is her only profession to live. The
better showing a woman makes, the more advantageous it is for her to appear
prosperous. Smart appearance is a weapon, a flag, a defence, a letter of
recommendation. It is all determined by interest, because the world is
controlled by men, and the only thing women can do is to shape themselves in
accordance with the male value, in order to obtain resources from men. 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. When
she has once accepted her vocation as sexual object, she enjoys adorning
herself. For not only does the woman of fashion project herself into things,
she has chosen to make herself a thing. The toilette is not only adornment, it
also indicates woman's social situation, and its art is to create mirages and presents
an imaginary object to the eye, like in Janpanese porn video. As a result, a
woman's whole life is wasted on toilette, in order to pander to male's libido.
Frankly, the object of a man's sexuality is passive flesh carnal prey instead
of a woman with XX chromosomes because all men would have sexual impulse when
they see a lady boy in Thailand with feminine and coquettish appearance. In
short, the only thing, a man loves, is how to meet his desires, not women.</span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default" style="margin-right: .5pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Men
are not only satisfied with erotic release on women, but also deliberately train
women into slaves. In order to make women be slaves, women are deprived of
transcendence as normal human beings. Costumes and styles are often devoted to
cutting off the feminine body from any activity: Chinese women with bound feet
could scarcely walk, the polished fingernails of the Hollywood star deprive her
of her hands; high heels, corsets, panniers, farthingales, crinolines were
intended less to accentuate the curves of the feminine body than to augment its
incapacity. Society, being codified by man, decrees that woman is inferior, and
he refuses to accept his companion as an equal in any concrete way, each free
being wishes to dominate the other. Men fix women's seats in mediocrity and
give them enslaving education. She experiences that multifarious subjection.
She is subject to her husband, she is subject to the guests. The feminine woman
is making herself prey tries to reduce man, also, to her carnal passivity; she
occupies herself in catching him in her trap, in enchaining him by means of the
desire she arouses in him in submissively making herself a thing. Providing
sex-service is the only profession for women, and women are trapped into
prostitutes and deprived of any other chance. For a girl, erotic transcendence
consists in becoming prey in order to gain her ends. A woman is rendered more
desirable to the extent that nature is more highly developed in her and more
rigorously confined: it is the 'sophisticated' woman who has always been the
ideal erotic object. Make-up and jewellery also further this petrification of
face and body. The function of ornamental attire is very complex; with certain
primitives it has a religious significance; but more often its purpose is to
accomplish the metamorphosis of woman into idol. Woman is enraptured in
solitude. Due to male compliment, she sinks so often into such foolishness
because she has no hold upon the world. Man likes woman as prey, and woman is
proud of catching male interest, of arousing admiration. Fated as she is to be
the passive prey of man. All girls, from the most servile to the haughtiest,
learn in time that to please they must abdicate. Men do not like tomboy, or
bluestockings, or brainy women; too much daring, culture, or intelligence, too
much character, will frighten them. The young girl is supposed not only to deck
herself out, to make herself ready, but also to repress her spontaneity and
replace it with the studied grace and charm taught her elders. Any
self-assertion will diminish her femininity and her attractiveness. Actually,
it is not by increasing her worth as a human being that she will gain value in
men's eyes; it is rather by modeling herself upon their dream. The privileged place
held by men in economic, their social usefulness, the prestige of marriage, the
value of masculine backing, all this makes women wish ardently to please men. In
becoming a bluestocking, a woman of brains, she will make herself unattractive
to men in general. Women are still, for the most part, in a state of
subjection. Men indeed decide whether their supreme divinities shall be females
or males; woman's place in society is always that which men assign to her; at no
time has she ever imposed her own law. She did not share his way of working and
thinking, that the male did not recognize in her a being like himself. Since he
did not accept her, since she seemed in his eyes to have the aspect of the
other, man could not be otherwise than her oppressor. The male will to power
and expansion made of woman's incapacity a curse. The inevitable result is that
masculine accomplishment is far superior to that of women, who are practically
forbidden to do anything. They have no opportunity of doing anything constructive.
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线;">Balzac expressed the
same ideal in more cynical terms. In the Physiologie du mariage he wrote: 'The
destiny of woman and her sole glory are to make beat the hearts of men…she is a
chattel and properly speaking only a subsidia</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ry to man.' She
experiences that multifarious subjection. The life of society demands that she “make
a showing”, that she put herself on exhibition, but not that she establish any
true communication between herself and others. It does not take her out of her
isolation. She is a pure instrument without getting a grip on the world. It is
man who will act as intermediary between his wife as an individuality and the
universe. She has only to put her existence in his hands and he will give it
meaning. Every benefit always has as its bad side some burden; but if the
burden is too heavy, the benefit seems no longer to be anything more than a
servitude. So we must first go on to describe woman such as men have fancied
her in their dreams, for what-in-men's- eyes-she-seems-to-be is one of the
necessary factors in her real situation. Man wants woman to be object: she
makes herself object. It is through the service of sex that she gets benefits. Master
and slave, also, are united by a reciprocal need, in this case economic, which
does not liberate the slave. Woman is shut up in a kitchen or in a boudoir, and
astonishment is expressed that her horizon is limited. Her wings are clipped,
and it is found deplorable that she can not fly. For time to seem to her to go
round and round without ever leading anywhere. She is occupied without ever
doing anything, and thus she identifies herself with what she has. She will
lose time in shopping, in having fittings, and the rest. This dependence on
things, a consequence of the dependence in which men keeps her. Women have
nothing to do, but only treat their bodies as capital to be exploited. She has
paid for her success by too much slavish compliance. In short, this is the
cruel bind in interest. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">'Men make the
gods; women worship them,' as Frazer has said. The Cult of “G-spot” is the result
of this worship. All the idols made by man, however terrifying they may be, are
in point of fact subordinate to him, and that is why he will always have it in
his power to destroy them. For she has been taught to accept masculine
authority, so she gives up criticizing, investigating, judging for herself, and
leaves all this to the superior caste. The masculine world seems to her a
transcendent reality, an absolute. Women's ineffectiveness and ignorance are
what give rise to the respect accorded by them to heroes and to the laws of the
masculine world; they accept them not through sound judgment but by an act of
faith-and faith gets its fanatical power from the fact that it is not
knowledge: it is blind, impassioned, obstinate, stupid; what is declares, it
declares unconditionally, against reason against history, against all denial. 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. The idea of “penis envy” arises
to glorify the advantage of the penis. It is as a symbol of all the privileges
of manhood that she wishes to appropriate the male orgasm. But her desire, as
we have seen, is much more ambiguous: she wishes, in a contradictory fashion,
to have this transcendence. It is rather satirical to say that their worship of
this grand totem is of sexual nature, but they brainwashed women to recognize
masculine authority. Religion seems much less an instrument of constraint than
an instrument of deception. It is why the Church is notable hostile to all
measures likely to help in woman's emancipation. There must be religion for
women; and there must be women, “true women”, to perpetuate religion. But a
woman whose work is done by servants has no grip on the world; she lives in
dreams and abstractions, in a vacuum. Man's situation is far preferable; that
is to say, he has many more opportunities to exercise his freedom in the world.
Very often the parental attitude serves to inculcate in the girl a sense of inferiority
that woman is inferior to man. She is taught that to please she must try to
please, she must make herself object, she should therefore renounce her
autonomy. As a result, she is treated like a live doll and is refused liberty.
Thus a vicious circle is formed. Man tries to make up the beautiful lie, and
trapped women in, and denies the commonness of human nuture and human orgasm,
but emphasizes the difference between two sexes. When she perceives that she
has been duped by a mirage, it is too late; her strength has been exhausted in
a losing venture. The married woman is a slave whom one must be able to set on
a throne,' said Balzac. In the end, women fall into mysticism, but the male,
are on the Master side and that Mystery belongs to the slave. Kept on the
fringe of the world, woman cannot be objectively defined through this world,
and her mystery conceals nothing but emptiness. <span class="high-light-bg">Most
bourgeois women accepted this gilded confinement at the expense of being
yielded to in trifles. </span><span class="st">Man dreams not only to possess her
but also to be worshiped by her. Her whole situation destines her to play this
role of concerned spectator. </span>She has been deceived in being persuaded
that her worth is priceless. The truth is that for man she is an amusement, a
pleasure, company, an inessential boon. What most clearly interests the man, in
many cases, is the sexual benefit he gets from it. In bed he asks her to feel
pleasure. He encourages her in make believe that flatters his lordliness and
his vanity. She learns that to be happy she must be loved, to be loved she must
await love's coming. Thus the supreme necessity for woman is to charm a masculine
heart. Woman assures her most delicious triumphs by first falling into depths
of abjection. She will become all-powerful through deepest resignation: she
takes delight in a masochism that promises supreme conquests. She uses against
him in return her powers of dissimulation. For in deceiving him she satisfies
her own desires and enjoys the pleasure of trating him with derision. Men know
that woman's faults indicate her situation so well that, anxious to maintain
the hierarchy of sexes. In a sense her whole existence is waiting, since she is
confined in the limbo of immanence and contingence, and since her justification
is always in the hands of others. She awaits he homage, the approval of men,
she awaits love, she awaits the gratitude and praise of her husband or her lover.
Her economic dependence places her at his disposal; she is only one element in
masculine life while man is her whole existence. In bed, she awaits the male's
desire, she awaits-sometimes anxiously-her own pleasure. A man who is looked at
by a woman receives nothing; no gift is given until the feminine flesh becomes
prey. Whereas the coveted woman is at once metamorphosed into a desirable and
desired object; and the woman in love, thus slighted, is reduced to the status
of ordinary clay. Her education has prompted her to identify herself with her
whole body. As an object to be enjoyed</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">,<span lang="EN-US">the ideal woman is perfectly stupid and perfectly submissive; she is
always ready to accept the male and never makes any demands upon him. Thus the
passivity that is the essential characteristic of the “feminine” woman is a
trait that develops in her from the earliest years. Man knows that to satisfy
his desires, to perpetuate his race, woman is indispensable; he must give her
an integral place in society: to the degree in which she accepts the order
established by the males, she is freed from her original taint. The idea is
very clearly stated in the Laws of Manu: 'a woman assumes through legitimate
marriage the very qualities of her husband, like a river that loses itself in
the ocean, and she is admitted after death to the same celestial paradise.'It
is this ambivalence of the Other, of Woman, that will be reflected in the rest
of her history; she will be subjected to man's will up to our own times. Each
man none the less views erection with a touch of vanity, that is why there is a
disease called premature ejaculation named by human beings. To be honest, I
have suffered this disease for twenty years. The feeling of male superiority
had been established by the lack of female orgasm, and reinforced by Monogamy,
and inflated by vagina orgasm or G-spot, which made P-V model under licit
appearance and made man to be Saviour that only penis penetration can give
female real orgasm. In order to create perfect women who are is perfectly
stupid and perfectly submissive, lies, such as G-spot and vagina orgasm, should
also be following. In short, brainwashing began, and men enslaved not only
women's bodies but also women's souls, though women have no soul at all.</span></span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The ultimate goal of
men to deprive women of other options and brainwash them is to keep them s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ervili</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ty,
but man couldn't be reconciled to having such a slave. John Stuart Mill argued
that women are actually worse in their conditions than slaves, because men
expect women even love, rather than just obedience, at least from slaves they
don't expect love. To be honest, man's attitude towards woman is too
ambivalent, on the one hand they need a woman as a sex slave to vent their malignant
and vulgar sexual release, and on the other hand they expect to get love from
woman as an equal human being. From my experience, love and sex are hardly
reconciled. Sexual desire is aggressive and grasping in nature; in it person
sees affirmation of subjectivity and transcendence, so you need only a passive
object when you </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">vent your turpitude. You can look at gay men that one man must
be passive in anal sex as same as women. We can conclude that the one, as sex
seller, must be passive in sex-service trade. That is the nature of
sex-service. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I agree with
Márquez's opinion that</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">“<span lang="EN-US">Sex
is the consolation you have when you can't have love.” The wife emphasizes her
sex appeal shows bad taste, in her husband's opinion. He disapproves
audaciousness that he would find seductive in another woman, and this
disapproval kills any desire he might otherwise feel. I think there is repulsion
between love and sex in nature, the former is noble, self-sacrifice, like two-way
soulmates; the latter is vulgar, lewd, selfish, ego, like one-way violation. </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Toilette only can arouse
man's sexual desire, but has nothing to do with love. If I love someone, it
means I love her or his soul. In additional, I can't achieve my orgasm through sex
fantasy about someone I love. I don't why, maybe there is a valve in my brain,
and only one function can be opened at a time.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I believe that for human a descent into animality is the necessary
condition for orgasm, and animality has nothing to do with love and respect.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> Someone, who </span><span class="st"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">reintegrates eroticism and love
into marriage</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">, is doomed to failure.</span><span class="st"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> But there was more truth in Porto-Riche's Amoureuse, in
which the incompatibility of these two orders of values was shown.</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> Sex is </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">preoccupied with the moment, not aspiring to
immortality, but love is pursuing immortality. Sex release requires a degraded
scapegoat at least in your brain, and is aggressive rude movement without any
respect. A subject vents the turpitude upon an object. On the contrary, love
means respect and devotion. The reason why man go to a brothel even he has a
wife already, is to indulge vicious tastes that they do not dare admit to their
wives. Don't we know better than anyone that these men easily drop their masks
of gentility, self-control, and importance and behave like beasts? That is the nature
of sex, but the nature of love is admiration and appreciation between two both
soul and body independence individuals. People have always been a vague
connection between sex and love, because of the fact that love and sexual
release are ambiguously associated. The perfect combination of sex and love, as
a kind of Utopian lies, can only deceive women, castrations. Any man knows that
love and sexual vention are neurologically conflicting because the two
completely incompatible neural models. I agree with the theory of Platonic
love: there are two types of love: Vulgar Eros and Divine Love. Vulgar Eros is
nothing but mere material attraction towards a beautiful body for physical
pleasure and reproduction. Divine Love begins the journey from physical attraction
i.e. attraction towards beautiful form or body but transcends gradually to love
for Supreme Beauty. This concept of Divine Love is later transformed into the
term Platonic love. Actually, in my view, Vulgar Eros is sex, and Divine Love
is love. The nature of battle of the sexes is a duel between the exploiter and
the exploited. In short, marriage is nothing more than legalizing the sexual
assault. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The word love has by no means the same sense for both
sexes, and this is one cause of the serious misunderstandings that divide them.
Byron well said:” Man's love is of man's life a thing apart, it is woman's
whole existence.” Nietzsche expresses the same idea: The single word love in
fact signifies two different things for man and woman. Carnally humiliated, woman
is all for love. Love has been assigned to woman as her supreme vocation. To be
sure, there have also been men who burned with that flame, but they are rare
and their fervour is of a highly refined intellectual cast. What woman understands
by love is clear enough: it is not only devotion; it is a total gift of body
and soul, without reservation, without regard for anything whatever. This
unconditional nature of her love is what makes it a faith, the only one she
has. For woman, love is to relinquish everything for the benefit of a master. Love
becomes for her a religion. She then seeks to share in their masculinity by
having one of them in love with her; it is not the individuality of this one or
that one which attracts her; she is in love with man in general. Normally she
is looking for a man who represents male superiority. Women fall into the
Utopia of love and waiting for someone who will bear her up and lead her gently
and lovingly towards perfection and obey blindly and with confidence: I will no
longer need to think what to do in life or to watch over myself. Frankly
speaking, women don't have enough judgement to identify men. It explains why it
is that men of prestige who know how to flatter feminine vanity will arouse
passionate attachments even if they are quite lacking in personal charisma. Woman
feels her get real love, but sex indeed sully her body or degrade her soul, so
she shys about talking sex. It is that some women take refuge in frigidity,
thinking that in this way they can preserve the integrity of the ego. Such
women see in physical love a debasement incompatible with esteem and affection.
A woman was brainwashed to regard P-V model as an exchange of pleasure by which
each partner benefits equally, but she generally feels somehow deep inside
that her partner is using her as an instrument. In coition man uses only an
external organ, while woman is struck deep within her vitals. Now, the woman
lies in the posture of defeat; worse, the man rides her as he would an animal
subject to bit and reins. She always feels passive: she is caressed,
penetrated; she undergoes coition, whereas the man exerts himself actively. She
feels that she is an instrument, liberty rests wholly with the other. He takes
his pleasure with her, but indoctrinate her that she can also get pleasure from
P-V model. Like the female of most species, she is under the male during
copulation. When woman was penetrated on a bed, she feels she is just one
vanquished, prey, object, and in general, however, the woman is “cold” on the
bed. And that's the fact. Nothing but self-deception can
compensate for the humiliation of sex act that she considers a defeat. She
never feels that sexual transcendence from P-V model, she is not set completely
free from the spell of her flesh; her desire continues in the form of
affection. Love is woman's supreme accomplishment. “A woman who loves as a
woman becomes only the more feminine,” says Nietzsche. She is not subject,
transcendence, creative power, but an object charged with fluids. The
contradictory requirements of the traditional woman, who dreams of being at
once violated and respected, condemns him almost necessarily to failure. She is
confused between ideal love and physical desire, sentiment and sex feeling.</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">As for man, on the contrary, if he loves a woman,
what he wants is the love from her. Man have found it possible to be passionate
lovers at certain times in their lives, but there is not one of them who could
be called “a great lover”; in their most violent transports, they never
abdicate completely; even on their knees before a mistress, what they still
want is to take possession of her; at the very heart of their lives they remain
sovereign subjects; the beloved woman is only one value among others;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: red; font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">they wish to
integrate her into their existence and not to squander it entirely on her. Man
glories in the phallus when he thinks of it as transcendence and activity, as a
means for taking possession of the other. One of the male's dreams is to 'brand'
the woman in such a way that she will remain for ever his. With penis, hands,
mouth, with his whole body, a man reaches out towards his partner, but he
himself remains at the centre of this activity. The subject as opposed to
objects that he perceives and instruments that he manipulates; he projects him self
towards the other without losing his independence; the feminine flesh is for
him a prey. Men are prone to complain of the excessive demands of their
companions: a frenzied uterus, an ogress, a glutton, she is never satisfied! In
P-V model, male desire can be satisfied on no matter what body, such desire
being specific but not individualized as to object. It is certainly true that
no woman can get real orgasm from P-V model. She recoiled when her husband
asked if she had orgasm, putting her hand over his mouth. The expression
horrified many women because all of them don't know what an orgasm it is. There
is no doubt that for man coition has a definite biological conclusion:
ejaculation. Certainly many other quite complex intentions are involved in
aiming at this goal; but once attained, it seems a definite result, and if not
the full satisfaction of desire, at least its termination for the time being. A
man is very wrong in undertaking to impose his own rhythm or timing upon his
partner and in working furiously to give her an orgasm. In woman, on the
contrary, the goal is uncertain from the start, and more psychological in
nature than physiological. Her body promises no precise conclusion to the act
of sexuality. That is why coition is never quite terminated for her: it admits
of no end. She desires sex excitement and real orgasm in general, but don't
know what orgasm is. Man continues to indoctrinate woman that the female
orgasms are widely variable in different women. An old Arab proverb says,”You
can't get what you want, till you know what you want.” Woman regards sex as a
chore, and woman's frigidity is a normal thing. Why? It is simple to
answer: 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. The repulsion that exists between the
orgasm of the male and that of the female creates insoluble problems as long as
P-V model adopted. 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. She fancies that the man's love is the exact
counterpart of the love she brings to him; in bad faith she takes desire for
love, erection for desire, love for a religion. In short, woman becomes the
slave of love, while love is just man's excuse for sex. </span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">There is no
doubt that men also want to have children from women, but children are
definitely not the reason why man don't choose to abandon women. In human
beings, reproduction becomes a tying of sexual assault. Have you even thought
about why women are doomed to be slaves and why God is so unfair to women? Yes,
God is indeed unfair because he is made by selfish genes. Let me tell you why
God is on the side of the man instead of woman. There is no contradiction
between his vocation as human being and as male, but for the young woman, on
the contrary, there is a contradiction between her status as a real human being
and her vocation as female. We have seen that the connection between the
general and the individual is biologically different in male and female. Apparently,
a man must ejaculate in woman's vagina, and then woman can be pregnant. In
accomplishing his specific task as husband and as reproductive agent, man is
sure of obtaining at least some sexual pleasure. Through ejaculation and orgasm
are not exactly the same things, orgasm binds ejaculation, and then binds reproduction
as well. If we deny P-V model before tube baby, what does it mean? It means we
human beings will be extinct. In the female, on the contrary, the reproductive
function is very often dissociated from orgasm shiver. Female is rather a
vessel, a container, composed of inert matter and but the plaything of
capricious mechanical forces. 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. The act of production is completed in the orgasm, its natural
outcome. Coition has a definite physiological end and aim; he obtains a
complete relief, following upon sex excitement, which is unfailingly
accompanied with pleasure. His service to the species is combined with his
personal enjoyment. The female is the prey of the species, the interests of
which are dissociated from the female's interests as an individual. For the
eternal genes, woman must give up their transcendence, and in service to the
species, bleeding each month, proliferating passively. She is a pure instrument
without getting a grip on the world. For all women the roads to transcendence
are blocked by species, rathan than men. Femininity indeed signifies alterity
and inferiority. With man there is no break between species 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. 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. Woman becomes
a 'lost sex' in evolution. P-V model means reproduction, God have to maintain
its rationality. As a result, <span class="st">certain psychoanalysts have
attempted to provide scientific support for these fancies “vagina orgasm”,
suggesting that women can get female multiple orgasms from </span>intercourse. This
is how the cult was born, and man has succeeded in enslaving woman under under
the guise of reproduction. As a destiny taker, woman has to renounce
this human privilege in order to ma<span class="st">intain the continuity of
species. At the beginning of woman's erotic life her surrender is not
compensated for by P-V model, and she has to give up self-interest for
group-interest. </span></span><span class="hps"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: 等线; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Vagina has only value as a receptacle. </span></span><span class="st"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I do agree with Beauvoir in <i>the second sex </i>that </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">woman is the intermediate creature between
male and<span class="st"> eunuch. I believe woman</span> suffers more wretched condition
than eunuch, because the whold sex desire of women called frigid tends towards
the normal, and eunuch never suffers from sexual desire. Woman is just the prey
of desire. It eventually leads to emotional manifestations arising from a state
of organic disor<span class="st">der. The woman finally becomes metamorphosis and
</span>frigidity in the disturbed and nervous state, because vicious circle is
set up. Some women really lose the mind in the delusion of G-spot, this fever
rids her of shame for moment, but afterwards she is ashamed and horrified to
think of it. She is generally lacking in real pride, because a slave can not
have the sense of human dignity. She is none the less a castrate and may suffer
acutely from the realization of that fact. She feels herself as an impotent
human, because her orgasm is not connected with the idea of reproduction. And
economic interests are not the only ones concerned. One of the benefits that
oppression confers upon the oppressors is that the most humble among them is
made to feel superior. Similarly, the most mediocre of males feels himself a
demigod as compared with outstanding women, because they are not excluded from
orgasm shiver by god. In short, we must admit that men are privileged in
reproduction. In comparison with her the male seems infinitely favoured: his
sexual life is not in opposition to his existence as a person. We must admit
that human beings always have a rank, and in order to keep eternity, God indeed
has a preference, and women have to be The Second Sex. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Might is right--that is the logic of God.
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. Actually there is nothing to be prond of, because P-V model is choosen by
God as a kind of reproductive strategy, and man is lucky side. No one would
consent to be a woman, but every man wants women to exist. In the erotic
release, man embraces the loved one and seeks to lose himself in the infinite
mystery of the flesh. It is not only a subjective and fleeting pleasure that
man seeks in the sexual act. He wishes to conquer, to take, to possess; to have
woman is to conquer her; he penetrates into her as the ploughshare into the
furrow. In breaking the hymen man takes possession of the feminine body more
intimately than by a penetration that leaves it intact; in the irreversible act
of defloration he makes of that body unequivocally a passive object, he affirms
his capture of it. The fate of woman is resignation, ruled by an obscure
destiny against which it is presumptuous to rise in protest. Among insects,
birds, 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. 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. For her diffuse
hopefulness, her dream of happy passivity, reveals her body to her clearly as
an object destined for another. She realizes that she is destined for
possession, since she wants it; and she revolts against her desires. She
simultaneously longs for and dreads the shameful passivity of the willing prey.
The idea of penetration acquires its obscene and humiliating sense within a
more general frame, of which it is, in turn, an essential element. Strict
repression can be imposed, which will later weigh heavily upon her sexual life.
What is desirable is that she should be taught, one the contrary, to accept
herself without being self-satisfied and without shame. For the lot of woman is
bondage to another. Man already remains the free will and transcendence as a superior
survival machine, but woman still keeps animal destiny and trapped in reproduction
reincarnation as an inferior survival machine. In this way she dooms herself to
remain in its lower levels, to be inferior; and the vicious circle is formed:
this professional inferiority reinforces her desire to find a husband. This is
an inauspicious road, for the interest of species who takes it - passive, lost,
ruined - becomes henceforth the creature of another's will, frustrated in his
transcendence and deprived of every value. In a short, man's orgasm binds the
reproduction, but woman's orgasm doesn't, as a result selfish God chooses to
compromise for his own eternal, so P-V model has always been viewed as a sacred,
unquestionable and even justicial act, and no one can doubt its just. Kierkegaard
said: 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. “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. When she takes part in sexual relations, she finds a new
humiliation in the coital posture that places woman underneath the man. In sex
trade, there is no difference between male and female, but only seller and
buyer. In reproduction mode: Penis-Vaginal, chosen by God, women are doomed to
be seller, and men are doomed to be buyer. The woman is doomed to be occupied,
watched and consumed. “Anatomy is destiny”, said Freud. In short, anatomic
destiny is thus profoundly different in man and woman. </span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">All men on the world have always taken
P-V model for granted, including women, and that is the key problem. Ignorant
women credulously believed that they definitely can benefit from P-V model,
because men can benefit from it. Women don't dare to think God is so unfair to
them. People take for granted that the sexual is the intrinsic aptitude for
releasing the genital, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">but on the contrary an organ of no great
biological importance, like the clitoris, plays in it a part of the first rank.
Women who attain orgasm are “viriloid” women, because she must abandon P-V
model and learn how to rub dorsal root nerves. The sexual impulse is “in one
direction” and woman is only half way along the road. This antinomy reaches its
height in the human female; it is manifested, for one thing, in the opposition
of the two organs: the clitoris and the vagina. One of the great problems of
feminine eroticism is that clitoral pleasure is localised from reproduction, so
God chose to sacrifice women for eternity. God's rule is: if one of the two is
in some way privileged, has some advantage, this one prevails over the other
and undertakes to keep it in subjection. What a misfortune to be a woman! She
is fated to be subjected, owned, exploited, and has to renounce her sexual
autonomy for the interest of species. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Prostitution is the only equilibrium between
sexes</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Like I said before, monogamy
does push women into more wretched condition, rather than liberating
women. Since ancient times, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>
was polygamy. In west history, so-called monogamy is just nominal, not real. In
fact, polygamy has a long history, and can be traced back to animal period. I
have to address again 4% of male elephant seals accounted for 88% of all the
copulations observed. There is only one thing in the world: how to allocate
scarce resources. Both the uterus and vagina are scarce resources. Have you
ever thought about why polygamy ruled for a long time if polygamy is so bad for
human beings? The answer is that polygamy is an only equilibrium between sexes
in the contract civilization. The only difference between women who sell
themselves in prostitution and those who sell themselves in marriage is in the
price and the length of time the contract runs. For both the sexual act is a
service; the one is hired for life by one man; the other has several clients
who pay her by the piece. Prostitution and marriage are equivalent in essence. Viewed
from the standpoint of economics, prostitutes' position corresponds with that
of the married woman without economic independence. The husband knows that he
could have secured a different wife; the performing of “conjugal duties” is not
a personal favour, it is the fulfilling of a contract. Under patriarchy, polygamy
is an equilibrium state as same as prostitution. Let's use game theory to analyze
the nature of prostitution and marriage. Before the emergence of marriage, the
whole society is chaotic, and rape and violence are everywhere. Now on the one
hand, woman, as a weak, have to and must find a protector; and on the other
hand, man, as a consumer of the sex-service, need to keep woman around him. That
is the deal, and each one takes what he/she needs from each other. The
embryonic form of marriage arises. The essence of marriage is a trade. Man provides
security and food for woman, in exchange, he gets sex-service and offsprings
from woman, and on the contrary, woman provides sex-service for man, in exchange,
she gets security and food from man. The formal appearance of marriage must be
the result of patriarchy, and father finds that he can make money from selling
his daughters, and now the woman totally becomes private property. Actually, we
can consider the emergence of marriage as progress for human beings, because it
is the privatization of property rights. Reproduction becomes a purposeful
game. As subject, man starts to raise children with purpose. Raising son is an
investment from long-run view, and there is an old Chinese saying: raising sons for help in old
age; raising daughter is making money from short-run view. Under patriarchy,
there is no free sex-service at all, because if so, fathers must refuse to
raise girls for arbitrage. Likewise, prostitutes refuse to provide free
sex-service for man. What you are trying to achieve before you go ahead and
analyze the game. There must be a cost for man to get sex release on woman. We
have to admit that prostitution is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) in
our human evolution. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Prostitution can
not be forbidden forever, because trade is spontaneous which can make each of
them better off. Here I give you an example Figure 3.1. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">We shall use some
arbitrary hypothetical values for the various costs and benefits. Suppose that
the pay-off gained from prostitution by man is +20 units, and the cost of money
a man has to pay is 10. Therefore, in the deal of sex-service, consumer's
surplus is 20-10=10 units. Suppose that the pay-off gained from prostitution by
woman is 10 units, and the cost of a woman during intercourse is 5 units. Therefore,
in the deal of sex-service, producer's surplus is 10-5=5 units. Here I want to
address the cost of a woman here is opportunity cost, equivalent to accounting
cost, because selling sex is the only job for women. Woman and man both can
benefit from this deal. Not everyone may be happy with the outcome of this sex-service
process. Because man always wants a lower price while woman want a higher
price, the interests of the two groups conflict. These views are not
surprising: Buyers always want to pay less, free sex best, and sellers always
want to be paid more. But is there a “right price” for both of them? How are
the gains from trade shared between the trading parties? I think the price need
not be exactly in the middle for both parties to gain, but it must be somewhere
between 5 and 20, because the surplus of both are positive. Prostitution is always
spontaneous and an equilibrium between two sexes from beginning to end. A
competitive market is economically efficient because it maximizes aggregate
consumer and producer surplus. We begin with Pareto efficient allocation,
analyzing the exchange between two sexes. First, I want to address that in P-V
model, woman is always the seller of sex-service, and man is always the buyer
of sex-service, and P-V model is one-way trade. In in the following Figure 3.1,
each point describes the market baskets of both sexes. Man's holdings are read
from the origin at O<sub>M</sub> and woman's holdings in the reverse direction
from the origin at O<sub>W</sub>. For example, point A represents the initial
allocation of money and sex resourse. This assum ption is reasonable, because
vagina, as an endowment, was given by God, and so far, most of wealth is in the
hands of men, and both of them can make themselves better off by trading with each
other. In this case, the initial allocation of Point A is economically inefficient.
We can also see the effect of prostitution. Man gives up <st1:chmetcnv hasspace="False" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="1" tcsc="0" unitname="m" w:st="on">1M</st1:chmetcnv> in exchange for 1S, moving from A to B. Woman gives
up 1S and obtains <st1:chmetcnv hasspace="False" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="1" tcsc="0" unitname="m" w:st="on">1M</st1:chmetcnv>, also
moving from A to B. Point B thus represents the market baskets of both man and woman
after the mutually beneficial trade.</span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j15FqDcIvdA/XGQ0PurCApI/AAAAAAAACis/QDau72AolqwSmXWscFVxKhysCuU7Ox_NACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E6%2580%25A7%25E4%25BA%25A4%25E6%2598%2593%25E7%259A%2584%25E8%2587%25AA%25E5%258F%2591%25E6%2580%25A73.1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1133" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j15FqDcIvdA/XGQ0PurCApI/AAAAAAAACis/QDau72AolqwSmXWscFVxKhysCuU7Ox_NACLcBGAs/s320/%25E6%2580%25A7%25E4%25BA%25A4%25E6%2598%2593%25E7%259A%2584%25E8%2587%25AA%25E5%258F%2591%25E6%2580%25A73.1.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">The above Figure 3.1 (Edgeworth Box) illustrates the
possibilities for both sexes to increase their satisfaction by prostitution. If
A gives the initial allocation of resources, the shaded area describes all
mutually beneficial trades. Starting at A, any trade that moved the allocation
outside the shaded area would make one of the two sexes worse off and should
not occur (if women are rational, and there is no free sex-service in the world).
The move from A to B was mutually beneficial. But B is not an efficient point
because indifference curves U<sub>M</sub><sup>2</sup>and U<sub>W</sub><sup>2</sup>intersect.
In this case, man's and woman's MRSs are not the same and the allocation is not
efficient. From point B the additional trade is made, with man giving up another
unit of money to obtain another unit of sex-service and woman giving up a unit
of sex-service for a unit of money. Point C gives the new allocation. At C, the
MRSs of both people are identical, because at point C the indifference curves
are tangent. Trading money for sex-service and thereby moving from point B to
point C has allowed man and woman to achieve a Pareto efficient outcome, and
they will both be better off. When the indifference curves are tangent, one
person cannot be made better off without making the other person worse off.
Therefore, C represents an efficient allocation. Of course, point C is not the
only possible efficient outcome of a bargain between two sexes. For example, if
man is an effective bargainer, a trade mignt change the allocation from A to D,
where indifference curve U<sub>M</sub><sup>3</sup>is tangent to indifference
curve U<sub>W</sub><sup>1</sup>. This allocation would leave woman no worse off
than she was at point A and man much better off. Conversely, if woman is an
effective bargainer, a trade mignt change the allocation from A to E, where
indifference curve U<sub>M</sub><sup>1</sup>is tangent to indifference curve U<sub>W</sub><sup>4</sup>.
This allocation would leave man no worse off than he was at point A and woman
much better off. Thus D and E are both efficient allocations, although man prefers
D to E and woman E to D. In general, it is difficult to predict the allocation
that will be reached in a bargain because the end result depends on the
bargaining abilities of the people involved. Notice here: three allocations
labeled C, D, and E are Pareto efficient, although each involves a different
distribution of money and sex resourse, because one person could not be made
better off without making someone else worse off. Once a point on a contract
curve, such as C, has been chosen, there is no way to move to another point on
the contract curve, say E or D, without making one person worse off. At present
most of women, with economic independent, go out to work to support
themselves, and it means they provides free sex-service for husbands in a sense.
Let's assume point C presents prostitution, and moving from C to D means man
gets money and sex at the same time and woman losses money and sex at the same
time. It would't happen if woman is rational, because free sex-service is
strictly dominated by pay sex-service. Lesson 1 of The Game Theory: Do not play
a strictly dominated strategy. In other word, a strictly dominated</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> strategy is not stable strategy in evolution.
Game between two sexes tends to converge down towards prostitution, and
underlying idea is that, woman is born to prostitute, and man to whoremaster. Neither
has any incentive to move away, when man and woman reach equilibrium, because
now either is playing a best response to each other. In equilibrium, woman must
refuse to provide sex-servcie if man stops paying, and man must refuse to pay
if woman stops providing sex, because it is in self-interest to do so. There is
no profitable deviation for each in prostitution because other player must
react to it, and equilibrium of prostitution can be a self-enforcing agreement. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Hysteresis of
evolution</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Irrational people must abuse the freedom, if they are given the
right to use freedom. That is</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">the truth, cruel
truth about why government wants to</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">liberate
women from patriarchy. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Now,
woman has already economic independence, but still man's sex-slave; the two
sexes have never shared the world in equality, and relationship between sexes
enters pseudo-equilibrium. The evolution of women's rights is accompanied by human
civilization. You must admit that brute force is on the side of the males. When
she had become aware of how weak she really was, she lost most of her
assurance; this began her evolution towards femininity, in which she assumed
her passivity and accepted dependency. You could find that the more savage
society, the more anxious the woman enters marriage. In the countryside of China,
there is unanimous agreement that getting a husband – or in some cases a “protector”
– is for her the most important of undertakings; on the contrary, women are not
in a hurry to get married in big city like Beijing, Shanghai. You must admit this
is the progress of Chinese legal system. Feminist always believe that
patriarchal society gave all the feminine functions the aspect of a service,
and woman can escape slavery only after the collapse of patriarchal. But unfortunately,
the opposite is true: woman changes into free prostitute from paid prostitute. We
must wait patiently for the imposture to be exposed. Additionally, the affirmative
strategy, chosen by God, is one step at a time. Because woman has been alienated
for many years, she is indeed inferior to man. God gave a small number of people
the right to live under the survival of the fittest, and then spread the survival
right to all people; God gave a small number of men the right to spread their genes
under polygamy, and then spread the reproduction right to all people now; God
gave all men the right to enjoy the sex release, and must spread the privilege
to women sooner or later. Be patient, women have been a long and unchanging
slavery history; of course, you can't change that over night. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">After woman
gets economic independence, in a sensible world woman must
refuse to provide sex-service immediately, but habit is second nature, and woman's
behavior is driven by inertia. We must admit there is big lag in human social evolution,
but economic freedom is the premise of spiritual freedom. In the past, she has
no gainful occupation, no legal capacities, no personal relations, even her
name is hers no longer; she is nothing but her husband's half; she has been required
to involve herself wholly in her marriage, and a married woman is on her guard
against young women to steal her job, the only thing she would do to keep alive
is to catch a husband, and she learns that her erotic attractiveness is the
weakest of her weapons, so she has to use make-up and nail-polish in order to
keep a husband. In nature, she has to make money from pandering man. In ancient
China, women struggle with each other in the palace in order to please emperor;
behind this phenomenon actually women compete for power and status, instead of
a man just with a penis. Nowadays woman losses benefit of prostitutes, but maintains
the attribute of prostitute. In other words, woman retains the attributes of
commodities for use and consumption, but loses the price of commodities. This
is the most unfortunate point for women. I agree with this view there is no
true friendship between women, because they are not subject at all. While women
are confined within their general feminine lot and are bound together by a kind
of immanent complicity. They negate the sexual domination of the males by
admitting their frigidity to one another, while deriding the men's desires or
their clumsiness. Women's fellow feeling rarely rises to genuine friendship, because
they know they are potential competitors for pandering men, and their relations
are not founded on their individualities, but immediately experienced in
generality; and from this arises at once an element of hostility. There exists
also a hostile rivalry between them, and she wants to be thought irreplaceable,
indispensable. Many women are together just to kill time, and they prudently
avoid intimates once they are in love. In a state of uncertainty, every woman
is a rival, a danger. Love destroys the possibility of friendship with other
women because the woman in love is shut off in her lover's universe; jealousy increases
her isolation and thereby narrows her dependence. This ambivalence makes it
hardly possible for women to repose much confidence in their mutual feelings. In
fact, in my eyes they are all free prostitutes, and I am not interested in
being free prostitutes at all. It would be quite wrong to suppose that woman
escapes slavery in having economic independence; on the contrary, she is doomed
not to get rid of the slavery and live only in fear and servility. In any case,
the woman who works wishes to reconcile her professional success with purely
feminine accomplishments; not only does this mean that she must devote
considerable time to her appearance, and she will give only what is strictly
necessary to her studies, her career. Everything combines to restrain her
personal ambition, and enormous social pressure still urges her on to find
social position and justification in marriage. He is first a citizen, a
producer, secondly a husband; she is before all and often exclusively, a wife;
her word does not take her out of her situation. You will find an interesting
phenomenon in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>:
Many highly educated professional women choose to give up the career
and enter professional housewives after marriage. Why is that? Because she is
not in equilibrium and suffers more losses in current situation. On the one
hand, woman has to work outside to support family; one the other hand, woman is
still be a nanny, housekeeper and sex slaves, so woman has to choose to return
home in order to keep previous equilibrium and she is content to be there. That
is a rational decision. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Men act as liberating hero. After woman finding herself
still trapped in slavery circle when she was liberated in economy, man claims
that woman could also be liberated in sexuality. Woman begins to blindly learn
man's sexual openness and free-love. Not surprisingly, men are still
beneficiaries in this liberation movement. She would fain escape these aspects
of her past: be passive in sexuality, and she wants to be a sovereign subject
at once in sexuality: be active. She is made a fool of
again. In order to achieve the aim, various cults arise like G-spot, female
multiple orgasms and so on. This is the reason why woman has a double and
deceptive visage: in order to be exalted she must be downtrodden. This is the
best way to keep legitimacy of P-V model which is benefial for man only. Is
this a case of double standards? Yes, it is, but ignorant women still accept
this hypocrisy and double standards. He demands that she confesses her pleasure
and recognizes her subjection, and encourage woman to mimic dominance in sex
movements, but she still fails to reach the climax of pleasure. From a more or
less unsatisfactory affair a man is almost sure of obtaining at least the
benefit of sex pleasure; a woman can very well obtain no benefit at all. Aristotle
fancied that the foetus arose from the union of sperm and menstrual blood,
woman furnishing only passive matter while the male principle contributed force,
activity, movement, life. Hegel held that the two sexes were of necessity
different, the one active and the other passive, and of course the female would
be the passive one. 'Thus man, in consequence of that differentiation, is the
active principle while woman is the passive principle because she remains
undeveloped in her unity.' Yes, they are right, because in P-V model, women are
needed to be passive when men vent his turpitude upon her. In other word, what
a man need in sex release is just a passive hole. In woman's value, men are not
my fellows; they are persons who judge me. In addition, woman starts to cheat
her husband to imitate man's deception. Woman's infidelity is always a mode of
revenge and imitation. That is going too far, but unquestionably she wonders
whether she can enjoy different pleasures with others, and she is likely to
finish her orgasm education in some other bed. The suckers are doomed to be
exploited by cheats, and no one can change that. Ignorance is the only soil
that produces tyranny. In both cases she lacks any grasp on the world; she does
not escape her destiny; her liberty remains frustrated. In short, 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. As a result, women don't get what they
want in the sexual liberation movement, but they loss what they used to have
because they don't know what you want. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Perhaps the myth of female
orgasm will some day be extinguished; the more women assert themselves as human
beings, the more the marvellous quality of the prey will die out in them. If
one day woman give up disguising herself as a symbol, she would be regarded as a
normal human being as same as man, and then she can find the aggressive
sexuality back. By the way, according my experience, sexual release is
aggressive movement with transcendence. I have to admit that pseudo-equilibrium
is a necessary stage to the next real equilibrium. There is no short cut in
evolution. I bet if you caused the most frigidity of women to feel what I feel,
they would at once give up their false pleasures to enjoy such true delight. What
all women seek is not only a transcendence, but also a redemption of their
femininity. They must reject the limitations of their situation and seek to
open the road of the future. It remains only for women to continue their
ascent, and the successes they are obtaining are an encouragement for them to
do so. It seems almost certain that sooner or later they will arrive at
complete economic and social equality, which will bring about an inner
metamorphosis. Men have been led, in their own interest, to give partial
emancipation to women. In truth woman has not been socially emancipated through
man's need—sexual desire and the desire for offspring—which makes the male
dependent for satisfaction upon the female. Master and slave, also, are united
by a reciprocal need, in this case economic, which does not liberate the slave.
In the relation of master to slave the master does not make a point of the need
that he has for the other; he has in his grasp the power of satisfying this
need through his own action; whereas the slave, in his dependent condition, his
hope and fear, is quite conscious of the need he has for his master. Being
liberated is never a real liberation. Women are falling into the trap of the
Utopia of “free woman”. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Women VS Proletariat</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">Is the woman
really liberated? Simone de Beauvoir wrote that in <i>the second sex</i>:</span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">The parallel drawn by Bebel between women and the proletariat is valid in
that neither ever formed a minority or a separate collective unit of mankind…
They are women in virtue of their anatomy and physiology. Throughout history
they have always been subordinated to men, and hence their dependency is not
the result of a historical event or a social change—it was not something that
occurred…. Equality cannot be re-established until the two sexes enjoy equal
rights in law; but this enfranchisement requires participation in general
industry by the whole female sex…. Marx believe that woman can be emancipated
only when she can take part on a large social scale in production and is
engaged in domestic work only to an insignificant degree. And this has become
possible only in the big industry of modern times, which not only admits of
female labour on a grand scale but even formally demands it... Thus the fate of
woman and that of socialism are intimately bound up together, as is shown also
in Bebel's great work on woman. 'Woman and the proletariat,' he says, 'are both
downtrodden.'… And when the socialist society is established throughout the
world, there will no longer be men and women, but only workers on a footing of
equality…. Similarly, it is not clear that the institution of private property
must necessarily have involved the enslavement of women…. Marx and Engels
gauged its whole range, and they promised women a liberation implied in that of
the proletariat…. As the swift growth of industry demanded a larger working
force than the males alone could furnish, the collaboration of women became
necessary…. That was the grand revolution of the nineteenth century, which
transformed the lot of woman and opened for her a new era…. In fact, 'woman and
the worker have this in common: that they are both oppressed,' said Bebel….
Engels showed that the lot of woman has been closely tied to the history of
private property<a name="_Hlk486244886">…. </a></span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Actually, Beauvoir did not agree with the above point
of view, she believes that between the cause of the proletariat and that of
women there was no such immediate solidarity as Bebel and Engels claimed. I do
agree with Beauvoir. Because of the labor crisis in World War I, more and more
women have to work outside. War is like any unexpected event, where some people
can benefit from at expense of others' losses. In making this decision, men have
to weigh two effects: substitution effect and Income effect. In one hand, men
will meet many competitors if let women go out to work, and they face the
threat of losing their jobs; but one the other hand, women can earn money to
support their families, and men can also benefit from it. To be honest, letting
women to work outside is the choice of man's weighing the pros and cons on his
own interest, and men never liberated women. The reason is simple this is a
zero-sum game between two sexes, where the contradiction between them is deeply
rooted and irreconcilable. Dawkins wrote that in Chapter 9 battle of the sexes “If
there is conflict of interest between parents and children, who share 50 per
cent of each others' genes, how much more severe must be the conflict between
mates, who are not related to each other? I agree with Trivers that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">sexual partnership is a
relationship of mutual mistrust and mutual exploitation. Let us think about why
the proletariat wants to liberate women? Marx believed that the elimination of
private ownership will solve some of the contradictions. I admit that private
ownership must cause women to be enslaved, but does the public ownership really
liberate women? I don't think so. The main reason why the proletariat liberates
women is catering to the majority of proletarian men, because under patriarchy
girl's ownership is in the hand of her father who is a selfish and rational
person and can not let his daughter marry a poor guy. Liberating women means
destroying patriarchy and then senting women to proletarian men. Frankly
speaking, the purpose of the proletarian revolution is just for money and women,
and I bet no one would follow a leader to revolute if he doesn't promise a utopian
future. Of course, the only prerequisite for the existence of cheats is the
existence of suckers. Secondary reason why the proletariat liberates women is catering
to all ignorant women. Under patriarchy woman was always kept at home by her
father, and she didn't have any insight or any social experience, so she attributed
her misfortune and being oppressed to patriarchy instead of inherent
contradiction between two sexes. As a result, ignorant women were bewitched to revolt the
patriarchy, because proletariat makes her to believe that she and her father
have antagonistic interests rather than common interests. Women are always
credulous and gullible. Instead of being liberated, woman became a free
prostitute, polyandry and public good in socialism. After the victory of the
proletarian revolution, wind direct changed again. These ancient patriarchal
restraints are just what Soviet Russia has brought back today; <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Russia</st1:place></st1:country-region> has
revived the paternalistic concepts of marriage. And in doing so, she has been
induced to ask woman once more to make of herself an erotic object: in a recent
pronouncement, female Soviet citizens were requested to pay careful attention
to their garb, to use make-up, to employ the arts of coquetry in holding their
husbands and fanning the flame of desire. Marx believed that</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">the elimination of private ownership is equal to the
elimination of all contradictions, but the fact is that the elimination of
private ownership can only eliminate some contradictions at the expense of the
interests of others. To be honest, women don't deserve sympathy, because limited
intelligence is flawed in her whole life. Evolution tells us that s</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">uckers must be driven to
extinction sooner or later. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In my eyes, proletarian revolution is also a kind of democratic.
The essence of democracy is the tyranny of the majority to the minority; on the
contrary the essence of dictatorship is the tyranny of the minority to the
majority. Dictatorship is not the worst system, and democracy is not the best
system either. Women are just out of
the frying pan, but into the
fire. Ignorant women are short-sighted and exploited by proletariat, falling
into more miserable situation. The enslavement of women is due to Co-evolution
between sexes, instead of private property, and now women don't get any benefit
from the collapse of patriarchy. Men have always held the lot of woman in their
hands; and they have determined what it should be, not according to her
interest, but rather with regard to their own projects, their fears, and their
needs. 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. As long as woman stays in P-V model, she is for man a
sexual partner, a reproducer, an erotic object, an Other. No one can change
that, including me. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Prisoner's dilemma between
sexes</span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Stuart Muller believed
that marriage is the only remaining example of slavery and even worse than
slavery. Where should we go? Can we go back to previous equilibrium? I am
afraid not. In the past, women don't go out for work, and man takes for granted
that after marriage he has the obligation to support the woman or at least
helps her financially because he vents his turpitude upon her, but nowadays due
to the cult of “G-spot” or “Vagina orgasm”, man refuse to support the woman
financially and ask going Dutch during marriage because he thinks women can
also benefit from P-V model. Man dresses himself up as Giver; even believes women
should give him money after sexual intercourse. The problem is on woman. Man is
not wrong to maximize his payoff and minimize his cost. As long as woman keeps foolish,
pseudo-equilibrium will continue. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Now the relationship bet</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ween two sexes formal entried the pseudo-equilibrium: Women
still keep the property of goods consumed by men, but loss the price of goods. To
be honest, I prefer to decline entering into such a compact with anyone, because
I can't profit from it. The fact is that today neither men nor women are
satisfied with each other. We deny there is an original curse that condemns
them to rend each other and the existence of a rivalry between the human male
and female of a truly physiological nature, and it is inevitable conflicts in
which they are opposed merely mark a transitional moment in human history, and instead
we instil the idea of “Love” into women's mind in order to maintain this pseudo-equilibrium
where the sexual act was not to be considered a “service” to be paid for. Many
modern women who lay claim to their dignity as human beings still envisage their
erotic life from the standpoint of a tradition of slavery. Her condition has
remained the same through superficial changes, and it is this condition that woman
gets some so-called dignity but at expense of losing money. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Actually men are painful
at present. In the past, woman has no any rights to say no when her hasband
asks for sex-service. Someone remarks that there are certainly more rapes
committed in marriage than outside it. But now marital rape has been considered
as a crime in many countrys, according to the idea of human righ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">ts. As a result, woman </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">always choose refusal
instead of docility from her deep heart, because she still has inferior a
feeling of inferiority a sense of frustration in P-V model and view sex as a
chore. She has to yield to the male's authority, but trys to refuse obedience. Tha</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">t “obedience” is legally no longer one of her
duties in no way changes her situation; for this depends not on the will of
human but on the lot. Women hate for ever a man 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. 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”. The key is woman's erotic capabilities are not rooted in P-V
model which chosen as reproduction model by God. 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. In addition, prostitution is regarded as illegal activity, so husband
suffers a serious dilemma. Under the patriarchy, woman has no rights to divorce,
and a man holds the ownership of woman for her whole life after buying her from
her father at the expanse of bride-price, but now man is not willing to pay the
price, because the validity of marital contract is ambiguous in current
marriage system. Man also has no sense of security, what if she divorces me the
day after wedding day? Marriage is a kind of prostitution under patriarchy and
polygamy with explicit rights, duties and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">the date of maturity</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> without marital rape, human rights or love,
but now marriage is a kind of free prostitution under feminism and monogamy
without explicit rights, duties and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">the date of maturity. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">No one is a fool from long-run view. But if her
experience enables her to unmask deceits and lies, it is not sufficient to show
her the truth. Of course they need a Savior, and here I am. When one fails to
adhere to an accepted code, one becomes an insurgent. Woman who does not wish
to appear eccentric will conform to the usual rules.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">The problem of prostitution</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">As a matter
of public policy, many societies make it illegal for women to sell their sex-service.
In essence, in the market for sex-service, the government has imposed a price ceiling
of zero. The result, as with any binding price ceiling, is a shortage of the good.
Why do so many governments ban prostitution? And why does prostitution still exist
in any country? Let me give you my view step by step. Who will gain from free
sex-service and who will lose? Obviously, all men are beneficiaries, because at
least they can get free sex-service from a woman under the conditions that (1)
Women must be into a heterosexual monogamy; (2) Sex ratio is 1:1. On the
contrary, all women are losers, because they loss the opportunity to sell her natural
resources givn by God. In this situation, the rational woman's best response should
be exit the free sex-service market, which is with neither pays nor receives. To
be honest, Sex ratio out of balance is not the key of left man crisis in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>,
and the biggest crisis is that women choose to exit the free sex-service
market. Who will gain from paid sex-service and who will lose? The critics of the
legalization of prostitution worry about fairness. A market for sex-service, they
argue, would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor because women would
then be allocated to those most willing and able to pay. Obviously rich men and
all women are beneficiaries and poor men are losers. Rich men can buy many sex-services
from different women. For women, paid sex-service strictly dominates free
sex-service, as a rational person, the only thing she need to do is deleting
dominated strategy. You can find a common phenomenon that the poorer the man
is, the more he wants to talk about love, because he can't afford the price. That
is the only one reason why prostitutes don't want to make friends with them,
because women don't want to provide free sex-service. Rich man doesn't talk
about love, but the only price enough. In my view, any fuck without money is
deluded fuck by poor guys. What would happen if the legalization of
prostitution all over the world? It threatens the current marriage system
immediately, because free sex-service, as a dominated strategy, must be deleted
by woman right away. Like I proved before, prostitution is always equilibrium
between two sexes from beginning to end, and women are born to prostitutes, and
men to whoremasters. Summary, you can't believe in modern civilization, prostitution
is forbidden in many countries, the real reason is men collude together to
force women to provide free sex-service under the guise of love. This is a huge
conspiracy. Additional, what I can't understand is lots of countries ban
prostitution but allow premarital sex. According to wikipedia: </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 9pt;">Premarital sex is sexual activity practiced by people who are unmarried.
Historically, premarital sex was considered a moral issue which was taboo in
many cultures and considered a sin by a number of religions, but since about
the 1960s, it has become more widely accepted, especially in Western countries.
A 2014 Pew study on global morality found that premarital sex was considered
particularly unacceptable in "predominantly Muslim nations", such as
Malaysia, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan and Egypt, each having over 90%
disapproval, while people in Western European countries were the most
accepting, with Spain, Germany and France expressing less than 10% disapproval.The
Roman Catholic Church calls premarital sex a deadly sin, that must be forgiven
in confession.</span></p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">What is the fucking
logic? If a woman provides the same services in bed, it is illegal to charge men
but legal not to charge men? How absurb the logic is! If you ban prostitution,
you must ban any non-marital sex, including premarital sex and adultery. That
is following the same logic. I was surprised to find that West is not all
correct and Muslim nations are not all wrong. In Muslim, some versions of
Sharia law require that married or divorce persons found guilty of Zina
(adultery) be executed by stoning or honor killing. An honor killing or a shame
killing is the homicide of a member of a family, due to the perpetrators'
belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, or has
violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually for reasons such
as refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is
disapproved by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim
of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate. Now I can understand
why premarital sexual intercourse is viewed as sexual offense, and deserve a
sentence of stoning to death or severe flogging or honor killing. The answer is
simple: Free services disrupt normal market order of trade. I haven't done any
research about that, but I guess the fathers who have daughters and rich man in
upper class are both hate premarital sex and adultery best, because almost all premarital
sex and adultery are free and they are the victims of free sex-services. You
can find that only poor men and ignorant women praise love, because one of them
is Cheats and the other is Suckers, and they will destroy the market order. As
a result, fathers and rich man, as Grudgers, must try to maintain market order.
I don't agree with the honor killing, but I understand. You must think I'm
cold-blooded, but that's the truth. Irrational women disturbed normal economic
market order because any free goods and services do. I strongly recommend that
American should use the brain to think why a civilization lasted for so many years
before condemning it or total repudiation. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I bet
prostitute exists in every country, just aboveground or underground economy. Why?
Answer this question with a typical economic language: where there is a demand,
there will be a supply. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">“The underground is a good measure of the progress and the health
of nations,” Schlosser writes. “When much is wrong, much needs to be hidden.” Schlosser's
implication was that much is wrong in the United States. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">How are the gains from trade shared between
the trading parties? For both parties to gain from trade, the price at which
they trade must lie between the two opportunity costs. Both sexes can gain by
opening up trade and specializing based on comparative advantage. I am united
in the support of free sex trade. Who would be prostitutes after the truth of
female orgasm becomes known to all public? The principle of
comparative advantage states that sex service should be produced by the women who
have the smaller opportunity cost of providing sex service. This process is the
professionalization of sex workers. Don't make me wrong, I approve of the
legalization of prostitution, but it doesn't mean every woman must sell sex for
survival, what I want to do is to fight for a right that women can sell a
natural resource givn by God for survival. What is the price of sex-service? The
price need not be exactly in the middle for both parties to gain in a mutually
advantageous trade, but it must be somewhere between them. These two people can
bargain face to face and allocate surplus between them. Vagina, as a scarce resource
with asymmetry, only belongs to woman. The more scarce resource is, the more
valuable. The only difference between
prostitution and those women, who enter P-V model, is in the price of contract;
one is providing paid sex-service and the other is providing free sex service.
In fact, the institution of marriage was also a form of prostitution. As a defender
of free market, I have two principles of sex-service to state: one is both adult;
two is both voluntary. “Consenting adults should be able to make economic
trades when they think it is to their mutual advantage,” said Greg Mankiw, a
Harvard economics professor. Adam Smith called it “the invisible hand”</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">—<span lang="EN-US">the mysterious power that leads innumerable
people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many. Out
of the seeming chaos of millions of uncoordinated private transactions emerges
the spontaneous order of the market. Free human beings freely interact, and the
result is an array of goods and services more immense than the human mind can comprehend.
Indeed, the more an economy is planned, the more it is plagued by shortages,
dislocation, and failure.</span></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Since we can't eliminate
prostitution, we should try to regulate it and treate sex work much like any
other kind of work. No doubt many of you work for a living. Sex work is work
too. What is important is that they have the right to work safely and on explicit
terms. They want full decriminalization and labor rights as other workers. To
be honest, I believe that most of prostitutes are poor women, because in
selling sex they have to lay down dignity. Most of those people would tell you
that selling sex is degrading; there should be a law against it. People have
all kinds of complicated feelings when it comes to sex. The legalization of
prostitution is beneficial for the whole society. Both <st1:city w:st="on">St.
Augustine</st1:city> and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">St. Thomas</st1:place></st1:city>
asserted that the suppression of prostitution would mean the disruption of
society by debauch: 'Prostitutes are to a city what sewers are to a palace.' In
the early Middle Ages the mores were so licentious that whores were hardly
needed; but when the bourgeois family was estabhshed and rigorous monogamy
became the rule, a man had to look for pleasure outside the home. Schopenhauer
was to put it pompously: Prostitutes are human sacrifices on the altar of
monogamy. In my view, the greatest advantage of legalization of prostitution
lies in breaking up the whole into parts. You can recall the Figure 1.7 that men's
consumption preference I drawed in chapter 1. Because of the lifelong marriage
now, lots of men don't have the money to buy a lifetime sex-service from a
woman, and his budget line must reach the red line for one woman. What about his
income is lower than the red line? He can vent his sex release through
prostitution, because prostitution is one shot game. Here I'll give you another
analogy to help you to understand it. Buying house and renting house. Not
everyone can afford to buy a house of their own, because it costs you a lot of
money at once, but you can choose to rent a house, and you only have to pay a
small amount of rent every month. Renting has a great advantage that you can
try different houses. You know what I mean. To be honest, I don't really
believe in morality and law, but in a free market based on rational traders. If
there is a desire, there must be a transaction to satisfy this desire and
ultimately the market formed accordingly whatever legal or illegal, moral or
immoral what they called efficient markets. The transaction price reflects all
the available possible information under two key premises: (1) both sides are
rational traders; (2) they have symmetric information; and they must reach
equilibrium state, in particular some transaction which last thousands of years:
prostitution. Only in this trade both parties are expected to gain. To be
honest, we should pay more attention to the safety of prostitutes because
prostitutes who go out alone is very dangerous. Recommend you to see a Korean
movie: The Chaser (</span><span style="font-family: Batang, serif;">추격자</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">) 2008. Keep in mind
that women are always the victims of violent civilization because of the
physical weakness. In ancient China, prostitutes were working in brothels,
which were manipulated in strong men. These men not only played the role of
pimp, but also played a role in protecting prostitutes. In essence, the relationship
between these men and the prostitutes is symbiotic, because without protection of
the muscles, after ejaculation the clients must decline to pay. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">The essence of marriage is contract. Where does the
relationship between sexes head in future?
First going monogamy tenure must collapse finally, because it is not an
equilibrium. Like prisoners' dilemma, in monogamy both of sexes have the
incentive to cheat. In the language of game theory, women can be better off
selling sex, and men can be better off buying sex, so it is difficult to
estabilish and maintain cooperation between two sexes. Lack of cooperation is
desirable from the standpoint of society as a whole. Put differently, the
invisible hand guides markets to allocate resources efficiently only when
markets are competitive, and markets are competitive only when firms in the
market fail to cooperate with one another. Second, with the refinement of
division of labor, women are also divided into different occupations: some of
them are professional prostitutes; some of them are professional surrogate
mother; some of them are professional doctor; some of them are professional
teachers. If the time of 20<sup>th</sup> Century is the time of emancipation of
the black slaves, 21<sup>th</sup> Century must be the time of emancipation of
sex slaves. True equality between the two sexes does not exist even today, and
now marriage becomes pseudo-equilibrium where the burdens weigh much more
heavily upon woman than upon man. It can bring you a lot of benefits, if you
take some time to get used to the logic of economic thinking. You will find an
interesting phenomenon is that Socialism and Capitalism have different attitudes
towards the two things: One is money, and the other is sex. Socialist countries
educate people to despise these two things which are a violation of human
nature; on the contrary capitalist country educate people to persue these two
things which are human nature. Except in the Soviet Union, China and North
Korea, modern woman is everywhere permitted to regard her body as capital for
exploitation. Prostitution is tolerated in lots of European countries. Let's go
back to America, so-called the most advanced civilization. I believe that
almost all-American economists oppose such barriers to free trade, but monogamy
and prohibition of prostitution are both such barriers to free sex trade.
America has always advocated free trade, but why only set a restriction on sex
trade? Does the U. S. government really know what justice is? I will talk about
it in next chapter. </span></p></div>
<span style="font-size: 14px;"></span></div>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-23739259315386110252019-02-13T06:53:00.003-08:002023-05-02T22:15:48.872-07:00Chapter 2: Monogamy<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Why
monogamy arises</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;">In the polygamy
part, the actions of buyers and sellers naturally move sex-service markets
toward the equilibrium of supply and demand. Thus, the activities of the many
buyers and sellers automatically push the market price toward the equilibrium
price. Once the market reaches its equilibrium, all buyers and sellers are
satisfied, and there is no upward or downward pressure on the price. But like I
said before the essence of market economy is to kick unqualified buyers and unqualified
sellers out of the market. There are still poor people there, who can't afford
the equilibrium price. What would happen if there are many buyers who can't
afford the equilibrium price? Why did war massacre gradually disappear in human
history? Don't tell me it's because people love peace, the stupid. Why do
humans choose to live in groups? If animals live together in groups their genes
must get more benefit out of the association than they put in. The evolution in
itself has no place for cooperative interactions. There is no altruism here,
only selfish exploitation by each individual of every other individual.
Similarly, with the division of labor and trade, top men need more and more goods
and services provided by bottom men otherwise they must choose to kill the
bottom men instead of letting them alive. In other words, with the expansion of
transaction civilization and the development of capitalism, the ruler and the
lower males gradually formed a parasitic relationship. We can also view this as
a classical application of the idea of 'cruel bind'. Of course, this is also a
price. The price, for the male ruler, is to give up some women's right to use,
on the surface at least, because we can view the sex satisfaction as a
necessity for men's living. In other words, with the division of labor, the
bottom males gave me more and more social values which are more useful than extra
women were to me. What would the mass do if without sex satisfaction? Resorting
to violence civilization. So, the deal was made between men because trade can
make both better off, contract civilization through purchase limit had to compromise
violence civilization once again. Apparently, who is going to be the loser and who
is going to be the beneficiary of the purchase limit?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">I can assert that monogamy
also arose in the revolt, at least recessive revolt. Let me make up a story,
maybe real story. The power of a good story is that it dispels common
confusions. With the division of labor and trade, men increasingly depend on
each other economically, so massacre gradually disappeared, more and more bottom
men can survive in the society, and we can regard this progress as a spread of
survival rights. Just because of this spread of survival rights, women are formally
into devaluation cycle. Here you may be confused by my saying, and definitely
believe that how wonderful peace is, but the opposite is the truth, because
this spread is result of lowering of standards, and lowering of standards
must cause chaos. Do you remember that the most notorious incident took place
during 2016 year's New Year's Eve celebrations in Cologne, where wide-scale
sexual assaults took place? Why? What are root causes of this crime? It is easy
to answer: lowering standard of survival rights or excessively spread of
survival rights. All troubles in humans start with this reason. I will talk
about my opinion about the problems Westerner facing later, now let's go back
to monogamy. As sex satisfaction is almost living necessities, at least for me,
it means when men have survival rights already, they are not satisfied with just
survival rights, and then they ask for mating rights. Lots of men at the bottom
of society, who can't afford the equilibrium price of a woman in polygamy, organized
violent revolts against the men who at the top of the society. In Microeconomics,
for some goods, however, one person's demand also depends on the demands of
other people. In particular, a person's demand may be affected by the number of
other people who have purchased the good. If this is the case, there exists externality.
Apparently, woman-consuming has this property, because sex ratio has been designed
to 1:1 by God, if a man has 10 wives, it means 9 men can't have a woman. At
last, after weighing all pros and cons, the top men chose to compromise for
their own interests, because life is much more valuable than extra sex-service,
and they abolished polygamy and established monogamy, and women could be used
as a bargaining chip to exchange the social stability. In short, the bottom men,
as The Luddite Revolt, kidnapped top men using “cruel bind” idea, and polygamy was
the placebos to pacify the bottom men and women became comfort women. As a
result, polygamy was practiced. Engels said that the marriage system is to
ensure that every man has his own slaves. To be precise, monogamy can guarantee
that every man has his own slaves and polygamy cannot. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">How Supply-demand curves shift in the change from polygamy to monogamy </span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">What about
other buyers who can't afford the equilibrium price in free market? What if
this product or service is necessities? How does the government use policies to
satisfy them? To be honest, purchase restriction is a not common means because
authorities usually choose price control and t</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">axes to intervened in the free
market.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> The policy makers
sometimes restrict free trade is by putting limits on how much of a good can be
bought. What is the nature of monogamy? Sex service purchasing limitations. To
see why, consider an analogy. Ferrari cars are regarded the most expensive cars
in the world, and one day all governments join together and make an announcement:
Each person can only buy a Ferrari car, the second car is forbidden. What would
happen next? After the words like “son of bitch”, what would the company
of Ferrari choose to do as a counter-strategy? First, in short-run Ferrari
choose mark-down sale to clear inventory; second, in long-run they must choose reduction
of cars and exit the market. Restriction is a common means to pander to the
public in history. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In a planned economy such as that of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Cuba</st1:country-region>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on">North Korea</st1:country-region>, or the former <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place>, these allocation decisions are made mostly
by the government. To be honest, monogamy is a kind of planned economic policy,
instead of market economy. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Similarly,
let's examine how supply-demand curves shift in the change from polygamy to monogamy.
As same as other economic problem, when analyzing how some event affects the
equilibrium in a market, we proceed in three steps. First, we decide whether
the event shifts the supply curve, the demand curve, or, in some cases, both
curves. Second, we decide whether the curve shifts to the right or to the left.
Third, we use the supply-and-demand diagram to compare the initial and the new
equilibrium. </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">(1) We can
see Figure 2.1 and suppose the market for girls begins in a long-run
equilibrium under both patriarchy and polygamy. Fathers are earning zero
profit, so price equals the minimum of average total cost. The long-run
equilibrium is point A, the quantity sold in the market is Q<sub>1</sub>, and the
price is P<sub>1</sub> as shown in following figure (a) in initial condition. In
panel (a), each father makes zero profit, and so there is no incentive for old father
to exit the market or for new father to enter. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">(2) When some
event shifts one of these curves, the equilibrium in the market changes,
resulting in a new price and a new quantity exchanged between buyers and
sellers. The essence of monogamy is the restriction policy of sex service purchasing.
At any given price, buyers would now only purchase one woman at one time, and any
change that reduces the quantity demanded at every price shifts the demand
curve to the left. In other words, the demand curve shifts to the left and the supply
curve remains the same. An event that reduces quantity demanded at any given price
shifts the supply curve to the left. The equilibrium price falls, and the
equilibrium quantity falls as well. Panel (b) shows what happens in the short
run when demand falls from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub>. The equilibrium goes
from point A to point B, price falls from P<sub>1</sub> to P<sub>2</sub>, and
the quantity sold in the market falls from Q<sub>1</sub> to Q<sub>2</sub>. What
should a rational father do as counter-strategy in short-run? As same as Ferrari,
because girls-producing is a long cycle with some sunk cost already, father can
enter and exit in the long run but not in the short run, the response of a
market to a change in demand depends on the time horizon. Even we can say that
in a very short-run, the supply curve is vertical without any elasticity,
because fathers can't kill a grown-up girl and recover the sunk cost, and
anything is better than nothing, so father chooses to sell girls at a loss as a
short counter-strategy. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: 等线;">(3) What will father do as counter-strategy in long-run? During panel (b), because price is lower than average total cost, fathers suffer losses, which over time encourage old fathers to exit the market. This exit shifts the short-run supply curve to the left from S1 to S2, as shown in panel (c). In the new long-run equilibrium, point C, price has returned to P1 but the quantity sold has decreased to Q3. Losses are again zero, price is back to the minimum of average total cost, but the market has fewer fathers to satisfy the greater smaller demand. </span></span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qS85vC6LEzE/XGQilyzbIEI/AAAAAAAAChM/CLRomAXNr0QqtosuaAhWR5FT7T7gLNUkQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E8%25B4%25AC%25E5%2580%25BC%25E5%258F%2598%25E5%258A%25A82.1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1333" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qS85vC6LEzE/XGQilyzbIEI/AAAAAAAAChM/CLRomAXNr0QqtosuaAhWR5FT7T7gLNUkQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E8%25B4%25AC%25E5%2580%25BC%25E5%258F%2598%25E5%258A%25A82.1.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Let's compare the initial
and the new equilibrium: point A and point C. Apparently the price of point C
is as same as that of point A, but the quantity of point C is drastically
reduced a lot compared with point A. You will find an interesting result that the
new equilibrium is contrary to the intention of policymakers, and less and less
girls are in the market, and more and more men can't marry a girl even in monogamy.
Why is that? Let's review some characteristics of a competitive market: first,
there are many buyers and many sellers in the market; second, the goods offered
by the various sellers are largely the same; third, firms can freely enter or
exit the market. As a result of these conditions, the actions of any single
buyer or seller in the market have a negligible impact on the market price.
Each buyer and seller take the market price as given. Here I want to address
the third one: free entry and exit. Because self-interested fathers, who don't
care about supply quantity at all in the market but only profit maximization, can
exit more easily in the long run than in the short run, the long-run supply
curve is typically more elastic than the short-run supply curve, because in
girls-production industry variable costs are far greater than fixed costs, and
even we can say that there is almost no fixed costs, so shortly after monogamy
arises, if still under patriarchy fathers must choose to exit supply market as
soon as possible. This is the charm of the competitive market: if there is free
entry and exit in a competitive market, it is a powerful force shaping the
long-run equilibrium. In the first round of sexes game, from the perspective of
individual,</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">women become dominated strategy. What is going on after the cabal's plot
failed? Bingo, a series of conspiracies follow up: disintegrate patriarchy to
oppose sex-selective abortion. So far, the sellers of the sex-trade are always
selfish and shrewd fathers, so they are bound to choose to kill the baby girls in
order to withdraw from the supply side of the sex-service as their counter-strategy
for the change from Polygamy to Monogamy. The authorities legislate against sex-selective
abortion under the banner of human rights. Girls born in low caste in India are
doomed to misfortune from birth. Why do the authorities insist on banning sex
selection? For their benefit? Definitely not! They need comfort women to
maintain stability. Let the weak be more unfortunate! </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">The collapse of patriarchy</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="Default"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Disintegration
of patriarchy can be regarded as the second conspiracy if we regard the polygamy
replaced by monogamy as the first conspiracy. Feminism replaced patriarchy. Don't
flatter yourself woman! Monogamy is definitely not the result of Feminism but
the equalitarianism spreading among men by pushing women into a more miserable
situation. Policymakers adopt two steps to achieve the goal of disintegrating patriarchy.
First step is prohibition of Sex-Selection Abortion; and second step is empowering
women the right of abusing freedom of mating. </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Simply speaking, Sex-Selection Abortion is the most direct
counter-strategy by fathers in response to monogamy. I wonder if there is a sex
preference in animals? Here I want to share an idea written in <i>The Selfish Gene</i> by Richard Dawkins:</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="Default"><div style="text-align: left;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 9.0pt;">The problem of how many males and how many females are born
is a special case of a problem in parental strategy. Just as we discussed the
optimal family size for an individual parent trying to maximize her gene survival,
we can also discuss the optimal sex ratio. Is it better to entrust your
precious genes to sons or to daughters? Suppose a mother invested all her
resources in sons, and therefore had none left to invest in daughters: would
she on average contribute more to the gene pool of the future than a rival
mother who invested in daughters? Do genes for preferring sons become more or
less numerous than genes for preferring daughters?... In mammals, sex is
determined genetically as follows. All eggs are capable of developing into
either a male or a female. It is the sperms that carry the sex-determining
chromosomes. Half the sperms produced by a man are female-producing, or
X-sperms, and half are male-producing, or Y-sperms. The two sorts of sperms
look alike. They differ with respect to one chromosome only. A gene for making
a father have nothing but daughters could achieve its object by making him
manufacture nothing but X-sperms. A gene for making a mother have nothing but
daughters could work by making her secrete a selective spermicide, or by making
her abort male embryos…. Suppose that in the elephant seals mentioned above, a
mutant gene arose that tended to make parents have mostly daughters. Since
there is no shortage of males in the population, the daughters would have no
trouble finding mates, and the daughter-manufacturing gene could spread. The
sex ratio in the population might then start to shift towards a surplus of
females. From the point of view of the good of the species, this would be all
right, because just a few males are quite capable of providing all the sperms
needed for even a huge surplus of females, as we have seen. Superficially,
therefore, we might expect the daughter-producing gene to go on spreading until
the sex ratio was so unbalanced that the few remaining males, working flat out,
could just manage. But now, think what an enormous genetic advantage is enjoyed
by those few parents who have sons. Anyone who invests in a son has a very good
chance of being the grandparent of hundreds of seals. Those who are producing
nothing but daughters are assured of a safe few grandchildren, but this is
nothing compared to the glorious genetic possibilities that open up before
anyone specializing in sons. Therefore genes for producing sons will tend to become
more numerous, and the pendulum will swing back…. For simplicity I have talked
in terms of a pendulum swing. In practice the pendulum would never have been
allowed to swing that far in the direction of female domination, because the
pressure to have sons would have started to push it back as soon as the sex
ratio became unequal. The strategy of producing equal numbers of sons and
daughters is an evolutionarily stable strategy, in the sense that any gene for
departing from it makes a net loss…. By investing more food in a son and making
him big and strong, a parent might increase his chances of winning the supreme
prize of a harem. But this is a special case. Normally the amount invested in
each son will roughly equal the amount invested in each daughter, and the sex
ratio, in terms of numbers, is usually one to one. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">It is clear,
that in long-run there is no sex preferences during non-human animals, but why only
human have sex preferences? In a word, we are now in inequilibrium state where
pendulum swings to one end. We can regard two strategies of sexes as just
opposite reproductive strategies (Female is bond, male is stock), because of
different endowments. One principle of The Game Theory: If I am using a mixed
strategy as a best response, it must be the case that each one is itself best. So,
it is completely analogous. God also faces a trade-off between risk and return
during genes investment, and apparently as a result he chooses a mixed strategy
set: female and male. Why? Because the two must be equivalent. Suppose God
wants to make portfolio investment in two assets: bonds, which are female with
low return and low risk, and stocks which are male with high return and high
risk. Female is a conservative strategy, which places a limit on the number of
children a female can have but female easily have a baby in her life, and male
is aggressive strategy, which places virtually unlimited on the number of
children a male can have, but only very few males have the opportunity to have
lots of offspring. Apparently, God is neutral in breeding female or male under
polygamy in a mixed strategy set. To take an extreme example, in one study of
elephant seals, 4% of the males accounted for 88% of all the copulations
observed. When polygamy was replaced by monogamy, it means each male has
reproductive rights as same as female. Now female is still with low return and
low risk, but male's situation has changed by the monogamy with high return and
low risk. Monogamy changed the original equilibrium. The two are not equivalent
in a mixed strategy set. Strategy of rearing boy strictly dominates strategy
rearing girl, because my payoffs from rearing boy is strictly greater than that
from rearing girl, regardless of what others do. In other words, and females
become strictly dominated strategy, and males become strictly dominant strategy
after the change from polygamy to monogamy. At the beginning of Monogamy,
anyone who invests in a son has a very good chance of being the grandparent of
hundreds of survival machines, so the strategy of investing in sons becomes an
evolutionarily stable strategy, in the sense that any gene for departing from
it makes a net loss. The essence of Sex-Selection Abortion is to cut the losses,
while the essence of prohibition of Sex-Selection Abortion is to keep you on a net
loss. In my eyes, there is no essential difference between killing a fetus and
killing a baby girl, and on the contrary, in the period of pregnancy,
B-ultrasound can help you cut the losses as soon as possible. One principle of
Economics: people only respond to incentives. An incentive is something that
induces a person to act, such as the prospect of a punishment or a reward.
Because rational people make decisions by comparing costs and benefits, they respond
to incentives. You will see that incentives play a central role in the study of
economics. One economist went so far as to suggest that the entire field could
be simply summarized: </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">“<span lang="EN-US">People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.</span>” <span lang="EN-US">If the policy changes incentives, it will cause people to alter
their behavior. In the second round of sexes game, from the genetic
perspective, women become dominated strategy as well.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">What would
happen next? Do you remember Lesson 1 from the open course from Yale The Game
Theory? Do not play a strictly dominated strategy. Arbitrage arises. People can
make an arbitrage profit by choosing dominant strategy and abandoning strictly dominated
strategy. Boys preference is a rational choice. The decisions of these households
are distorted by monogamy, but they are not doing wrong, because they just make
arbitrage under monogamy. At the same time, the unscrupulous who do the
business about B-scan are not wrong, because where there is a demand, there is
a supply. There is no-arbitrage in equilibrium state, and we can say we are in
pseudo-equilibrium when there is arbitrage. Rational people can make profit for
sure by arbitrage, if there people are rational they are not going to allow for
an arbitrage, but the vested interests group must prevent others from pursuing arbitrage
to maintain their own interests. Some people consider engaging in Sex
Identification by B-scan, called illegal activity by Chinese government, when
the government tries to maintain the pseudo-equilibrium in order to keep
stability. Economists call this the underground economy. These potential
criminals compare what they lose right now by breaking the law with what they
will lose in further illegally. In short, monogamy leads to Sex-Selection Abortion;
sex-selection abortion is just the counter-strategy</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> in
response to monogamy by rational</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> father. This is the most important insight. Abortion of female infants is
more pronounced in India. Recently I saw a news: As per recent official data,
not a single girl child was born in 132 villages of the district in the past
three months in India. Incidentally, 216 children were born in the region during
the same period. The only reason why the government has to step in and prevent sex-selective
abortions is that the absence of women can lead to men having no wives, but just
under the guise of bullshit human rights and justice. O justice! O justice! What
crimes are committed in your name! A curious aspect of the justice is that
everybody thinks he understands it, even just an actor. The pursuit of so-called
justice has been distorted as the patron saint of their intervention in the
market. In fact, pursuing arbitrage in Finance, and choosing strictly dominant
strategy in Game Theory and free entry and exit in microeconomics are unified. The
true intention of the Abortion ban is to keep free prostitutes in sex-service market
in order to pander to the lowest men. You realize if people are rational, they
are going to see through all that complicated stuff. It is a simple concept
which human haven't to grasp. In short, monogamy distort people's incentives,
and cause people to alter their choices, and lead to son preference. </span></div></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Twx5eicBnSI/XGQj00nConI/AAAAAAAAChY/0_TACP66WO8zQI83bjqMuzCAFC5pfHkewCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E7%25A6%2581%25E6%25AD%25A2%25E5%25A0%2595%25E8%2583%258E%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E5%25A9%25B42.2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1317" data-original-width="1600" height="263" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Twx5eicBnSI/XGQj00nConI/AAAAAAAAChY/0_TACP66WO8zQI83bjqMuzCAFC5pfHkewCLcBGAs/s320/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E7%25A6%2581%25E6%25AD%25A2%25E5%25A0%2595%25E8%2583%258E%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E5%25A9%25B42.2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Above Figure
2.2 presents the prohibition of sex-selection abortion. Like I said before in
very short-run, supply of girls is completely inelastic. Monogamy shifts the
demand curve to the left, and cross the supply at Point B with lower price P<sub>B</sub>.
As a rational response, fathers choose to sex-selection abortion, and refuse to
produce girls. With fathers gradually exit the market, the supply curve rotates
from vertical to horizontal, and exit raises the price of girl results in a movement
along the demand curve from Point B to Point E through Point C and Point D, and
the quantity of women in the market falls from Q<sub>1</sub> to Q<sub>E</sub>. But
Q<sub>E</sub> is much smaller than Q<sub>1</sub>, which is the opposite of real intentions
of policymakers, as a result they make a ban law to prohibit Sex-Selection
Abortion aimed at keeping enough sex slaves in the market. So now fathers lose the
right to exit the sex-service as suppliers. To maintain stable quantities, the
government must maintain strict control over the girls' supply. This is the
first step of disintegrating patriarchy, but there are still some poor guys
there who can't afford the price of Point B. Have you notice that D<sub>2</sub>
and horizontal axis intersect at Point F? What dose Point F mean? Q<sub>F</sub>
is the sum of men in society. Q<sub>F</sub>-Q<sub>1</sub> is the quantity of
men who still can't afford P<sub>B</sub>. In the real thing, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">the sex demand curve bowed inward to original point, and it means </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Q<sub>F</sub>-Q<sub>1</sub> is much bigger
than you see in above Figure 2.2. They are still unstable factors. How to do
about giving each of them a sex slave? I</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">ntroducing virtual axis to disintegrates
patriarchy further.</span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Second step is empowering women the right of abusing freedom of mating. Feminism
blossoms everywhere against patriarchy under the purpose that is to deprive the
fathers of control over their girls, i.e., deprive the producers of control over
their goods. In other words, conspirators tried to replace the rational, selfish
and shrewd fathers with the irrational, ignorant and naive girls as the sellers
in sex-service market. Now irrational and naive girls, without any experiences
of sinister society or any bargaining experiences, are put on the sellers on trading
platform. There's nothing better than using ignorant and stupid girls for free
sex-service. As shown in the following Figure 2.3</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">, notice
here: supply curve (S<sub>1</sub>) has a positive intercept in the Y-axis
under patriarchy and polygamy, and it means the cost of rearing a girl, so under
patriarchy a rational father can't accept his girl to offer free sex-service,
because he bears the cost of living to raise a girl, but his girl doesn't. Next,
prohibition of</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Sex-Selection Abortion force S<sub>1</sub> to move to
the right aimed at keeping the same amount of women in the market. At this time
father is doomed to suffer a loss (P<sub>1</sub>-P<sub>B</sub>) if he has
a baby girl, but it is not enough, and conspiracy continues. What kind of stratagem
can move the supply curve (S<sub>2</sub>) go on moving to the right? What kind
of gimmick can make D<sub>2</sub> and S<sub>3</sub> intersect at the Point F
where the price is equal to Zero and Q<sub>F</sub> is equal to the mount of men
in society? In other word, what can make women, as new sellers, willing to
provide sex-service to men for free? Lies arise. Lies are abhorrent, but also
useful. Strictly speaking, introducing imaginary number arises, but in my view,
there is no much difference between the two. Apparently, lie, I mean here, is
Love, because girls are impractical, unrealistic, fantastic, irrational, unreasonable,
imaginative, insane, half-baked and illogical. You can see how many words I have
found in English for girls, which fit girls very well. Love is born like this
under such an evil intention. As they wish, love drives the S<sub>2</sub> to
the right. At point F, each man has a woman for free, and the deal runs like
this: man gives up his love to get free sex service from woman, and woman gives
up her sex to get love from men. What a good deal for men, and what a bad deal
for women. Of course, this ideal and</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Utopian model made by shameless government is doomed to
work in short-run but fail in long-run. “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it heaven.” Said by </span><em><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Friedrich Hölderlin. </span></em></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g7L7hqK8r1I/XGQkZOZlDmI/AAAAAAAAChg/btaU1FngxOox13MRyY8a4iCJZS7v_ZjSQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E6%25BB%25A5%25E7%2594%25A8%25E4%25BA%25A4%25E9%2585%258D%25E6%259D%25832.3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1294" data-original-width="1600" height="258" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g7L7hqK8r1I/XGQkZOZlDmI/AAAAAAAAChg/btaU1FngxOox13MRyY8a4iCJZS7v_ZjSQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E6%25BB%25A5%25E7%2594%25A8%25E4%25BA%25A4%25E9%2585%258D%25E6%259D%25832.3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Let's check the consumer and producer surplus before and after the change
as shown in following Figure 2.4. For simplicity, I use the same scale. In
panel (a), it represents consumer surplus and producer surplus in equilibrium
under both polygamy and patriarchy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">In this scenario, consumer surplus is equal to
the area of A: A=5*5/2=12.5</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">Producer (Father) surplus
is equal to area of B: B=5*5/2=12.5</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The total area between the supply and demand curves up to the point of
equilibrium represents the total surplus in this market. Totalsurplus=A+B=25 . Free markets produce the quantity of goods that maximizes
the sum of consumer and producer surplus.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div class="Default"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In panel (b), it represents consumer surplus and producer surplus in equilibrium
under both monogamy and patriarchy. Apparently you can find that both are very
small, because rational fathers would choose exit the girls-produce industry as
counter-strategy to shift supply curve to the left after monogamy shifting the demand
curve to the left. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In this scenario, consumer surplus is equal to the area of C: C=1*1/2=0.5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Producer (Father) surplus is equal to area of D: D=</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">1*1/2=0.5</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Totalsurplus=C+D=1. The price is the same one, and men, who can afford this
price, is also the same men, but the only difference is that
each man only can buy a girl once. Obviously, this result is the opposite of
policymaker's intention.</span><span style="font-family: 等线;"> </span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In panel (c), it represents consumer surplus and producer surplus in prohibition
of exit the market. Fathers are forced to keep the quantity as same as in polygamy.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In this scenario, consumer surplus is equal to the area of E: E=5*5/2=12.5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Producer (Father) surplus is equal to area of F: F=5*5/2-G=12.5-2*2/2=10.5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Totalsurplus=E+F=23. The price is a little lower than that in panel (B), but
consumer surplus remains unchanged. Why is that? Because of the cheaper price,
men, who in the middle class and can't afford the P<st1:chmetcnv hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="1" tcsc="0" unitname="in" w:st="on"><sub>1</sub> in</st1:chmetcnv> panel (B), can afford the P<sub>2</sub>
now, but what surplus they get is exactly as same as what surplus the top men
loss. We can view this progress as the spread of mating right from top men to
middle men. Notice here: G is negative area. The middle men have the mating
right at expense of the interests of top men diluted and the losses of producers.
Now the producers are also fathers, and sex preferences begin to emerge from
now because raising daughters </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">become
strictly dominated strategy in fathers' strategy set.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: 等线;">In panel (d), it represents consumer surplus and producer surplus after women
brainwashed and introducing love as imaginary number. Now women provide free
sex under the guise of love, because they don't have any marginal cost in free
sex or little marginal cost, except those professional prostitutes, as a result
they can don't ask any marginal benefit as sex-suppliers, and vaginal was given
by God and fathers bear all costs in growth. You will find a very common
phenomenon in rural China that some teenage girls would like to sell herself to
the old man for only 5 RMB. Now Fathers are completely lost the control over
girls after patriarchy complete collapse, and now the supplier is the irrational
woman herself instead of her rational father. Policymakers finally achieve the
purpose that every man can enjoy the sex for free.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;">In this scenario, consumer surplus is equal to the area of H: H=8*8/2=32</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Producer (Women) surplus is equal to area of I: I=-8*8/2=-32<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;">Totalsurplus=H+I=0</span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Notice here: this is a zero-sum game between two sexes during this
scenario. What women loss is exactly as same as what men benefit. This
limitation finally leads to the increase the welfare of consumers, and the decrease
the welfare of producers. Under the encouragement of the government that women
have the same right to pursue sexuality and heresy of vaginal orgasm,
women are still enslaved from private property to free public resource. Is love really very great?
It is for such idiots. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Are you shocked by such a super big conspiracy? All monogamy, feminism and
love are lies. I advocate polygamy. I know lots of feminists must deride my
thought as a bizarre flashback from 19<sup>th </sup>century - a collection of
worn-out ideas that evoked feelings of deprivation and humiliation. When
analyzing the effects of marriage policy, it is important to keep in mind that what
is good for men is not necessarily good for women. Like the good news for
farming is bad news for farmers, monogamy is the good news for men but at the
cost of women's benefits. This policy aimed at granting sex right to each man,
but it does so at the expense of all women. Policymakers are people too. Moreover,
the individuals who set government policy must be motivated by self-interest
rather than the national interest. The key is also the ideal of Cruel Bind. </span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1snDq8LJryY/XGQnWd4aAlI/AAAAAAAAChs/Kkqoa-W2XIIklQl2RJcbc5LNfNMBHE_LACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E7%2594%259F%25E4%25BA%25A7%25E8%2580%2585%25E5%2592%258C%25E6%25B6%2588%25E8%25B4%25B9%25E8%2580%2585%25E5%2589%25A9%25E4%25BD%25992.4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="466" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1snDq8LJryY/XGQnWd4aAlI/AAAAAAAAChs/Kkqoa-W2XIIklQl2RJcbc5LNfNMBHE_LACLcBGAs/s320/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E7%2594%259F%25E4%25BA%25A7%25E8%2580%2585%25E5%2592%258C%25E6%25B6%2588%25E8%25B4%25B9%25E8%2580%2585%25E5%2589%25A9%25E4%25BD%25992.4.jpg" width="93" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Introducing complex number</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In mathematics, a complex number is a number that can be expressed in the
form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is the imaginary unit,
satisfying the equation i<sup>2</sup> = </span><span style="font-family: "微软雅黑",sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-family: 微软雅黑; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">−</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">1. I think the first time complex
numbers introduced is to deal with no solutions in real numbers, like</span><span style="font-family: 等线;"> (-1)</span><sup style="font-family: 等线;">1/2</sup><span style="font-family: 等线;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">.</span><span style="font-family: 等线;"> There is no real solution, since the square of a real
number cannot be negative. Complex numbers provide a solution to this problem. How
should we interpret this problem in philosophy? We all know that it is ridiculous
if someone said the square of a number is equal to -1, and it can't happen in
real world. The emergence of complex is to give people another interpretation from
another point of view about ridiculousness in human real life, which you can't
reason with rationality. In fact, now we don't live in an era of rationality
yet. Economists normally assume that buyers and sellers are rational when they
make decisions, but the most of truths are opposite. Like Addicts, who are not
looking after their own best interests, women don't have the ability to be
rationality. Complex can also explain why market failure in real life, because
people are not as rational and informed as economists often make them out to be.
If one truth shines through, it is that people are not consistent or fully
rational decision makers. In the following Figure 2.5 I try to give my
interpretation about complex in game theory between two sexes. </span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ngsOJP9z6OA/XGQpQR4q3LI/AAAAAAAACh4/nFlh93oMLSobiuqhE9Sp-3safowmrXb7ACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%2590%2591%25E9%2587%258F2.5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="525" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ngsOJP9z6OA/XGQpQR4q3LI/AAAAAAAACh4/nFlh93oMLSobiuqhE9Sp-3safowmrXb7ACLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%2590%2591%25E9%2587%258F2.5.jpg" width="104" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In
panel (a), instead of calculating gains and losses in one dimension of Real
number in animals' w</span><span lang="EN-US">orld, human beings have already entered the two dimensions
of Real number and Imaginary number. The introduction of Imaginary part is main
reason why human become emotional and irrational. In sense of perception, animals
only have one dimension of Real part, like vector a </span><span lang="EN-US">without any imaginary part only with real part, so they all
act at game theory to calculate what they can gain and what they can loss. But human
is not simple like animals. In first quadrant, positive real part means we gain
the real thing, like money, goods or services; and positive imaginary part
means subjective emotions, like love, moral and religion. The vector of a means I can get 6 dollars
from you, and you are neutral in my menu and I don't love you or hate you. The
vector of b=4i </span><span lang="EN-US">means I can get
nothing back in real things, but I like you and give that like as score of 4. The
vector of c=</span><span lang="EN-US">9i </span><span lang="EN-US">means I can get
nothing back in real things from you, but I like you and give that like as
score of 9. Apparently, I prefer vector c </span><span lang="EN-US">to vector b</span><span lang="EN-US">, because in the same dimension more is better than less, but
I can't rank between a and b, because they belong to different dimensions. The saying“money
can't buy love" </span> is popular for no reason. They are not comparable, because
money and love belong to different dimension: the former belongs to real part,
and the latter to imaginary part. To be honest, money can buy happiness, at
least to a degree, and are much more reliable than love.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">The
vector of a+b means I like you and
also get something real from you. I prefer a+b to a or b, but I prefer a+c to a+b. Likewise, when vector lies in second quadrant, it means I
like you but I loss something real from you; when vector lies in third quadrant,
it means I hate you and loss something real from you; when vector lies in forth
quadrant, it means I don't like you but you are very useful for me and I can
get something real from you. We can roughly view real part as objective, and
imaginary part as subjective. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In panel (b), I want to tell you imaginary part is very unreliable. a1, a2 a</span>ll the way to the a8 means I like someone best all the way to I hate someone best, but the vector projection of each vector is same as </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OCoD8shIZwo/XGQrmFr9Y3I/AAAAAAAACiE/pxDe9UmlVrECo6Z3tuMbest-z9wUnfm0QCLcBGAs/s1600/1.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="58" data-original-width="855" height="21" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OCoD8shIZwo/XGQrmFr9Y3I/AAAAAAAACiE/pxDe9UmlVrECo6Z3tuMbest-z9wUnfm0QCLcBGAs/s320/1.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
You can see that love is very unreliable thing, today I like you, and maybe tomorrow I like him or like her. Similarly, </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F-fFDekEZIg/XGQrwmFxjJI/AAAAAAAACiI/6MMpctuGYEIhzjeXDAs1cSYZGXRvBodqQCLcBGAs/s1600/2.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="58" data-original-width="839" height="22" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F-fFDekEZIg/XGQrwmFxjJI/AAAAAAAACiI/6MMpctuGYEIhzjeXDAs1cSYZGXRvBodqQCLcBGAs/s320/2.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
Notice that here vector b means you really lost something real in this deal. From a pragmatic point of view, vectors, which lie in first quadrant, have the same utility as vectors, which lie in forth quadrant; vectors, which lie in second quadrant, have the same costs as vectors, which lie in third quadrant. Now the win-win game under polygamy is replaced by zero-sum game under monogamy. For example, a8 means you scold me but give me 6 dollars; b1 means you give me compliment but cut my 6 dollars. Which one would you prefer? I prefer a8 to b1, because as a rational being, I don't care what you said, but only what I get from you. Unfortunately, women are always unrealistic, and confused by blandishments, and falling into a Utopian dream of love which made up by themselves. The money is money, which always buys goods and services, but beautiful feeling would degenerate into ugliness. Human always forget the pain once the wound recovered.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">In
panel (c), vector a means sex, and vector b means love. The first important
principle of microeconomics is people face trade offs. In this trade between two
sexes, man gives up his love to get her sex back, and woman gives up her sex to
get his love back. Apparently, man gives up vector b to get vector a back, so the net
profit of man is a-b, which lies in forth quadrant; woman gives up vector a to get vector b back, so the net
profit of woman is b-a, which lies in second quadrant. Next, let’s project the two
net profits on Real axis. As a result, </span><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tfCSMqz7mZQ/XGQtLRy9rNI/AAAAAAAACiY/a-MuhYV39MMT6rra8ZTcTi44nWl149ZmACLcBGAs/s1600/3.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="42" data-original-width="374" height="35" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tfCSMqz7mZQ/XGQtLRy9rNI/AAAAAAAACiY/a-MuhYV39MMT6rra8ZTcTi44nWl149ZmACLcBGAs/s320/3.PNG" width="320" /></a><span style="text-align: center;"> It means when love disappears, women suffer the loss of </span><st1:chmetcnv hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="6" style="text-align: center;" tcsc="0" unitname="in" w:st="on">6 in</st1:chmetcnv><span style="text-align: center;"> real things, and men gain the benefit
of </span><st1:chmetcnv hasspace="True" negative="False" numbertype="1" sourcevalue="6" style="text-align: center;" tcsc="0" unitname="in" w:st="on">6 in</st1:chmetcnv><span style="text-align: center;"> real thing. Love is
unreliable and always disappears after a while, and that is why women always
think the marriage is not worth after her divorce. Of course not, because women
give up a real part to get an imaginary part back. The biggest folly of women lies
in they don't know this exchange makes them in which quadrant, and main reason
is that women gain the freedom before they really get rational, as a result
they abuse the freedom of mating right.</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US">Here I
make a balance sheet Figure 2.6 to illustrate people decision making partly
depends on sense of perception. This idea is inspired by the </span><span lang="EN-US">balance sheet
from Accoun</span><span lang="EN-US">ting: Assets =
Liabilities + owners' equity.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TnvuHFAJwsA/XGQtuo-njUI/AAAAAAAACig/vDiS_BBIEiAQahQxGSYkCvP0IQvij2dDgCLcBGAs/s1600/T-accounting2.6.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1175" data-original-width="1600" height="235" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TnvuHFAJwsA/XGQtuo-njUI/AAAAAAAACig/vDiS_BBIEiAQahQxGSYkCvP0IQvij2dDgCLcBGAs/s320/T-accounting2.6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In financial accounting, an asset is an economic resource. Anything
tangible or intangible that can be owned or controlled to produce value and
that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Payoffs
here means Assets which you think you own, and imaginary part means Liabilities
which you borrow from somewhere but you have to repay in future, actually you
don't own the liabilities at all, and real part means equity is the real thing
what all shareholders own. I don't deny that we human beings are emotional
animals, but you have to control the weight imaginary occupied, such as the
debt to assets ratio should be controlled in a reasonable range. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">To calculate the debt to assets ratio, divide
total liabilities by total assets. The formula is: Liabilities/Assets. If the ratio is too high, it means company is facing too
much risk, and you must be careful about this investment. Similarly, there is
too much risk, if you give too much weight to imaginary part in your decision
making. Keep in mind that being rational and controlling imaginary part in
proper range. </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Women have been changed into common resources from private
goods</span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Clear property rights and spirit of contract are two core
issues of capitalism. To see why property rights are also important
in sex-service market, let's examine the ownerships of girls under patriarchy
and after the collapse of patriarchy. Under patriarchy, father has a property right
of girls, and decides whether to raise a girl or not, and sells his daughters
at market price, and bears all the cost in her growth process. After the
collapse of patriarchy, girls have the property right of themselves, and decide
whether provide vagina for free, and because they don't bear any cost of their
growth, as a result they almost have zero marginal cost in providing free sex, because
they can't get real orgasm so far and they don't have any opportunity cost. An old
song lyric maintains that </span><span style="font-family: 等线;">“<span lang="EN-US">the best things in life are free</span>”<span lang="EN-US">, but in my eyes all free things are cult. About cult, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
is the originator. The famous one is <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Peoples</st1:placename>
<st1:placetype w:st="on">Temple</st1:placetype></st1:place>, which opened a
soup kitchen for the poor, and expanded their social services to include rent
assistance, job placement services, free canned goods, clothing, and coal for
winter heating. The reason why people don't cherish the nature is people don't
take the cost for the beautiful nature, but someone did. Similar, the reason
why women provide vagina for free is they don't bear the cost of vagina, but
God did, and they don't bear the rearing cost either, but fathers did. Externalities
and public goods are important sources of market failure. Externalities can
arise between producers, between customers, or between consumers and producers.
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,
free sex-service arises because girls' irrational choice making imposes costs
on fathers. In other words, the girls externalized the costs generated by themselves
as sex slaves. This analysis of externalities can help you to understand why girls
tend to provide free sex, but fathers always ask a bride-price. </span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线;"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">When externalities arise, resources can be used without payment. Now sex-service
becomes a game without any threshold. Market economy disappeared when resources
are common property rather than privately owned. Common property resources are
those to which anyone has free access. As a result, they are likely to be
overutilized. Ignorant women, encouraged by sinister politicians and foolish
scholars to pursue “so called” human rights – G-spot orgasm, completely have
changed into common resources which every man can enjoy for free, from private
goods which are transferred from fathers to husbands under patriarchy. Now female
become free prostitutes from fee-based prostitutes. Public goods have
two characteristics: They are non-rival and non-exclusive. Most goods are rival
in consumption. Under patriarchy and polygamy, when you buy a woman as sex
slave, you have ruled out the possibility that other men can buy her. Women
that are rival must be allocated among individuals. But now women that are non-rival
can be made available to every man without affecting any individual's
opportunity for consuming them. The collapse of patriarchy gives women the
rights to marry and divorce and change boyfriends very soon, and even not keep
the sex ratio of 1:1, there is no competition between men. As long as the
stupid women don't belong to any man, in fact, monogamy has changed into
polygamy, but you just can't have wives at same time. Give an extreme example,
theoretically men can keep the marriage and divorce everyday, as a result this
is polygamy, and the only difference lies in women become non-exclusive public
goods. Gang rape is a typical non-exclusive example. All in all, the biggest
devaluation of women lies in the women still have the property of goods
consumed by men, but loss the price of goods. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In the third round of sexes game, from the perspective
of externality, women become dominated strategy. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">As a result of three rounds,
producing girls totally becomes dominated strategy and producing boys becomes
dominant strategy.</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Women are doomed to be abandoned
because the pendulum is too far off balance.</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">There is another accomplice I have to point out: academic world. They
brainwash the woman like this: women have the same sex right to pursue orgasm
like men in P-V model, and should be active in the sex life, rather than passive.
As a result, after ignorant women brainwashed, they become dissolute, especially
no longer virgin, because, like a proletariat, they have nothing to loss. They
may think “Maybe I can get real orgasms from different penises”, but the truth
is they are</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> still </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">whores but for free. I
think the real purpose why many countries have banned the legalization of
prostitution is there is no longer vagina for free if they legalize the prostitution.
One after another conspiracy is waiting for stupid women. Stupidity is the
greatest evil. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">Trans-cartel</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;"></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">In another point of view, monogamy is
merely a type of trans-cartel. In order to explain trans-cartel, let me give
you a brief introduction of cartel. Such an agreement among firms over
production and price is called collusion, and the group of firms acting in
unison is called a cartel. Once a cartel is formed, the market is in effect
served by a monopoly. The most famous cartel is OPEC in world oil market. Since
the early 1970s, that market has been dominated by the OPEC cartel. (A cartel
is a group of producers that acts collectively.) The OPEC cartel is an
international agreement among oil-producing countries which has succeeded in
raising world oil prices above competitive levels. In <i>the Wealth of Nations</i>, Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade
seldom meet together, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some diversion to raise prices.” Monogamy is a kind of collusion,
a group of buyers acting together against the sex-suppliers after the cruel
binding. I think most of bottom men believe that polygamy violated the public
interests, but here the public interest refers to the interests of all men,
women's interests excluded. Like the minimum-wage law, workers in unions reap
the benefit of collective bargaining, while workers not in unions bear some of
the cost. Similarly, it is inequitable because men benefit as a whole at the
expense of all women. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Although monogamy benefits all men as a
whole, does every man obey this law? The answer will certainly let all of you
down. Why do some cartels succeed while others fail? Let me examine the
conditions for cartel success. There are two conditions for cartel success.
First, a stable cartel organization must be formed whose members agree on price
and production levels and then adhere to that agreement. Apparently, monogamy
as a trans-cartel is an agreement that each man can have only one woman with
price of zero, aimed at making sex-service </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">non-competitive from competitive. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">A key feature of cartels is the tension between cooperation and
self-interest. The group of cartels is best off as a whole cooperating and
acting like a monopolist that each man enjoys free sex-service only from one
woman. Yet because each man cares only about its own profit, there are powerful
incentives for each man to occupy a larger share of the women, because a larger
share of women means larger profit. Policymakers would like to form cartels and
endow each man only one woman, but that is often impossible. Squabbling among men
over how to divide the sex-service in the market can make agreement among them
difficult. You will find a very common phenomenon that every man wants to
occupy women as many as possible. Although sex ratio keeps 1:1, there are still
some poor guys who don't have a woman and some rich guys who have several
lovers. Every man reasons the same way: even though total profit in the market
would fall, my profit would be higher, because I would have a larger share of women.
This example illustrates the tension between cooperation and self-interest. Trans-cartel
as a whole would be better off cooperating, but each man pursues his own
self-interest, he does not end up occupying only one woman. Each man is tempted
to occupy more sex-service and capture a larger share of the women. As each of
them tries to do this, in actually monogamous Utopia has already collapsed in
essence. There is another important factor leading to some many affairs beyond marriage:
the penalty replaced by moral judgment. Do you know why? It is because the law
does not punish numerous offenders, and there is no enough prison for men. The
threat of this penalty may be all that is needed to maintain cooperation. You
can never count on morality to restrain a nation. In the absence of a strictly
punitive measure, however, the monopoly outcome is unlikely. In addition, as
the trans-cartel grows larger, however, this outcome is less likely. Reaching
and enforcing an agreement becomes more difficult as the size of the group
increases. The monogamy outcome is jointly rational for all men as a whole, but
each man has an incentive to cheat.</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"> </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The second condition is the potential for
monopoly power. Even if a cartel can solve its organizational problems, there
will be little room to raise price if it faces a highly elastic demand curve. As
same as OPEC, CIPEC consists of four copper-producing countries: Chile, Peru,
Zambia, and Congo (formerly Zaire), that collectively account for less than
half of world copper production, but CIPEC can't increase copper prices much
more than the competitive price. Why is that? Also the problem of elasticity. The
total demand for coppers is more elastic than that for oil, and in other word,
there are many substitutes in the market for coppers. Similarly, in
trans-cartel when the total supply of women is very elastic, in other words
many women deny to provide free sex-service and choose to exit the sex-service market,
the collusion of monogamy are more easily to collapse even the sex ratio still
1:1. This trans-cartel works fine, when the supply curve is without any
inelastic in very short-run. Keep that in mind: no one can restrict you, when
your supply and demand are very elastic. As same as many cartels, I bet that
monogamy, as a trans-cartel, tends to be unstable and short-lived very soon. </span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Restraint of trade and the antitrust laws</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">One way that policy discourages
cooperation is through the common law. Normally, freedom of contract is an essential
part of a market economy. For many centuries, judges in West have deemed
agreements among competitors to reduce quantities and raise prices to be
contrary to the public good. They have therefore refused to enforce such
agreements. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 codified and reinforced this
policy: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with
foreign nations, is declared to be illegal… The Clayton Act of 1914 further
strengthened the antitrust laws. According to this law, if a person could prove
that he was damaged by an illegal arrangement to restrain trade, that person
could sue and recover three times the damages he sustained. The purpose of this
unusual rule of triple damages is to encourage private lawsuits against conspiring
oligopolists. </span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">What about monogamy? What about a group of
consumers coordinates their prices in secret meetings, should they be sent to
jail for criminal violations of antitrust laws? Could women sue and recover
three times the damages they sustained? Apparently women are not so lucky. Why?
It's a very difficult question to answer. I think there are three reasons: one
is people always focus their attention on collusion among sellers against
buyers, and ignore the trans-cartels; the second is that people are trapped
into ignorant affirmative doctrine, and think monogamy represents fairness, equality
or justice; the last reason is women are still in chaotic state, and no one can
get what she wants till she knows what she wants. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The real fault in this logic is people are always too pretentious
to believe they know what the real justice is. Unfortunately, there is no such
thing called “justice” or “human rights”, but just a gimmick, and people's
perception of justice or human rights changes over time. </span></p></div>
<div class="Default">
<br /></div>
bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-5361862205111881202019-02-13T05:53:00.004-08:002023-05-02T21:44:10.914-07:00Chapter 1: Polygamy<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">What is a sex-service market?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">It is easiest to understand what a market is and
how it works by dividing individual economic units into two broad groups
according to function— buyers and sellers. Buyers include consumers, who
purchase goods and services. Sellers include firms, which sell their goods and
services; workers, who sell their labor services; and resource owners, who sell
resources to firms. Clearly, most people and most firms act as both buyers and
sellers, but we will find it helpful to think of them as simply buyers when
they are buying something and sellers when they are selling something. Economists
are often concerned with market definition - with determining which buyers and
sellers should be included in a particular market. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;">Sex-market
is a group of buyers and sellers of sex-service.
In order to understand how the market works, we have to check the resources of
supply and demand in this market. To be more exact, under patriarchy,
the suppliers are the fathers, who produce girls and sell them in sex-service
market, and demanders are all men, who want to have sex with women, and women
are just goods in the market without any feeling and subjectivity, but objects
only. You would find an interesting phenomenon that polygamy was always
accompanied by patriarchy, and when patriarchy collapsed, monogamy <a href="http://www.baidu.com/link?url=q9OIu0xrkgQyQkV1qlm3CNE6H71ovj4vOrvAzkGwi4ymjTFII-0PuSgZ6Nvx46ObppP_Vhyh15zbkuN2Gema025lAIkOPNYMyZyC-CtA0Fu" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration-line: none;">arose</span></a>, or we can conclude that patriarchy must collapse if monogamy
wants to arise. You must be curious why I get this conclusion. I will give you
my opinion about this question later. All in all, under patriarchy fathers are
sellers in sex-service market, and men are buyers during Penis-Vagina model
chosen as reproduction model by God. To be honest in sex-service market, people
should not be divided into men and women, but sex buyers and sex sellers,
because men would be sex sellers when they provide mouth or anus to another
man, and women could be sex buyers when they can discard the reproduction
pattern and know how to use the dorsal root nerves as same as me. </span></div></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">My first model: The sex-services circular-flow diagram</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">To understand how the demanders and the suppliers choose in
sex-service market under patriarchy, we must find some way to simplify out
thinking about all these activities. In other words, we need a model that
explains, in general terms, how sex-service is organized and how participants
in this game interact with one another. In following Figure 1.1, circular-flow
diagram presents a visual exchange during organization of the sex-service and
how dollars flow through markets among fathers and men. The economy is
simplified to include only two types of decision makers</span><span style="font-family: 等线;">—<span lang="EN-US">girls' fathers
and men. Fathers produce girls using necessaries and time to raise girls up.
These inputs are called the factors of production. Men own the factors of
production and buy the girls from father for sex-services. Because of its
simplicity, this circular-flow diagram is useful to keep in mind when thinking
about how buyers and seller fit together. </span></span><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7kVUtptiiyo/XGQaXR_vL8I/AAAAAAAACfw/rB_kb3z968IvNXE7HKRbV_F6XtY6UsqUgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E6%2580%25A7%25E6%259C%258D%25E5%258A%25A1%25E5%25BE%25AA%25E7%258E%25AF%25E5%259B%25BE1.1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1211" data-original-width="1600" height="242" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7kVUtptiiyo/XGQaXR_vL8I/AAAAAAAACfw/rB_kb3z968IvNXE7HKRbV_F6XtY6UsqUgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E6%2580%25A7%25E6%259C%258D%25E5%258A%25A1%25E5%25BE%25AA%25E7%258E%25AF%25E5%259B%25BE1.1.jpg" width="320" /></a></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt;">Figure 1.1 presents the circular of sex-service. This diagram is a
schematic representation of the organization of the sex-service. Decisions are
made by girls' fathers and men. Fathers and men interact in the markets for sex-service
(where fathers are sellers and men are buyers) and in the markets for consumption
necessaries (where father are buyers and men are sellers). The outer set of
arrows shows the flow of dollars, and the inner set of arrows shows the
corresponding flow of girls and sex-services. In patriarchy, sexual transactions
take place between fathers and men, and women are just products or goods. Keep this
circular-flow diagram in mind, because it is useful to help you to understand a
series of follow-up questions.</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt;">Supply-demand analysis in free sex-service market</span></p></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Supply and demand are the forces that make
sex-service market works. But here notice again under the patriarchal system,
the buyers are men who need sex-service from girls, and the sellers are fathers
who produce girls providing sex-services. The business about sex is between two
rational men, and women are just goods for consumption. The market for sex-service,
like most markets in the economy, is highly competitive. In this chapter, we
assume that sex-service market is perfectly competitive. To reach this highest
form of competition, a market must have three characteristics: (1) the goods
offered by the various sellers are largely the same, and (2) there are many
buyers and many sellers in the market that no single buyer or seller has any
influence over the market price, and (3) firm can freely enter or exit the
market. Each buyer knows that there are several sellers from which to choose,
and each seller is aware that sex-service offered by his daughter is similar to
that offered by other sellers. The fact is the sex-services offered by each
girl seem approximately the same, and the buyers and sellers are so numerous
that no single buyer or seller has any influence over the market price. So buyers
and sellers in perfectly competitive markets must accept the price the market
determines, they are said to be price takers. As a result, the price of a woman
is not determined by any single buyer or seller. Rather, price and quantity are
determined by all buyers and sellers as they interact in the marketplace. Under
polygamy, each man takes the price to buy a girl as given, and each father
takes the price to sell a girl as given too. We can regard polygamy as the result
of perfectly competitive sex-service markets. Perfectly competitive markets are
the easiest to analyze because everyone participating in the market takes the
price as given by market conditions, although every woman is not exactly the same,
such as someone has pretty face and S body shape but others have not, but
vaginal is just a vaginal, and sexual desire always derives from newness and
fresh, even in old China the man can't see the girl's face before marriage, so regarding
the sex-service market as perfectly competitive market is credible hypothesis.</span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Why does perfectly competitive market
matter? The reason is that market economies rely on relative prices to allocate
scarce resources. In any economic system, scarce resources have to be allocated
among competing uses. Market economies harness the forces of supply and demand
to serve that end. Supply and demand together determine the prices of the sex
service; prices in turn are the signals that guide the allocation of resources.
Sex-service allocation, as same as other scarce resources, is determined by
market price. We use supply-demand analysis to explain how a competitive market
works and how supply and demand determine the prices and quantities of sex-service
market. The Figure 1.2 is the equilibrium of supply and demand under patriarchy
and polygamy. A market economy rewards people according to their ability to
produce things that other people are willing to pay for. In any market economy,
the invisible hand does not ensure that everyone has sufficient food, decent
clothing, adequate healthcare, and enough sex slaves. The nature of market
economy is to kick unqualified buyers and unqualified sellers out of the
market. Because the amount of women is limited, not every man can own a woman
for sex-service. Who gets this resource? The answer is whoever is willing and
able to pay the price. Thus, in market economies, prices are the mechanism for
rationing scarce resources. What coordinates the actions of the millions of people
with their varying money and sex desires? What ensures that how many girls you
can possess? The answer, in a word, is prices. If an invisible hand guides market
economies, as Adam Smith famously suggested, then the price system is the baton
that the invisible hand uses to conduct the sex-service. </span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-opCDhF42pu8/XGQbAbClYeI/AAAAAAAACf4/VAAx2fbCoK4XybuHDIS6aoA4funRDi-SgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E6%2580%25A7%25E6%259C%258D%25E5%258A%25A1%25E7%259A%2584%25E4%25BE%259B%25E6%25B1%2582%25E5%2585%25B3%25E7%25B3%25BB%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E8%25A1%25A1%25E5%259B%25BE1.2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1133" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-opCDhF42pu8/XGQbAbClYeI/AAAAAAAACf4/VAAx2fbCoK4XybuHDIS6aoA4funRDi-SgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E6%2580%25A7%25E6%259C%258D%25E5%258A%25A1%25E7%259A%2584%25E4%25BE%259B%25E6%25B1%2582%25E5%2585%25B3%25E7%25B3%25BB%25E5%25B9%25B3%25E8%25A1%25A1%25E5%259B%25BE1.2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">Notice that there is one point at which the
supply and demand curves intersect. This point is called the market's
equilibrium. The price at this intersection is called the equilibrium price,
and the quantity is called the equilibrium quantity. The dictionary defines the
word equilibrium as a situation in which various forces are in balance - and
this also describes a market's equilibrium. The equilibrium price is sometimes
called the market-clearing price because, at this price, everyone in the market
has been satisfied: Buyers have bought all they want to buy, and sellers have
sold all they want to sell. Notice that it doesn't mean everyone can get
sex-service, even everyone wants that service. There are still some people
there who can't afford the equilibrium price, and the essence of the market
economy is to kick out of the market the unqualified consumers and producers. Unqualified
buyers in sex service market lose nothing, because they left without sex
service and without paying anything. In a rational and legal system, purchase
or not are both rational choices. Those buyers who value sex-service more than
the price choose to buy; buyers who value it less than the price does not.
Similarly, in a rational and legal system, sale and not are both rational
choices. Those sellers whose costs are less than the price choose to produce
and sell women; sellers whose costs are greater than the price does not.</span></p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">Consumer and producer surplus</span></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">We begin by examining the benefits that
buyers and sellers receive from taking part in a market. Consumer surplus and
producer surplus are the basic tools that economists use to study the welfare
of buyers and sellers in a market. For simplicity, I use a linear function to
represent the supply and demand curves. Emphasize again: here buyers are the
men who want to buy women for sex, and the sellers are the fathers who produce
girls to offer sex. The sex-service exchange happens between two rational and
self-interested men, women in this deal doing nothing but goods. This analysis leads
to a profound conclusion: Under patriarchy the essence of polygamy is selling
daughters, and the equilibrium of supply and demand in a market maximizes the
total benefits received by buyers and sellers. No consumer or producer of sex-service
aims to achieve this goal, but their joint action directed by market prices
moves them toward a welfare-maximizing outcome, as if led by an invisible hand.
These observations lead to two insights about market outcomes: (1) Free markets
allocate the supply of goods to the buyers who value them most highly. (2) Free
markets allocate the demand for goods to the sellers who can produce them at
the least cost. (3) Free markets produce the quantity of goods that maximizes
the sum of consumer and producer surplus. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EJ6bS43UIuw/XGQb-EQ3IaI/AAAAAAAACgE/G5lK3fMxKFwsXyIm-vrwEN7PYF0tRrlngCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E4%25BD%25991.3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1133" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EJ6bS43UIuw/XGQb-EQ3IaI/AAAAAAAACgE/G5lK3fMxKFwsXyIm-vrwEN7PYF0tRrlngCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%2589%25A9%25E4%25BD%25991.3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">To interpret this Figure 1.3, keep in mind
that the demand curve reflects the value to buyers and the supply curve
reflects the cost to sellers. Each buyer would be eager to buy sex-service at a
price less than his willingness to pay, and he would refuse to buy sex-service at
a price greater than his willingness to pay. Of course, every man wants to
enjoy sex-service for free, but there is no free sex-service under patriarchy,
because the idea of making optimal trade-offs between money and sex-service is
an important theme in Polygamy. The marginal buyer is someone who would leave
the market first if the price were any higher. Consumer surplus is the amount a
buyer is willing to pay for a good minus the amount the buyer actually pays for
it. The area below the demand curve and above the price measures the consumer
surplus in sex-service market. Consumer surplus measures the benefit that
buyers receive from sex-service as the buyers themselves perceive it. Consumer
surplus is a good measure of economic wellbeing. </span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">Producer surplus measures the benefit
sellers receive from participating in a market. The price given by the supply
curve shows the cost of the marginal seller, the seller who would leave the
market first if the price were any lower. The area below the price and above
the supply curve measures the producer surplus in a market. The logic is
straightforward: The height of the supply curve measures sellers' costs, and
the difference between the price and the cost of production is each seller's
producer surplus. Thus, the total area is the sum of the producer surplus of
all sellers. Here the term cost should be interpreted as the seller's opportunity
cost: the value of everything a seller must give up producing a girl. A
rational seller would refuse to produce his daughters at a price less than his
cost. At a price, exactly equal to his cost, he would be indifferent about producing
his daughters. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Elasticity of demand and supply curves<o:p></o:p></span></p></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Elasticity is a measure of how much buyers
and sellers respond to changes in market conditions. According to Law of
demand: Other things equal, when the price of sex-service rises, the quantity
demanded falls, and when the price falls, the quantity demanded rises. Price
elasticity of demand is a measure of how much the quantity demanded of a good
respond to a change. The determinants of the curve's shape of sex-service
demand are as followed: Availability of Close Substitutes: (1) Hand job-
masturbation, (2) Inflatable doll, (3) Necessities versus Luxuries, Necessities
tend to have inelastic demands, whereas luxuries have elastic demands. Demand
could be considered elastic when the price of sex service is very low, and
inelastic when the price is very high. Imagine that I think every man wants to
fuck women as many as possible if all women offer sex services for free. When
the sex services are charged so high that vast majority of men can't afford it,
they would choose the inflatable doll or hand job to solve the demand, but for
the super rich, the price is not big deal. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If demand is inelastic, then an increase in the
price causes an increase in total revenue, and in opposite if demand is
elastic, a decrease in the price causes an increase in total revenue. You will
find two extremes of prostitution in China: those women who only offer sex to
super rich men charge very high, according to Chinese media reports, a girl can
get 600 thousand RMB in 3 days sex-service, although 100 thousands dollars is
not big deal for an American, but lots of farmers in China can't get 100
thousands dollars in whole life; those women in poor rural areas who only offer
sex to the poor guys in bottom of society only charge 10 RMB for one shot, less
than 2 dollars. The different choices made by two different prostitutes are rational,
which both aim at increasing the total income. Regarding the sex demand curve
bowed inward to original point is credible hypothesis.</span></span></span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">According to Law of supply: Other things equal,
when the price of sex-service rises, the quantity supplied also rises, and when
the price falls, the quantity supplied falls as well. The price elasticity of
supply measures how much the quantity supplied responds to changes in the
price. The price elasticity of supply depends on the flexibility of sellers to
change the amount of the good they produce. Like sex service demand, the
elasticity of supply in sex-service market is not constant but varies over the supply
curve. Because a woman has a limited capacity for production in her whole life,
when the price of a girl low the elasticity of supply is very high, rational
fathers respond substantially to changes in the price, and they could choose to
produce no girl at all. When the price increases for a little bit, fathers find
it is profitable to produce a girl. As the quantity supplied rises, a household
begins to reach capacity. Although the price becomes higher and higher, but a
woman can only produce a girl in one year at most, so in high price supply
curve becomes less elastic. Notice here: supply curve has a positive intercept in the Y-axis,
and it means the cost of rearing a girl, so under patriarchy a rational father
can't accept his girl to offer free sex-service, because he bears rearing costs
instead of girl herself. I will talk about the details of intercept in monogamy.</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Short-run VS Long-run elasticities<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">As same as
many goods, sex-demand is much more price elastic in the long run than in the
short run. People need a long time to change their habit. In general, the price
elasticity of demand for a good depends on the availability of other goods that
can be substituted for it. When there are no close substitutes, demand will
tend to be price inelastic. In particular, there is no good substitute for
sex-service in short-run. In addition, we can regard sex satisfaction as a necessity
for a normal human, at least for me. It is very important to understand this
point because sex-demand curve without elastic in the short-run is the reason
why monogamy arose after war massacre. The following Figure 1.4 reflects how
the demand curve rotates from short-run to long-run, which is also a process of
seeking new substitutes. I will talk about the details in the following chapter. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IXE61klZGX8/XGQc9GG_SHI/AAAAAAAACgM/4ueNqIfUWBIY-PupdQYGxfsmea6lumJjQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E7%259F%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E9%2595%25BF%25E6%259C%259F-%25E9%259C%2580%25E6%25B1%2582%25E5%25BC%25B9%25E6%2580%25A71.4.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1133" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IXE61klZGX8/XGQc9GG_SHI/AAAAAAAACgM/4ueNqIfUWBIY-PupdQYGxfsmea6lumJjQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E7%259F%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E9%2595%25BF%25E6%259C%259F-%25E9%259C%2580%25E6%25B1%2582%25E5%25BC%25B9%25E6%2580%25A71.4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: windowtext; font-family: 等线; font-size: 10.5pt; text-align: left;">Elasticities of
supply also differ from the long run to the short run. For sex-service, long-run
supply is much more price elastic than short-run supply: Fathers face capacity
constraints in the short run and need time to adjust their reproduction
strategies. For sex-service, short-run supply is completely inelastic. In the
short-run, because the girls have been produced with some sunk cost already
which father can't recover back, the best counter-strategy in short-run is that
girls must be on sale, but in long-run is that father refuse to produce girls,
as a producer can free enter sex supply market or exit sex supply market at
given market price. Thus, in the long run, the quantity supplied can respond
substantially to price changes. Girls' prices behave this way because both demand
and supply (especially supply) are much more elastic in the long run than in
the short run. The long-run supply curve, then, simply reflects the cost of
producing a girl. The following Figure 1.5 reflects how the supply curve rotates
from short-run to long-run, which is also a process of exiting this industry. In
nature, prohibition of abortion girl is to prohibit the rational fathers
exit the supply market. All markets are subject to the forces of supply and
demand. I will talk about the details of Sex-Selection Abortion later. Please keep
in mind these two figures, and there are very useful to explain the idea of “Trade
space for time” in the chapter of Government policy and so called “Justice”. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WhnNZ7dz3oU/XGQdyWTfXbI/AAAAAAAACgY/lt4l80urBDQLyVw-Qw160mJg7WHdpuTtQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E7%259F%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E9%2595%25BF%25E6%259C%259F-%25E4%25BE%259B%25E7%25BB%2599%25E5%25BC%25B9%25E6%2580%25A71.5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1133" data-original-width="1600" height="226" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WhnNZ7dz3oU/XGQdyWTfXbI/AAAAAAAACgY/lt4l80urBDQLyVw-Qw160mJg7WHdpuTtQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E7%259F%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E6%259C%259F%25E9%2595%25BF%25E6%259C%259F-%25E4%25BE%259B%25E7%25BB%2599%25E5%25BC%25B9%25E6%2580%25A71.5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="Default">
<span color="windowtext" lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.5pt;"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14pt;">The costs of producing girls</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">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. A competitive market, sometimes called a perfectly
competitive market, has three characteristics: (1) There are many buyers and
many sellers in the market, (2) The goods offered by the various sellers are
largely the same, (3) Firm can freely enter or exit the market. As a result of
these conditions, the actions of any single buyer or seller in the market have
a negligible impact on the market price. Each buyer and seller take the market
price as given. Apparently, we can regard polygamy as the result of perfectly or
almost perfectly competitive sex-service market under patriarchy. No single
seller or buyer can affect the price of a given factor, each is a price taker. The
price of women (and the total quantity produced) will be determined by the
aggregate supply and demand. The quantity that producers are willing to sell
depends not only on the price they receive but also on their production costs. In
competitive market, not surprisingly, we will find that a market supply curve
is tightly linked to firms' costs of production. In long-run, equilibrium
prices depend only on production costs. When production costs decrease, output increases
no matter what the market price happens to be. Because their costs are lower,
they would accept a lower price.</span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">We begin with the father's objective. To
understand the decisions a father makes, we must understand what he is trying
to do. More likely, father decided to raise a girl to make money. To be honest,
Chinese, as same as other nations, always have children for a purpose,
regardless of girls or boys. One is for short-run interests; the other is for
long-run interests. I don't want to go far here, and I will talk about this
problem in later Chapter. Economists normally assume that the goal of any
supplier is to maximize profit, and they find that this assumption works well
in most cases. Under patriarchy, women are just goods to sell, and the goal of father
to produce daughters is to maximize profit. What supply decision fathers have
to make? It's not difficult to answer. The supplier maximizes profit by
producing the quantity (Q<sub>Max</sub>) at which marginal cost equals marginal
revenue. For competitive firms, marginal revenue equals the price of the good. As
long as marginal revenue exceeds marginal cost, increasing the quantity
produced raises profit; as long as marginal cost exceeds marginal revenue,
father must choose to stop continuing production. The price line is horizontal
because the father is a price taker. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><br /></span></p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rje7ovWfQqk/XGQeab1DjxI/AAAAAAAACgg/bWClv2ulqgcWeOPvTX3MZt_re4JGHSsfgCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E5%25AE%258C%25E5%2585%25A8%25E7%25AB%259E%25E4%25BA%2589%25E5%25B8%2582%25E5%259C%25BA%25E5%2592%258C%25E7%2594%259F%25E4%25BA%25A7%25E6%2588%2590%25E6%259C%25AC1.6.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="854" data-original-width="1600" height="170" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rje7ovWfQqk/XGQeab1DjxI/AAAAAAAACgg/bWClv2ulqgcWeOPvTX3MZt_re4JGHSsfgCLcBGAs/s320/%25E5%25AE%258C%25E5%2585%25A8%25E7%25AB%259E%25E4%25BA%2589%25E5%25B8%2582%25E5%259C%25BA%25E5%2592%258C%25E7%2594%259F%25E4%25BA%25A7%25E6%2588%2590%25E6%259C%25AC1.6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">First of all, we must admit
fathers indeed bear all the costs of girls' production. Father has to buy food
and clothes for his girls, and take care of them, and spent a lot of energy,
time and money in this production. That is main reason in under patriarchy
there is no free sex-service at all. The costs are a key determinant of its
production and pricing decisions. Next, we discuss what are the costs? It is
important to keep in mind one of the Ten Principles of Economics: The cost of
something is what you give up getting it. Recall that the opportunity cost of an
item refers to all those things that must be forgone to acquire that item. In
girls' production, father He has not only explicit costs but also opportunity
costs, and the total cost is the sum of the explicit costs and the implicit
costs. As same as other production industry, Economic profit is an important
concept because it is what motivates the fathers that produce girls. As we will
see, a father making positive economic profit will stay in girls-supply business.
It is covering all its opportunity costs and has some revenue left to reward him.
When a father is making economic losses (that is, when economic profits are
negative), he is failing to earn enough revenue to cover all the costs of
production. Unless conditions change, father will eventually refuse to produce
girls and exit the sex-supply market. Under patriarchy, father has the right to
kill his baby girl, but he has no need to do this under polygamy because he has
a better dominant strategy. Under polygamy, no father will drown his newly born
daughter, and he would rather sell her than drown her because after all he has
invested in the sunk cost for 10 months. Girls are always useful assets that can
be sold at any time. The killing or abandonment of baby girls can only occur
under monogamy. Free enter and exit is a powerful force shaping the long-run
equilibrium. To understand fathers' decisions, we need to keep an eye on
economic profit. Keep in mind: Cost is the highest-valued option forgone. Total
costs include fixed costs and variable costs. In girls' production, variable
costs are much bigger than fixed costs. One thing I have to emphases here:
because of the cycle of girls’ production is very long; in general father has
to raise a girl more than 10 year, and once something bad happens to girls,
father has to bear sunk cost. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: 等线; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><a></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333333; font-family: 等线; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Consumer choice</span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The goal of this section is to understand
how a consumer makes choices. Sex-service, as a normal good or service, must obey
the law that “more is better than less”. Apparently, men prefer vaginal or
month, rather than his own hand. Consequently, men always want to possess women
as many as possible. In addition, men are never satisfied or satiated; more is
always better, even if just a little better. You may have heard the old saying,
“There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.” There are two ways in satisfaction:
One is self-satisfaction, and the other is trading with others. Masturbation
belongs to the former while prostitution belongs to the latter. Keep in mind
that the most important principle in microeconomics: People face trade-offs, so
to get sex-service from a woman that men like, they usually have to give up money
that they own in patriarchy, where there is no free sex-service under patriarchy.
Making decisions requires trading off one goal against another. </span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">The budget constraint means what the
consumer can afford. People consume less than they desire because their
spending is constrained, or limited, by their income. We begin our study of
consumer choice by examining this link between income and spending. We have the
two pieces necessary for this analysis: the consumer's budget constraint (how much
he can afford to spend) and the consumer's preferences (what he wants to spend
it on). Now we put these two pieces together and consider the consumer's decision
about what to buy. To keep things simple, we examine the decision facing a man
in polygamy under patriarchy without any free sex-service or prostitution in
the market who buys only two goods: foods and women. Let's say the price of a
woman is fixed at 100 thousand RMB, which number is consistent with the real
number of bride-price in China. Bride-price means you can buy a woman to use
for your whole lifetime, and this woman will be your private goods, and she is
not eligible for divorce in the law. But you can't buy a half women, it means the
consumption of women is non-continuous. Similarly, let's say the price of foods
per ton is also 100 thousand RMB, which is made up by myself. You can buy a kilogram
once, and it means the consumption of foods is continuous. For simplicity, let
us assure the price of a woman is exactly equal to the price of a ton of foods.
In order to segment the market, we can roughly divide consumer preferences into
two categories: some men prefer women, and others prefer foods. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BkYGEfy5cVQ/XGQfNpyUYoI/AAAAAAAACgs/tP3BBLAx4wcYDQgj-KLbKhw_AMNAmtzEQCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E9%25A2%2584%25E7%25AE%2597%25E7%25BA%25BF%25E5%2588%2586%25E6%25AE%25B5-%25E5%2581%258F%25E5%25A5%25BD%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E4%25BA%25BA1.7.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1271" data-original-width="1600" height="254" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BkYGEfy5cVQ/XGQfNpyUYoI/AAAAAAAACgs/tP3BBLAx4wcYDQgj-KLbKhw_AMNAmtzEQCLcBGAs/s320/%25E9%25A2%2584%25E7%25AE%2597%25E7%25BA%25BF%25E5%2588%2586%25E6%25AE%25B5-%25E5%2581%258F%25E5%25A5%25BD%25E5%25A5%25B3%25E4%25BA%25BA1.7.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The above Figure 1.7 represents how a man,
who has preference for women, spends money between women and foods. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When he owns money </span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">< <span lang="EN-US">100 thousand RMB, he can't afford a woman at all, and his only
choice is to feed our stomachs first.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When 100 </span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">≤ <span lang="EN-US">he owns money </span><
<span lang="EN-US">170 thousand RMB, he can afford a women, but his preference determines
his choice is not going to buy a woman, but continue to buy foods.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When he owns money = 170 thousand RMB, he
reaches the P<sub>1</sub></span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">´<span lang="EN-US">point. Now his optimal strategy
is to give up 1 ton of foods to get 1 woman. P<sub>1</sub></span>´<span lang="EN-US">and P<sub>1</sub> are equivalent. As the result, he spends 100 thousand
RMB on buying women and 70 thousand RMB on food.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When 170 </span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><<span lang="EN-US"> he owns money </span><
<span lang="EN-US">290 thousand RMB, his optimal strategy is to buy 1 woman with
100 thousands RMB and foods with all money left.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When he owns money = 290 thousand RMB, he
reaches the P<sub>2</sub></span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">´<span lang="EN-US">point. Now his optimal strategy
is to give up 2 ton of foods to get 2 women. P<sub>2</sub></span>´<span lang="EN-US">and P<sub>2</sub> are equivalent. As the result, he spends 200 thousand
RMB on buying women and 90 thousand RMB on food.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When 290 </span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><<span lang="EN-US"> he owns money </span><<span lang="EN-US"> 420 thousand RMB, his optimal strategy is to buy 2 woman with 200
thousands RMB and foods with all money left.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">When he owns money = 420 thousand RMB, he
reaches the P<sub>3</sub></span><span style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">´<span lang="EN-US">point. Now his optimal strategy
is to give up 3 ton of foods to get 3 women. P<sub>3</sub></span>´<span lang="EN-US">and P<sub>3</sub> are equivalent. As the result, he spends 300 thousand
RMB on buying women and 120 thousand RMB on food.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The green line is choice made by a
rational man who has preference for women. Because of the non-continuity of consuming
women, rational choice line is non-continuous as well. Next, we are going to
examine a little bit different choice line made by a man who has preference for
foods.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a0oZ9PiOt-c/XGQf4FQYd-I/AAAAAAAACg0/iYo4hAuHBcIckW0RPRH4jTMIVD0A8iNDACLcBGAs/s1600/%25E9%25A2%2584%25E7%25AE%2597%25E7%25BA%25BF%25E5%2588%2586%25E6%25AE%25B5-%25E5%2581%258F%25E5%25A5%25BD%25E9%25A3%259F%25E7%2589%25A91.8.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="1600" height="256" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a0oZ9PiOt-c/XGQf4FQYd-I/AAAAAAAACg0/iYo4hAuHBcIckW0RPRH4jTMIVD0A8iNDACLcBGAs/s320/%25E9%25A2%2584%25E7%25AE%2597%25E7%25BA%25BF%25E5%2588%2586%25E6%25AE%25B5-%25E5%2581%258F%25E5%25A5%25BD%25E9%25A3%259F%25E7%2589%25A91.8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">The above Figure 1.8 represents how a man,
who has preference for foods, spends money between women and foods. The two
figures are roughly the same, and I don't waste your time here to repeat the
details again. One thing I want to address here: because of different
preferences, you would find that in first figure the man starts to buy a woman
when he owns 170 thousand RMB, but in second figure the man starts to buy a
woman when he owns 350 thousand RMB. Apparently, the man in first figure prefers
women much more than the man in second figure at any given same budget
constraint. Like I said bride-price is not cheap in Chinese history, what if a
man needs a female sex-service when they are not at P<sub>1</sub>, P<sub>2</sub>
or P<sub>3</sub> point? Prostitution must exist as a supplement under polygamy.
Essentially prostitution is a way of breaking up the whole into parts. It
is like that you have to rent a house rather than buy a house when you don't
have enough money without any loan. The essence of prostitute is lease. A man
rent a vaginal to use for one shot. </span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; text-align: left;">How many women would a rich and rational man
buy? In economics, utility is the satisfaction or benefit derived by consuming
a product, thus the marginal utility of a good or service is the change in the
utility from increase or decrease in the consumption of that good or service. Like
other goods or services, sex-service also obey the law of diminishing marginal
utility, meaning that the first consumption of a woman yields more utility for
a man than the second and subsequent women, with a continuing reduction for
greater amounts. In a perfectly competitive market, both buyer and seller are
price takers, so the cost of each woman is the same no matter how many women
you purchase; it is the market price. How many women a man want to buy for
sex-service in polygamy? It is easy to answer. A man keeps purchasing women
until marginal utility equals to the market price (See in Figure 1.9). </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tp9NhvY8bi8/XGQgoWMB6QI/AAAAAAAAChA/lTB5Cmzk3oYNE8uGZ63sJ1nCnHmL6kr0wCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E5%25A4%259A%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E7%2594%25B7%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E4%25B9%25B0%25E5%25A4%259A%25E5%25B0%2591%25E8%2580%2581%25E5%25A9%25861.9.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1237" data-original-width="1600" height="247" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tp9NhvY8bi8/XGQgoWMB6QI/AAAAAAAAChA/lTB5Cmzk3oYNE8uGZ63sJ1nCnHmL6kr0wCLcBGAs/s320/%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25A4%25AB%25E5%25A4%259A%25E5%25A6%25BB%25E5%2588%25B6%25E4%25B8%258B%25E7%2594%25B7%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E4%25B9%25B0%25E5%25A4%259A%25E5%25B0%2591%25E8%2580%2581%25E5%25A9%25861.9.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Polygamy as the long-run equilibrium under patriarchy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Apparently, polygamy is the best way, as
the long-run equilibrium, to allocate of scarce resources in sex-service
market. Now we are going to examine what requirements needed in this long-run
equilibrium. Simply speaking, polygamy + patriarchy + warfare = long-run equilibrium.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">(1)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Polygamy is the first important
requirement in equilibrium. No doubt that there are some short-run fluctuations
in sex-service market. Short-run fluctuations in buying activity occur in all
countries throughout history. Sometimes short-run fluctuations are caused by the
change of aggregate demand. For example, when people get richer, the aggregate demand
curve moves to the right, and then selling girls are profitable, the situations
do not last long, when selling girls are making profits, fathers have an
incentive to enter the market. In other words, profit encourages entry, and
entry shifts aggregate supply curve to the right; when people get poorer, the aggregate
demand curve moves to the left, and then selling girls are non-profitable, the
situations do not last long either, when selling girls are making losses,
fathers in the market have an incentive to exit. In other words, losses
encourage exit, and exit shifts aggregate supply curve to the left. This
process of entry and exit continues until fathers in the market are making exactly
zero economic profit that new fathers have no incentive to enter, and existing fathers
have no incentive to exit. One conclusion arises because free entry and exit
drive economic profit to zero. All in all, polygamy is the result of sex-service
market economy. </span></p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">(2)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Patriarchy is the second important requirement.
Patriarchy means father hold authority over women and children, and woman are </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线;">not subject, but just object as a good and throughout
history they have always been subordinated to men. Women are sold as private
goods from father to husband. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">She is not entitled to choose a
husband. Like I said before, in the service-market, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">the supplier is the fathers,
who produce girls and sell them in sex-service market, and demander is all men,
who want to have sex with women, and women are just goods in the market without
any feeling and subjectivity, but objects. Women are sentimental, not rational,
but any deal must occur between two rational people. I will talk about a
confused situation between the sexes is due to the disintegration of patriarchy
in next Chapter. </span></p></div><div align="left" class="MsoNormal"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">(3)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Warfare is the last requirement. In human
long history, war almost never stopped. What is the result of wars? Death. Wars
always cause lots of men dead, especially in bottom of society who are unqualified
consumers and factors of social unrest as well. Foreign wars help maintain the
internal contract order, and otherwise, men at the bottom would start to resort
to violent civilization to satisfy their lust, which is detrimental to vested
interest groups, namely authorities. You will find an interesting phenomenon
that the winners always kill all the men and baby boys in the loser's tribe,
but keep all women and baby girls. Why is that? In short, males are useless
even potential avengers, but female are useful at least as sex slaves. Apparently,
the purpose of wars is not only for foods, but also in competition for sex
slaves. In my eyes, the war between all authorities of various countries is
nothing more than a struggle for the privilege to enslave civilians, i.e., the
whip in so-called slave society and the right to print money in so-called
contract civilization. There is no essential difference between the two. Some shameless
man in China said that I can create a nation, if you give me enough women. This
saying is shameless, but also true, but not vice-versa. Since ancient times,
women are scarce resources as sex slaves and breeders. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 等线; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><br /></span></p></div>
bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-72117466971754208692019-02-13T05:20:00.002-08:002023-05-02T21:29:56.517-07:00Part one: The economic models of female devaluation<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial;">To my mother,
myself and all women in the world, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial;">My only
contribution to the next generation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span face="等线" lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span lang="EN-US">For people
who care about how the world works, economics is probably the most relevant,
interesting, and important subject they can study. Economics is divided into
two main branches: microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics deals with
the behavior of individual economic units. Microeconomics explains how and why
these units make economic decisions and how economic units interact to form
larger units—markets and industries. By contrast, macroeconomics deals with
aggregate economic quantities, such as the level and growth rate of national
output, interest rates, unemployment, and inflation. Thus macroeconomists have
become increasingly concerned with the microeconomic foundations of aggregate
economic phenomena, and much of macroeconomics is actually an extension of
microeconomic analysis. The boundary between macroeconomics and microeconomics
has become less and less distinct in recent years. As economics is a very
mature subject, my goal is to show you how to apply economic principle to
actual relationship between two sexes. Because supply and demand are such
pervasive economic phenomena, the model of supply and demand is a powerful tool
for analysis. Here I am going to build a series models of female devaluation by
using supply and demand. T</span><span lang="EN-US">he art in building evolution models is simplifying the world
to explain it. One of the best ways to appreciate the relevance of economics is
to begin with the basics of supply and demand. Supply-demand analysis is a
fundamental and powerful tool that can be applied to a wide variety of
interesting and important problems. </span><span lang="EN-US">My purpose in building these models is to explain </span><span lang="EN-US">how monogamy arise, and </span><span lang="EN-US">how female entry a devaluation channel after
the establishment of monogamy, and how women abuse sexual freedom after the
collapse of the patriarchy,</span><span lang="EN-US"> and why government interventions affect free sex-service
market</span><span lang="EN-US">, and why women must be
victims in human evolution in God's plan. Finally the cruel fact would tear all
women's utopian dreams into pieces. OK. Now, get down to business. </span></span></p><p></p></div>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-12791949592771924102019-02-13T05:17:00.003-08:002019-02-13T05:17:58.623-08:00My new work:God's intention<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">To my mother, myself and all women
in the world, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">My only contribution to the next
generation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-50212825738861909912016-02-03T11:13:00.003-08:002016-02-03T11:13:51.023-08:00 May the best human win. Best wishes to Hillary. 矫枉必然过正。<br />
<br />
蛾眉耸参天<br />
<br />
丰颊满光华<br />
<br />
气宇非凡是慧根<br />
<br />
唐朝女皇武则天<br />
<br />
美冠六宫粉黛<br />
<br />
身系三千宠爱<br />
<br />
善于计谋城府深<br />
<br />
万丈雄心难为尼<br />
<br />
君临天下威风凛凛<br />
<br />
憔悴心事有谁知怜<br />
<br />
问情何寄泪湿石榴裙<br />
<br />
看朱成碧痴情无时尽<br />
<br />
纵横天下二十年<br />
<br />
深宫迷离任凭添<br />
<br />
两面评价在人间<br />
<br />
女中豪杰武则天<br />
<br />
蛾眉耸参天<br />
<br />
丰颊满光华<br />
<br />
气宇非凡是慧根<br />
<br />
唐朝女皇武则天<br />
<br />
美冠六宫粉黛<br />
<br />
身系三千宠爱<br />
<br />
善于计谋城府深<br />
<br />
万丈雄心难为尼<br />
<br />
君临天下威风凛凛<br />
<br />
憔悴心事有谁知怜<br />
<br />
问情何寄泪湿石榴裙<br />
<br />
看朱成碧痴情无时尽<br />
<br />
纵横天下二十年<br />
<br />
深宫迷离任凭添<br />
<br />
两面评价在人间<br />
<br />
女中豪杰武则天<br />
<br />bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-54432815287998918412016-02-03T11:07:00.001-08:002016-02-03T11:07:27.135-08:00Hi, ParisHere I am.bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-17489041723287121742015-09-24T07:02:00.000-07:002015-09-24T07:02:02.715-07:00 Matrubhoomi: A Nation Without Women If you are a woman in this circle, please live in this moment, God helps those who help themselves, just tell me you want to end this lie, you want to fight for your own interest. Stand with me!bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-56020711236589182442015-03-06T00:10:00.000-08:002015-03-06T00:10:46.978-08:00Believe Future当蜘蛛网无情地查封了我的炉台,<br />
<br />
当灰烬的余烟叹息着贫困的悲哀,<br />
<br />
我依然固执地铺平失望的灰烬,<br />
<br />
用美丽的雪花写下:相信未来。<br />
<br />
当我的紫葡萄化为深秋的露水,<br />
<br />
当我的鲜花依偎在别人的情怀,<br />
<br />
我依然固执地用凝霜的枯藤,<br />
<br />
在凄凉的大地上写下:相信未来。<br />
<br />
我要用手指那涌向天边的排浪,<br />
<br />
我要用手撑那托起太阳的大海,<br />
<br />
摇曳着曙光那支温暖漂亮的笔杆,<br />
<br />
用孩子的笔体写下:相信未来。<br />
<br />
我之所以坚定地相信未来,<br />
<br />
是我相信未来人们的眼睛——<br />
<br />
她有拨开历史风尘的睫毛,<br />
<br />
她有看透岁月篇章的瞳孔。<br />
<br />
不管人们对于我们腐烂的皮肉,<br />
<br />
那些迷途的惆怅,失败的苦痛,<br />
<br />
是寄予感动的热泪,深切的同情,<br />
<br />
还是给以轻蔑的微笑,辛辣的嘲讽。<br />
<br />
我坚信人们对于我们的脊骨,<br />
<br />
那无数次地探索、迷途、失败和成功,<br />
<br />
一定会给予热情、客观、公正的评定,<br />
<br />
是的,我焦急地等待着他们的评定。<br />
<br />
朋友,坚定地相信未来吧,<br />
<br />
相信不屈不挠的努力,<br />
<br />
相信战胜死亡的年轻,<br />
<br />
相信未来,热爱生命。<br />
<br />bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-46163260158443418592015-02-18T01:12:00.001-08:002015-02-18T01:12:38.115-08:00浮夸夜晚星空 你只看见 最亮的那颗<br />
人海中你崇拜话题最多 最红的那个<br />
谁不觊觎着要站在舞台中央光环只为我闪烁<br />
散场后落幕后谁关心你想什么 谁在乎你做什么<br />
夸张不是罪过 能满足空洞乏味的生活<br />
那窥探的眼 那议论的口 消遣了每一次茶余饭后<br />
<br />
难道非要浮夸吗 无谓是非与真假<br />
拼排场 包装 比身价 谁说真心话<br />
谁说真心话 只要画面够惊讶 只要内容够爆炸<br />
一张嘴开出了天花 嬉笑怒骂<br />
只能在夜里镜子前 偷偷讲实话<br />
<br />
你喜欢我 不喜欢我 是你的自由<br />
我只是希望在某些时候 抓到你耳朵<br />
为音乐梦想唱出第一个音符 从此就没放弃过<br />
主观的 客观的 旁观的拦阻太多 好坏要自己承受<br />
所以我要歌颂 让情绪释放在歌声之中<br />
选择虽然多 好歌有几首 能够去感动人给些什么<br />
<br />
难道非要浮夸吗 无谓是非与真假<br />
拼排场 包装 比身价 谁是大赢家<br />
谁是大赢家 只要画面够惊讶 只要内容够爆炸<br />
一张嘴开出了天花 嬉笑怒骂<br />
只能在夜里镜子前 偷偷讲实话<br />
<br />
幸运儿不是我 因为我选择的路很难走<br />
如果够出色 却不能出头<br />
至少也做到没第二个我<br />
<br />
难道非要浮夸吗 内心也曾很挣扎<br />
一个人努力的时候 有谁看见吗<br />
有谁知道吗 唱到思绪都融化 唱到声音也沙哑<br />
说是我着了魔也好 疯了也罢<br />
若不能挥洒 算什么‘’人生‘’的玩家<br />
看着我正在为你发光<br />
合不合胃口 都请欣然接受吧<br />
下一刻要为你擦出火花bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-6025812010476500882015-02-15T14:08:00.002-08:002015-02-15T14:08:59.506-08:00幸好没有被台湾统一根據東森新聞報導,台北市長柯文哲日前出席活動時發言:「一個國家30%女性未婚,這個國家不會安定,是國家危機」引發各界討論,有人認為柯P管太多;有人認為有這麼嚴重嗎?台大教授李茂生則是在臉書表示:「我發覺在我身邊,十位女性就有三位沒有結婚。」「立法院應該訂定不婚罪,最高可以科處死刑。」「結婚後一定會幸福,所生子女不會變壞,鬼島就可以成為寶島。」等言論,深度文章也吸引許多網友回應。<br />
<br />
許多看過的網友表示:「餌料越下越重」、「老師的幽默感很高級喔!」「這一篇的pH呈酸性是肯定的」,李教授的「釣魚文章」,也提供不同角度觀看時事的方式。<br />
<br />
李茂生臉書全文<br />
<br />
我發覺在我身邊,十位女性就有三位沒有結婚。我確信這是違背天性的事情,不結婚的女人一多,就代表了幸福婚姻的減少,而沒有幸福的婚姻作為支撐,那麼國家就會混亂,下一代就會亂來。<br />
<br />
我強烈建議,立法院應該訂定不婚罪,最高可以科處死刑。大家一怕就會馬上結婚,而結婚後一定會幸福,所生子女不會變壞,鬼島就可以成為寶島。<br />
<br />
我曾經向內政部建議過這件事情,結果他們說我是瘋子。為什麼,大家都不尊重專業呢?<br />
<br />
这样的智商也能当选台北市长和教授, 民选果然是迎合大众的游戏。幸好习老总生的是女儿, 万岁万岁万万岁。bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-55780537887074290602015-02-13T17:46:00.001-08:002015-02-13T17:46:50.833-08:00Hello, AstraliaThis is my third stop in my world travel plan.bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-64733498192496153452014-11-07T19:55:00.003-08:002014-11-07T19:55:55.113-08:00Russian are welcome back to The Stalin Era.A lawmaker wants to hand out Vladimir Putin's sperm en masse to Russian women in a bid to improve patriotism in the country.<br /><br /> The presidential progenies will attend Suvorov schools, boarding schools that focus on military training, where they will learn to be “devoted to the homeland and to the president of the Russian Federation,” Mizoulina said.<br /><br />"Children born from the Russian president in the future will form the military and political elite of the state."<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">She also passed a bill this year that outlawed higher education for young women who had not given birth yet.</span><br /><br />Russian are Half victims, half accomplices, as same as chinese. <br />bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-84114910545735360822014-10-22T07:01:00.000-07:002014-10-22T07:02:02.292-07:00Freedom is not free. HK,be safe!bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7151510134881757158.post-43086759269833977142014-09-27T19:28:00.000-07:002014-09-27T19:28:32.058-07:00Everything is preordained.<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Bingo! I knew that Hillary is destined to fight for woman's right, not for herself only, but also for her daughter and granddaughter. Everything is preordained.</span></span>bealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00327202982540166351noreply@blogger.com0