Yes, I would not like my own prosperity to come at the cost of others’ suffering (where “others” here means all of humanity). I understand hard choices must sometimes be made but I think our technology has progressed to the point that we can honestly provide a good quality of life for the vast majority of human beings globally if we were able to overcome old modes of thinking and actually set ourselves to that problem.
But it seems there are certain types of people or that under certain circumstances have grown to have this twisted need for “all”, instead of “just enough”. I don’t really understand that mindset as I haven’t experienced it myself. If my friends and family had UBI that allowed us all a good quality of life, I would split my time between spending time with them, reading and endlessly tinkering with new technology and adjacent creative fields, and be perfectly satisfied with that life. I crave the occasional toy, but simply don’t understand this constant ache for material accumulation that some people have. It seems to hurt them as much as it does everyone else around them.
Just from reading your comment, I think I have a very similar view to yours about the meaning of life, what constitutes a life well lived, and what we should spend our time on. Like you, I'm ridiculously uninterested in toys, especially toys that are bought to show status (as opposed to ones you're just interested in). Like you, I'm very satisfied with a life of tinkering and exploring code / art / music / writing that makes me a full person with a sense of accomplishment.
As someone who came from the extremely far left (with an anarchist bent), I just want to respond to this, though:
>> it seems there are certain types of people or that under certain circumstances have grown to have this twisted need for “all”, instead of “just enough”.
My observation has been that the desire for all, or at least more, is inherent to all people. You may be happy with a UBI, but the great complaint is wealth inequality.
I look around and find myself pretty well-off, with easy access to goods and services my father struggled for, and which my grandfather could never have imagined. I look around and see people of my own well-off technical elite upper-middle-class touting stuff like Maoism, because America allegedly has worse wealth inequality than China did in the 1970s. And logically I have to ask: Are these people so obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses that they can't see what they have?
Greed comes in different forms, right? There's this amazing line in Dostoevsky's "Devils": Why is it that all these desperate socialists and communists are so incredibly miserly, acquisitive, and proprietorial? In fact, the more socialist someone is, the further he's gone in that direction, the stronger his proprietorial instinct. Why is it?"
Okay, so imagine you live a life with 100x the material wealth of your grandfather, like me, but you still are in the middle 40-60% of the country in terms of wealth. You'll never own a private jet, you'll never party on a private island. The question is: Are you happy with yourself and your life? Can you see how much prosperity you've achieved and be proud of it? Or do you spend your time worrying that someone else has more than you, that it's unfair, that the system is rigged against you, etc.
Maybe this is because I come from an immigrant family mindset, but, prosperity and self-reliance are so much more important to me than trying to compare my life to what anyone else has.
Personally, I'd be happy enough in a prison cell or on my death bed, if I had a pen and paper to write on. So I'm okay with other people having luxuries I don't have. I count each day as an amazing blessing if I can wake up, find work, get laid, eat a good meal, watch a good Netflix show, get stoned and go to bed with my lover. Every single one.
I never for a moment thought that Elon or Bezos or any of them were happy. Their toys always seem to rot, their possessions don't intrigue me because they're clearly miserable.
In large bore: Those "certain types of people" you mention exist on both the Left and the Right - they will find a way to blame anyone who has something they don't have. That's the genesis of all the nasty politics we see. I'm not advocating for having less or having nothing or anything like that. I'm just saying, a small amount of appreciation (historically) for what you have now goes a long way toward letting people be happy and chill instead of angry and aggrieved. And someone will always have more unless you're the King of AI or King of Logistics or King of Twitter. So, we lead more modest lives, but lives are all finite, and we have happiness that they can't possibly achieve.
Sincere question:
Do you have thoughts as to how we can invest our $ if our goal is to support the "good economy" instead of attempting to ride the wave of the rich getting richer?
I would like to be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem, but it is challenging to identify companies in which to invest without supporting the status quo.
I am not "rich," but wish I could better vote with what assets I do have.
Consider politicians like Graham Platner. Invest money, or even time, to help people who put working Americans ahead of the oligarchy get elected. If you're in Maine, even better, you can vote with your vote as well.
Importantly, pay attention to primary elections as well general elections.
Basically, don't invest through investment companies. They'll chase the big profits because that's what they're paid to do. Even "green" or "sustainable" funds might invest in pharmaceutical companies that produce treatments instead of cures, or psuedo-science companies chasing net-energy loss concepts like clean coal or hydrogen, for example.
Instead, invest in specific technologies and goals:
- Low-cost solar panels and windmills
- Alternative chip designs like RISC-V and high-multicore (64+ cores)
- Peer to peer communications systems, alternatives to cellular/5G
- Robotic/hydroponic automated organic food production
- Incubated/cloned meat and meat alternatives without side effects like FODMAP
- mRNA vaccines, CRISPR, treatments for genetic disorders
- Low-cost EVs, LiFePO4 batteries, high-kW inverters, axial flux motors
- Heat pumps, thermal energy storage, concentrated trough solar
- Labor-saving inventions and assistive devices for freight, construction, etc
- Companies that openly support public education, single-payer healthcare, etc
- Incubators like Y Combinator but that provide smaller $10,000-$100,000 VC
- Open source projects/collaborations that distribute risk like Humble Bundle
- Mass transit like electric busses/high-speed rail (boring but global demand)
- Strike Debt and other loan forgiveness efforts that buy up loans in default
- PACs, unions, environmental groups working to unseat incumbants
- Foreign aid programs aimed at education, especially women and girls
- Independent investigative journalists and media
- Local bond efforts for better public schools, libraries, parks, etc
- Stocks/groups working to legalize cannibis and end the war on drugs
- Builders of tiny homes and alternative housing like yurts and earthships
Avoid:
- Crypto (untraceable exploitation, black markets, human trafficking, etc)
- Mutual funds and index funds (same reason as investment companies)
- FAANG/GAMMA (high profit, low innovation over market cap)
- MLMs (often tied to fundamentalist religious organizations and lobbyists)
- Foreign currencies (profits from exploitation and environmental degradation)
People to emulate (these are merely breadcrumbs towards ways of thinking):
- MacKenzie Scott
- Bill McKibben
- Michael Pollan
- Derrick Jensen
- Thom Hartmann
- Howard Zinn (deceased)
- Ed Abbey (deceased)
- John Muir (deceased)
- Frank Church (deceased)
- Terence McKenna (deceased)
See also:
- Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty
- The Jungle and other books by Upton Sinclair (deceased)
- Nickel and Dimed and other books by Barbara Ehrenreich (deceased)
If I ever win the internet lottery, I'll work towards getting matching funds to tackle the biggest problems facing humanity:
1) That starts with liberating all peoples from forced labor, exploitation and subjugation so that they can self-actualize. Which looks like freeing capital from "black holes" of concentrated wealth, specifically moneyed interests and wealthy individuals who hoard resources and choose to do none of what I've stated above, at great expense to the rest of humanity. That's done not through competition or direct confrontation, but by getting everyone "off the grid" to disrupt the supply and demand curve which always results in the wealth inequality and late-stage capitalism we see today when there isn't regulation.
2) Then also improving quality of life universally, so working towards providing free treatments for all conditions/illnesses/injuries across borders.
3) Then also promoting kindess, mindfulness, and other cultural movements which move us away from othering and back towards reconnection to foster the common good. This looks like a rejection of reason for its own sake, and replacing that with the pursuit of meaning. So deciding collectively that using electronic devices in public is impolite, ending surveillance capitalism, tearing down the economic walls which separate us from our neighbors, etc. So that we can once again gather in small communities that provide mutual aid, childcare and tool/resource sharing so that we aren't forced to take on so much individually for our basic survival.
I think it may be possible to recruit AI to do all of this holistically and rapidly shift into the reality that we may have envisioned for the 21st century, a bit like the rapid technological growth we saw during COVID-19, when the first vacation that billions of people ever had resulted in 10-20 years of innovation in just 1-2 years. That's the key, that getting real work done requires escaping the menial labor that extracts profit from the working class.
So that's what I would do: use AI to examine thousands of stocks to find which ones trend similarly and which one correlate inversely, and come up with a plan to start moving profit the opposite direction from where it's moved traditionally. Then invest that cashflow into countless underemployed people whose talents, dignity and divinity haven't been recruited yet effectively because they've only been put to use in the service of capital.
After sleeping on it, I realized that what I wrote is based on my perceptions and projections. Putting one's disposable income towards ego-based goals and expecting a return is no different than what billionaires do. So the most altruistic thing to do instead is to put resources into goals that are determined democratically, without expectation of recognition or reward.
In other words, pay our taxes. Help the poor. Be of service to others. I'm not sure that it's possible to be the change we wish to see in the world and also make a profit.
I know that flies in the face of western culture and philosophy. So I would propose that the cognitive dissonance we experience when we try to integrate the views of people who see everything that's wrong with the world and the views of people who are grateful for what is, stems from imbalance. Sitting with opposing viewpoints makes us uncomfortable because we're confronted with inconvenient truths that implicate us. Then our avoidance of accountability creates the systems of control which trap us in the never-ending cycle of endless work with nothing to show for it.
Some examples of that might be the pageantry of the British royal family that papers over the class war happening under its watch, the performative displays of strength put on by China to curtail clandestine shell games carried out by the US, and even our idolization of celebrities who dine on the backs of the proletariat while the world burns.
The best way to break the spell is to get educated. If you think that Jordan Peterson, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman make a lot of sense, then try Scott Galloway, Margaret Atwood and John Keynes. Loosely: the former build walls, the latter tear them down.
What I've learned in my own life is that wrestling with tough decisions and making the hard calls creates shadows in our psyche. Our choices form an identity which cements attachments that connect to densities that lower our spiritual vibration. So the wealthiest and most powerful people who have gone to the greatest lengths to achieve their goals are the ones most separated from their souls.
Meaning that if we want to help the less fortunate and reduce suffering, we need to work on healing our leaders. They don't want to be healed though. But maybe they can be reminded.
I had the utmost respect for Elon Musk when he was sleeping in his car to get real work done. But when he used his power and influence to dismantle the federal government through DOGE and cut aid that could result in millions of deaths worldwide ..not so much. When he arguably got the first reusable rocket into orbit with SpaceX, great! When he ignored the concerns of astronomers to fast track Starlink without bothering to give the satellites an anti-reflective coating, boo! It's not him I'm disappointed with, but his choices and lack of empathy when it counted.
The blind pursuit of efficiency creates injustice, and the refusal to rectify it creates intolerance. I think we've lost sight of what evil is because we've tied our identities to an immutable past which doesn't actually exist, because there's only now. I'm reminded of the quick and easy path in Star Wars, and when the Oracle in The Matrix said that we can never see past the choices we don't understand.
If we keep viewing the world through duality, with black and white thinking, good vs bad, us vs them, then we'll merely be custodians cleaning up the mistakes of the uber rich.
I think what I'm trying to say is that if we envision a better world and embody our dreams now, then we'll manifest a new timeline that escapes the will of people who would subjugate us.
What that means as far as where you place your energy is up to you. Imagine that!
Oh, but what a letdown to have someone watch that as their introduction. One of the very best moments in the entire series but which can only be appreciated by watching the entire series.
I don't know about SSI, but this isn't accurate for SSDI.
For SSDI, if your earned income is more than $1110 in a month (for 2024), then you consume one of your 9 trial work months. That $1110 threshold is regardless of your SSDI payment amount and it is adjusted annually. The trial work months are to allow disabled persons to attempt to return to the workforce without risking losing their social security benefits if it proves unsustainable for them.
(The specifics are a little more complicated than what I've described.)
Besides just not using these services, wouldn't it also be necessary to divest any investments in any of these companies (even if through mutual/index funds, etc.)?
Actually, if you're a direct shareholder then you have a direct voice that they will listen to if enough people do the same. So, rather than sell, use that voice to demand change.
Well, I have a similar difficulty in analyzing myself. So you are not alone.
But I also struggle hypothesizing others' reasons for behavior. I can readily empathize with others, but often can't transfer from the emotional response to the underlying reasons/logic.
> Diet and exercise are extremely effective in treating type 1 diabetes. But some exogenous insulin (and other medications) are usually still required.
I think you are misinformed about Type 1 diabetes. Maybe you are thinking of some other condition?
In Type 1 diabetes, the pancreas stops producing any insulin. Insulin must be administered regularly (always, not usually) or the person will die. "Other medications" aren't required.
One's diet and exercise are relevant to Type 1 diabetes treatment, but are not a treatment method.
I'm sorry for your daughter's condition, but I think you are misinformed about type 1 diabetes. Most patients still product some endogenous insulin, it's just usually not enough. Like any chronic condition, it's a spectrum and there are outliers at both ends. I've learned to be very cautious about using words like "always" or "never" because of the odd cases that occasionally come up.
Diet and exercise are very effective at treating type 1 diabetes, just usually not sufficient. With a minimal or zero carb diet plus the right exercise regime, some patients find that they can go much longer between insulin doses while still maintaining good blood glucose control. In particular, I think a lot of people don't appreciate the necessity of doing resistance training to build enough skeletal muscle mass as a glucose sink.
The entire system is too complicated, and the CGM too variable in accuracy, for such calibration to work in the way I think you are suggesting.
Each time the CGM is applied, the situation is different because of the exact position and various other factors. And the CGM is not 100% consistent.
You do/can calibrate the CGM as needed. For example, when the CGM first activates, standard practice is to check with a fingerprick to see how accurate the CGM is this time and (sometimes) calibrate. (As noted in other comments, the CGM and fingerprick are not detecting exactly the same thing.)
And the next time you apply the CGM (we use a Dexcom G6, which is changed every 10 days), any previous calibration is irrelevant. There's a lot of variability and many factors that can affect results (exact location, scar tissue from previous CGM application, recent exercise, a recent hot shower, etc.)
(I didn't explain that well, but hopefully you get the idea.)
Suppose you lose your job while your house is badly underwater. You are unable to make mortgage payments and selling your house would leave you saddled with part of your mortgage still.
(FWIW, the studio with which I'm affiliated (https://digimancygames.com) is focused on narrative-driven CRPGs in the vein of games like PS:T and Disco Elysium. We have assembled three of the Disco Elysium writers and other talent in this space. We have an internal project, but are seeking publishing partners or investors.)
Thanks. :) Gosh, no. (Too much additional work for the benefit, for us.) We've used Unity, but we expect to transition to Unreal in the future as Unity's direction in recent years unfortunately has been ominous.
