Author: liloqi
Simulation Theory
The new Matrix movie comes out soon, and I honestly can’t wait. As a senior in high school when the first Matrix came out, it likely had something to do with my mild interest in philosophy and contemplating big thoughts. Of course the question of reality is really as big as they come, and it was something I had thought about occasionally growing up.
Computer rendering had really just started to get interesting early on when I was in high school, and I had started doing some (unimpressive) work with it as I taught myself autoCAD in my school’s drafting lab. Sometime around then I remember sitting next to a lake, looking at the complexity of light bouncing off the small waves and ripples, and wondering how long it would be before such complexity and realism could be rendered in real-time, and could it be immersive enough to become seemingly real.
And then the Matrix came out.
Of course there was Plato’s cave, but while the concept was interesting, the true alternate reality provided by the Matrix was definitely far more interesting. Stepping aside from a forced simulated reality as present in the Matrix, the entire concept as a place to explore and build was very intriguing.
Several years later, I care across an actual argument for why we are most likely in a
simulation by Nick Bostrom. The arguments seemed pretty solid to me and went something like:
- If beings like us don’t get killed off before
- having the ability to create concious simulated beings.
- If we decide that we dont want to create create simulated concious beings.
- Then chances are we’re simulated beings.
The argument comes down to the ability for simulated beings to construct their own conscious simulated beings. Once that happens, you could have an incredibly large number of simulated beings, at which point just purely from a statistical standpoint, the odds aren’t good that you’re one of the original, non-simulated beings.
I think the interesting thing about the way the argument is structured, is that as soon as we create simulated beings, it means that we are almost certainly simulated beings as well since points one and two will have been proven wrong.
Honestly, I strongly believe that we’ll someday create artificial intelligences that are concious, which makes me think that there is a pretty good chance we’re simulated.
The only ways out of this that I can see is that perhaps it isn’t possible to create concious beings in non-bioligal ways, and if are there any other options besides the three given in the original argument that we’re just not seeing.
Usually when this topic gets discussed, our ability to create “real” looking environments is part of the discussion. That however isn’t really important. The reality that the simulated beings reside in could be far different and simpler than our reality – it just has to be internally consistent and not give away its true nature no matter how deeply its inhabitants examine it.
At first, It would seem as though with each level of the simulation, things would be simpler than the upper level, However, I don’t really think that has to be the case. An interesting thought is if base reality is relatively simple, and the creators of nested realities choose to make some of their simulations more complex, more rich, or more beautiful. It would be interesting to see how those choices evolve through subsequent simulations into even more interesting or beautiful simulations.
As an atheist, I find the simulation theory interesting, since it is in some ways a direct challenge to that. There would be a creator the simulated universe that I inhabit, perhaps even an afterlife. As an atheist, I’ve always actually acknowledged that the could be a creator, it’s just that the odds of that are extremely low (especially the gods who have characteristics like those described in the world’s popular religions).
However, I actually think that there is a decent probability that the simulation theory could be true, so I guess my the chances that we have a creator has drastically risen. Still, at the top of the stack of simulated universes is a natural world, most likely with beings and a universe that has arisen naturally and without a god.
Either way, whether we’re in a simulation or not, I think I’m ok with it. In some ways, it doesn’t really matter all to much – there is still much to learn and explore regardless.
Subsidizing Parking Garages
When a new apartment building went up in the neighborhood, it didn’t take long for the complaints to start. At the center of the backlash: the building was approved with no parking included.
There are plenty of good reasons to remove parking requirements — especially in a city like San Diego, where housing costs have skyrocketed since the pandemic. Making it easier for developers to build new housing should be a priority. By eliminating parking requirements, developers can maximize the use of limited space, lower construction costs, and ultimately create more affordable housing units. This flexibility allows for faster development and a better allocation of resources, helping to address the city’s housing shortage more effectively.
But at the same time, the concerns are understandable.
People have cars. And while we should be working to reduce car dependency and increasing housing supply, the reality is that people do, and will continue to, own personal vehicles for the foreseeable future.
Publicly funding parking garages could offer a practical solution. There are several reasons to consider this approach:
- Bridge the Gap Between Urbanists and Residents.
Removing the requirement for parking in new buildings deepens the divide between
neighborhood citizens and those advocating for denser, more walkable cities. In many cases, it seems to be creating more people opposed to responsible city development—people who might otherwise support new housing. - Reclaim Street Space for Better Uses
We could reallocate space that’s currently used for parking. Instead of strips of parking along the sides of streets, we could have small parks, walking paths, and restaurant patios. All of this becomes more possible with more parking garages. - Treat Parking as (Responsible) Infrastructure
We have always invested in city utilities that make if possible to provide housing to citizens. Funding parking garages just does it more responsibly. Instead of using tax-payer money to build more freeways, roads, and streets, which just makes for more sprawl, let’s instead invest that money in garages, where the result would be higher density and walkable neighborhoods. - Incentivize Better Land Use in Suburban Areas
In lower-density neighborhoods and commercial zones, public garages could be a tool to encourage the conversion of surface parking lots—like those around big-box stores—into housing, green space, or other community assets.
The chorus of urbanists is likely to argue that parking garages are unattractive. While that may be true in some cases, they don’t have to be. With thoughtful design, parking garages can seamlessly blend into the urban landscape, incorporate ground-floor retail, or even be hidden behind other uses, such as housing or office spaces.
If we want to build more housing, reduce sprawl, and create cities that work for everyone, we need to meet people where they are. Publicly funding parking garages might not be the perfect solution, but it could be a practical one. Especially if it helps make housing more abundant, our neighborhoods more livable, and our streets more human-centered.
Non-Quantifiable
Last night we took our eleven-year old child to listen to a ranger-led presentation while visiting
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Over the years we’ve attended numerous talks like this at various national parks and monuments throughout the western US. Along with thinking about how I would personally survive in harsh desert conditions (which is what the talk was about), I was also thinking about the current state of the nation.
At this very moment, the Republicans are annihilating funding for everything from NIH funds (which provides funding into things like cancer research) to providing aid (and likely political stability) to impoverished people around the globe. For all I know, ranger-led talks like the one I attended are next on the chopping block.
Now that we’re decimating programs that I personally think are important, I’ve been thinking more on why we should or shouldn’t be funding them. I’ve seen several studies and proclamations on the financial return on NIH funding, but other programs I feel are less quantifiable. And perhaps the conservatives have a point. Perhaps we shouldn’t be investing in programs where we can’t know if we’re actually getting a return on the investment. The ROI on the ranger-led talk that I attended is probably pretty difficult to compute. I could see talks like that inspiring children to become scientists, to teach them to be curious, and to care about the world around them. But how do you get a number for the economic return on such possible outcomes?
I’m assuming that to me, whatever the cost is, its probably minimal enough that in my opinion, its worth it. And I think that’s what is missing in the (non) discussion abut brazenly cutting government expenditures. How much is each individual person actually paying for these various programs, and is that expense worth it? The expense to each of us is very likely very minimal for most of these. If my total tax bill to fund USAID is ten cents per year, I’m definitely ok paying that amount to provide food and medical support to those around the world less fortunate than me. In fact, it makes me feel good to know that I’m supporting good acts in the world. Similarly, if I’m spending a few cents per year so that a ranger can inspire young kids, where there is even a slight chance of some positive outcomes, I’m personally completely fine paying that.
Perhaps there are many that aren’t ok paying a few cents per year, or perhaps the actual cost makes it so that it’s understandable for not supporting such programs. But the lack of actually knowing the cost, or thinking about it in a logical, well-reasoned way is just irresponsible.
Update:
I did look into the numbers more deeply. For the average taxpayer in 2023, $156 was paid to fund USAID, and $103 went to fund the National Park Service. Personally I’m happy to pay those amounts for these programs.
Neighborhood Government
I dream of little neighborhood parks and nicely landscaped walking paths. More places to play with my child; throwing a football, frisbee, or shooting hoops. I’d love to see more trails winding through San Diego’s wild canyons, with random benches and quiet spots to relax. And maybe most importantly, I wish it were easier to be involved with my neighborhood and city.
There are many small, localized improvements that could enhance daily life, but they are often too specific to justify funding through the broader city budget. This highlights a potential gap in the current system—perhaps what’s missing is a level of government focused specifically on neighborhood-scale improvements: a kind of neighborhood government.
In some ways, it could work like a homeowners’ association. Residents could choose to tax themselves to fund things like new parks, landscaping, or community enhancements. But it could also go further than an HOA, giving people a way to shape policy and engage with city government from the ground up.
I do technically have a city representative. But their district is huge, and it’s hard to feel personally connected at that scale. If neighborhoods functioned as their own small governance regions, it would be easier to push for local improvements. At the same time, it would make it easier to advocate for larger changes at the city level, since I’d be more engaged and better represented.
And yes, I’m proposing more government, and more taxes. Certainly this isn’t for everyone, and honestly even in my liberal neighborhood, I would imagine it would be a tough sell. But there may be small, incremental ways to move in this direction. And since the changes would happen at a more local level, the return on those taxes (investments) could be more immediate, visible, and meaningful.
Creating a neighborhood-level government could bridge the gap between residents and city leadership—empowering communities to make meaningful local improvements while strengthening civic engagement across the city as a whole.
Furniture
Furniture should play a larger role in homes. It has, for perhap’s it’s entire history, been relegated to being isolated objects to fill our empty living areas, utilized for creating places to sit, store things, to hold other pieces of furniture. It has been used to fill space, when in fact it should be used to make space.
I sift through dozen’s of apartment floor plans, envisioning myself filling the spaces. There seems to always be something wrong, something that splits and shatters the view of myself inhabiting a space. Generally it’s a wall. We are dictated in how we live — fragmented existences determined by the simple act of placing two lines on a sheet of paper (or more recently within a computer), signalling to those building the space to put in a wall. Usually when I inhabit that space, I want that wall six inches to the left, or five feet. Or not at all.
Yet I’m stuck with it, contorting my existence to conform to its existence.
Furniture can provide a much better means of partitioning off uses. Let the inhabitant decide how best to use the places that they inhabit. I want totally blank. No walls, no fixed cabinets, no fixed countertops. I want to rent or buy a blank canvas. I want to move in walls and place them where I see fit with as little attachment to the permanent as necessary.
I want to select from a catalogue of furniture. Cases used to make walls, but also utilized for other purposes. Bookshelves, cabinets, beds that slide into, or fold up into the cabinet, kitchen cabinetry, refrigerators, ovens. Maybe some are just planes that act strictly as walls. Everything movable, reconfigurable.
There would be many advantages to this approach. We would produce less waste — remodels would require only moving in different pieces of furniture, not tearing out walls and smashing drywall with sledgehammers. Energy consumption could also be less, with people being able to more fully utilize less space, and reconfigure it over time. We could also be happier — dictating how we live within our homes, instead of conforming to them.
Small Ribbons of Wild in the City
In the far northwest corner of Portland lies one of the largest urban parks in the United States—Forest Park. Years ago, I was fortunate enough to live right on the edge of this tree-covered paradise. Out the back door of our apartment, a trail led straight into the park, where countless other trails branched and twisted through the forest. Out the front door, city streets bustled with shops and trendy restaurants.
While I was fortunate to live in that perfectly placed apartment with access to urbanity and the wild, Forest Park is accessible to several neighborhoods of urban character. It’s even accessible from downtown Portland, but it takes a little more effort, requiring you to thread your way through concrete and traffic for a mile or so.
From downtown, it becomes apparent how stark the contrast is between the city’s concrete landscape and the forested sanctuary on its edge. One can easily imagine the soft dirt trails of the park extending into downtown—offering not only a more forgiving surface for runners and walkers, but small oases in contrast to the hard-surfaced urbanity. Those paths could meander and wind, weaving back and forth through whatever space we could make available for them. Ferns, trees, and other native plants could buffer the trails from concrete, and further pull the wilds into the city core.
My mind naturally wants to push the idea further, to create larger intrusions of nature into the city. And those may or may not be feasible, but certainly, and especially for a city like Portland, the vision of trails and nature growing into the city seems tantalizingly possible.
Why Atheism?
This was originally posted, Oct 1, 2017
There are many contributing factors to my atheism, but they have always been a disorganized cloud of thoughts buzzing around my head. I’ve always wanted to take the time to really examine and organize these thoughts. Some are small, some large, but all contributing to this overall view that religion (and Christianity specifically) is completely wrong.
I didn’t start out as an atheist. I was brought up going to church and buying into it all. I was never an overly-enthusiastic church goer, perhaps all along I knew something wasn’t quite right with it, but the overall picture I believed in. Over time, small cracks in my belief began to appear, some of which are listed below. For me, the rejection of religion wasn’t a sudden affair — it took at least 5 years, perhaps longer, since the first cracks appeared to where there were enough of them to bring the entire thing down.
The reasons on why I’m an atheist below are noted with the severity (or size of the crack I guess). Early on, many small cracks appeared — enough so that I started to look for more. Eventually I found a few major issues, logical in nature, that made large enough cracks that there really was no going back.
Before I list my reasons, there are a few notes:
In the text below, I come at a few of these form the Christian standpoint that he exists, so I’ll say things like “he made me”, or “he sent a flood”. This is mainly just to make points easier — obviously I don’t actually believe that he exists since that’s what this whole article is about.
I also take into consideration the characteristics of the god as described by Christians. For example, I find that many of god’s actions as described in the bible are petty and child-like. This of course doesn’t mean that a petty and child-like god can’t exist, but it lends to the notion for me at least that this being likely doesn’t exist, especially when this description contradicts other descriptions of the same being within the same text.
So, here we go:
Major
The Free Will Problem
Many religious people believe that their god is omniscient (“all-knowing”). He knows everything about the universe, everything that has happened, and everything that will. The issue with this of course, is that if such a being were to exist, it removes our ability to have free will.
Let’s pretend that I am omniscient and we travel together to our local coffee shop. Choosing your coffee this morning may seem like a hard decision, but since I know everything, I know you’ll eventually choose the latte with a bit of vanilla in it. In fact, not only do I know the coffee you will choose that day, I know the coffee you will choose on every other day of your existence, both in your past, but more importantly into your future. I’m omniscient — I can’t be wrong, otherwise I wouldn’t really be omniscient. Next Tuesday you’ll order a capuccino, three years from today, you’ll order a mocha, and the day before you die you’ll have an Americano. Since I can’t be wrong, you are forced to “choose” whatever I know and predict you will choose. You have no free will. It is all determined since I know everything that will happen. **
It may seem like the easiest way to handle this if you’re religious, is to hold onto the god-knows-everything stance, but say: “ok, I guess we don’t have free will then.” Unfortunately, at least with the Christian god, you are also supposed to be judged for the actions you take in life — which perhaps is fine if you have free will. If god is really all-knowing, and thus I don’t have free will, being sentenced to an eternity in hell based on actions that I really couldn’t control seems a bit harsh. It’s difficult to reconcile that with another common attribute of god — that he is all good and all-loving. How could an all-loving god be ok with a system where I am forever tortured for actions that I had no control over?
The best solution if you’re a christian, is to let go of the “all-knowing” aspect of god. That way,with our free will intact, he can happily send people to hell for eternity…which still doesn’t seem like the actions of an “all-loving” god, but whatever I guess.
** For the record, I don’t actually believe that we have free will.
Major
The Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is likely the most-well known major issue with Christianity and other religions that boast an all-powerful and all-loving god. It seems like most children even come to this one pretty early on in their lives. I’m pretty sure I asked it when I was young, and likely got the usual answer of “we don’t know god’s plan”…or some variation of that. The basic question is:
“Why would god allow bad things to happen”
I can’t really improve upon this succinct version put forth by Epicurus:
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I’m in my late thirties now, and I’ve yet to find an answer to satisfy this one. It’s obvious that bad things do happen and that there is incredible suffering in the world. Young children face illnesses that no one should have to face, women are raped, people are tortured, starvation plagues large swaths of the world, people are discriminated against based on skin color or whom they like to have sex with, etc… With an all-powerful god, it’s hard to reconcile a purpose large enough to justify it all.
“But look at all of the people who were brought together as a result of this person’s suffering” a Christian would reply. But why wouldn’t an all-powerful god who loves his creation not just build a universe where suffering isn’t needed to bring people together? Perhaps one person’s suffering saves millions of people’s lives through some weird circumstance. But even when the stakes are larger, why create a universe where that is necessary?
The most obvious solution is that a god who is all-powerful doesn’t exist.
Medium
Faith
Faith is the center of most religions, and is treated as a beautiful and honorable thing. In reality we should be terrified of such a concept. Faith is the belief of something without proof. Faith is coming to a decision that can’t be backed up with logic or reasoning. It is the building of your belief system purely based on what other people, either through spoken word or from holy texts, tell you. Let that sink in.
After much pondering, I’m not even entirely sure how you would make a decision if you have multiple faith-based options in front of you. If I were choosing my next religion between Christianity and Pastafarianism, what principles would I base my decision on in choosing the right one? In my everyday existence I make decisions based on logic and reasoning, but in choosing between these two great faiths, where logic and reasoning don’t even apply…well I guess I’ll make my decision based on what everyone else around me is doing, which hardly seems like a good way to decide what is true and what isn’t (and looking at religious maps of the world, it appears as this is what most people do).
Medium
No Evidence
If you ask a Christian or other religious person, evidence for their god is all around us. The good people in the world, the planet, the universe we live in are all evidence. Of course all of these could be evidence for a myriad of other explanations as well. I don’t see any direct, incontrovertible evidence that the god of the bible is responsible for everything around us.
Medium
Born Into It
Growing up, I was only exposed to Christianity and so it makes complete sense that most people choose the religion of whatever their parents were. This is easily seen by looking at a map and how religions dominate areas of the world. I think this was one of the early red-flags for me. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that one of these religions isn’t true in itself, it does cast serious doubt onto all of them.
Small
A Childlike God
God creates universe. God creates man. God requires all men to acknowledge his existence or face an eternity in hell. It all seems so childish and circular.Sure, I guess a childish god who needs to be praised could be the reality, but I just have a hard time believing that a god who is powerful enough to create the entire universe would be so petty and demand that we acknowledge him and sing praises to him.
Small
Flood and Mass Genocide
Man does wrong, and as punishment, wipes out every living land-based creature on the planet, except for those critters that were lucky enough to fit on a boat (hey, why do all of the fish in the world get a free pass, but all of the zebras on the planet (except for two that received the boat ticket) get killed off?).
If it were true, it would be genocide of epic proportions, and along with it the mass killing of millions of innocent animals. Even if all of the people living on the planet were bad, it seems like harsh punishment, especially since god made them, and predisposed their genetics to certain behaviors. God presumably is also powerful enough to flood the entire planet — it would seem like with that amount of power he could have found a better, more humane way of solving this little issue.
As a promise to never kill off all of humanity and a large swath of the animal kingdom, he sends a rainbow that he’ll never do that again. This too has always struck me as odd, since it would seem as though this is god admitting on some level that he made a mistake (which I would agree with). But this kind of blows the whole idea that god is some perfect, infallible entity. If I were capable of believing any of this, I would likely be struck with fear at this thought. If he’s capable of a mistake as large as this, what else could he end up doing?
Small
An Evil God
The flood story above is probably proof enough that the god of the bible has some issues controlling his behavior and would be likely considered just plain evil. There are many other passages in the bible that make one question the moral character of god (I discovered this article questioning whether God, not Satan is actually the evil one – https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/What-if-God-was-actually-the-evil-one-20121025). One of the bible stories that has always stuck with me is the story of Job. The story goes that to test Job’s faith, god basically kills off his entire family, quite a few of his servants, his livestock, and strickened him with illness. This seems pretty evil to me, and certainly not the actions of a good, moral being.
Small
Satan
Related to the concept of the problem of evil, it has never made much sense to me on how a character like Satan would be allowed to exist when there is an all-powerful and all-good god in control of it all.
Small
He Made Me So I Can’t Believe
This is similar to the problem of free will. Basically, if god made me, he made me with my various brain structures and chemical composition which influences how I behave and how I process the world around me. Basically he built me to rely on my logic and reasoning skills, perhaps moreso than in other people, which makes it improbable for me to believe in things that I personally don’t see evidence for — faith isn’t really available to everyone. I really have no choice in the matter. It would then seem to be pretty harsh to send me to hell because of how he made me.
Small
God Either Doesn’t Know How it Feels, or He’s not All Good
This was one of the earliest independent thoughts I had while growing up, that really made me question whether any of this religion thing makes sense. I haven’t seen it expressed too much elsewhere, but it still sits in the back of my mind as fairly sizable hangup. According to Christians we will all be judged when we die to see if we go to heaven or hell. I was also taught that God is a perfect being and all good. To sum it all up, it seems pretty unfair to be judged for our very human actions (we’re human afterall) by a being that is perfect and doesn’t really know what it’s like to be human — he can’t. To take a severe example, I don’t doubt that for some murderers, the desire to act how they do (which is a product of their brain chemistry, upbrininging, etc..) is overpowering. It seems that to be fair, the god doing the judging should have to know what that feels like — to have that desire and to experience it so powerfully that even if he doesn’t go through with a murder but even the profound desire to would make him unholy and a being that you couldn’t then argue as being omnibenevolent.
Arguments against common reasons for the existence of a God
A God is Needed for Morality
I always seem to hear from the religious that you can’t be moral without the existence of a god. I’ve never actually understood why, partly because I think that our morals are easily explained as a result of the process of evolution. Everything from murder to theft, and even our views on sexual behavior seem to make sense in the context of evolution — that what we view as morally bad practices are also bad for the advancement of the social group, and thus the species. For example, a group that doesn’t frown upon murder and where its group members happily murder eachother probably aren’t going to be around long enough to pass their genes on (and interestingly, we can find the killing of other groups morally acceptable if necessary, such as in war). I certainly don’t believe that morals can only come from a god, so using our morality as evidence of a god doesn’t really work.
God is Needed Since Something Needed to Create the Universe
There seems to be the need for many to attribute the universe we inhabit to a creator. I’m hardly the first to come back by asking the question of who then created god? Often times the answer is that god has always existed, to which it makes sense to just ask why the universe couldn’t have always existed, at which point a god isn’t really necessary.
How Can It Be that the Universe Is So Finely Tuned For Our Existence Without a God to Do the Tuning?
If the universe weren’t so finely tuned, I wouldn’t be around to question it. There is also quite a bit of debate on whether the universe is as finely tuned as some make it out to be. It may also be possible that life is pretty common, and can even if the variables that “tune” our universe were wildly different, that life would still evolve.
Education Needs to Become Technology-Based
Education is one of the most (if not the most) important features of a strong society. As much as we gripe about our current education system, America does actually have a good system; It produces some of the best thinkers on the planet and does a reasonable job of giving everyone the base-level skills needed to survive within our modern society. However, there is plenty of room for improvement.
For many conservatives, job creation seems to focus on returning manufacturing jobs to the US and giving tax breaks to large corporations to do it. Manufacturing is dead, and any proposals to bring back those jobs are shortsighted. Even if we stop sending jobs overseas where people can work more cheaply, given a few years, they’ll just give those jobs to robotic manufacturing plants that work even cheaper. We’re already doing this of course, but the problem will only become worse as technology continues to advance.
The answer is education, both for adults who need to find new skills, and for children, where our current strategies fall short on creating citizens who are engaged and curious about the world around them. We have to start training people in areas that are harder to be automated (in the long run, we’re all likely replaceable, which is either going to be a great or terrible thing), and it needs to be open to everyone, regardless of income and location.
Traditional teaching isn’t going to make quality education available to all; we’ll need to utilize technology. In addition to providing quality education regardless of location, using technology also has many other benefits listed below. Keep in mind that the points below are written from the perspective of providing K-12 education, but this style of education should be available to anyone on topics ranging from learning the ABC’s to topics within Computer Science and Theoretical Physics.
The system that I propose is a web-based system of courses (probably short, 2-3 week courses), where the curriculum is catered to the individual and responds to the student’s interests and learning style. It could be used by school districts, parents, or anyone who wants to pick up a course to learn something new. A teacher’s role would likely just be for guidance, answering questions, and support, while the technology would develop lessons, tests, and the overall arc of the student’s education.
Tailored to Each Student
Currently classes have thirty to forty students (or more) and one teacher to assist them all. We can’t tailor a curriculum to each student’s interests or learning style with this system. Imagine a system that realizes a child is interested in dinosaurs, so it incorporates this interest in a variety of ways to help the student learn. It could also learn how the child learns best, so it could use that information to more effectively reach the child. Does the child learn best by examples, doing problems, reading and testing? We could build a system that knows this and changes based on the student.
Greater Depth and Driving Curiosity
A system that can learn the interests of it student would help drive curiosity (and the love of learning), and could assist that student to dig deeper into the topics that they enjoy. We need to foster curiosity and the desire to learn, which is hard to do for a teacher who has to concern themselves with thirty students, but perhaps easier for a computer which is tailored to each student.
More Enjoyable
A curriculum developed specifically for each student would help with engagement and overall student happiness. Since each student would be on their own track, the pressures to keep up would disappear and the individualized support that they would receive would help to mediate the difficulties and frustration that many students face today, which can negatively impact our views on learning and education.
No More Biases
There are several studies that teachers are biased (they are human after all). Sometimes teachers give more attention to more attractive students, or loud students, or any number of differentiating features. A technological approach would be free of this.
No More “Class Of…”
Having dedicated classes that move together at the same pace causes many issues. Older students in their class grouping often do better than younger students, students are sometimes forced into starting school when they’re not quite ready, or later than they could have. A web-based, technology solution would allow a student to start school whenever it is best for them. Topics could also be taught in different arrangements. While we currently dictate a series of classes, a fully custom curriculum could delay classes that the student isn’t ready for, or bring in new courses to help build the foundations needed to move forward.
Less Expensive
In order to provide the equal level of attention, we would need to hire a massive amount of teachers. The cost to develop this technology would likely be fairly minimal, and can more easily be adapted and improved over time.
Available Everywhere
Income inequality is going to be an increasingly large factor in our lives unless we do something about it. While there are many drivers to the issue, the urban/rural divide seems to play some role in this. In cities there are many more opportunities for specialized schools, a greater stock of quality teachers, and other opportunities for education. Creating a system delivered by the web would give anyone with an internet connection the ability to receive quality educational resources and learn as much as they want to (this is perhaps also an argument for base-level government-provided broadband for everyone).
Whether or not we as a country take this on, a technologically-based system will be developed at some point in the future, and it’s likely that the first country that does will move to the forefront of innovation, well-being, and overall happiness.
Self Taxing and the Society Investment Fund
Originally Posted: 3/17/2017
My news feeds are inundated by news of Trump slashing government investment in numerous programs and organizations. Things like 5.8 billion from the National Institues of Health, and cuts to the EPA, education, the sciences and anything else that may actually help propel us forward as a civilization.
But this stuff is important. These things matter.
It’s Time to Start Doing It Ourselves
I’ve had a growing view that the main job of the conservative party is to pull us back as a society, to keep us from progressing as fast as we otherwise could. Perhaps it’s time to just stop letting them.
If they don’t want to fund the things that are truly important, perhaps we just need to start supporting and funding them ourselves. Those of us who do want more investment in education, science, health, and technology should self-impose taxes on ourselves for those things that matter.
I know…we live in a society, and everyone in society should help contribute to these things that affect us all — that to me at least is a big part of living within a society, but for many this concept eludes them. It’s a little like giving in to those who say that they shouldn’t fund public education because they don’t have children and don’t understand that an educated populace is good for everyone. It’s like saying to them, that’s ok, the responsible people in society will pay for this — you’ll get the benefit without any payment. It does suck, but the alternative, at least for now, is that this stuff just doesn’t get funded and we’ll suffer for it. More importantly, our children will suffer for it.
Having those who care about society pick up the tab for all of this also proves the conservatives right. They say that society can function without strong investment from the government, and by having those of us who care pick up the slack kind of proves the point for them.
Ok, the conservatives win. Whatever. I’m more tired of having them hold back progress.
Getting Started
We can easily self-tax by utilizing existing non profits. We can make up for cuts (or total elimination) of public broadcasting funds by donating directly to them. This is good, but I’m thinking of a larger effort, perhaps something like a “Society Investment Fund”.
Perhaps it can start out as some sort of an online dashboard to manage your investments in various non-profit organizations. I log in and see all of the organizations I’ve invested in and the latest news and progress updates from each of them.
Societal Investment Clubs
Within this system, perhaps there are groups that I can become a member of where we pool our money and decide how to invest it together. Maybe there are numerous groups with a prospectus of their societal investment package with whom they donate to and in what amounts. I can browse those that match my values, become a member, and get involved.
There could even be specialized investment types similar to kickstarter — like funding for new local parks or amenities. We can donate money and if all of the investment is raised, the project moves forward, if not, everyone gets their money back.
It could be a platform for far greater civic engagement, a place to suggest improvements, and a place to see how our society is being invested in, from the neighborhood level all the way up to the state or regional level (California, Oregon, and Washington should really all work together more).
A tool like this could be incredible. The challenge for something like this is engagement. Would people actually log into a system like this on a regular basis? Realistically speaking, probably not since there isn’t an immediate reward for staying on top of this stuff. Perhaps that is a challenge that could be overcome though.
Perhaps Not Ideal, But a Way Forward
I would like for our society to grow and prosper. Perhaps the issue with funding through the government has always been that there is little connection between the money that I send off every April when I do my taxes and how that money is actually spent. While not an ideal solution, perhaps self-taxing and a platform to aid in the process could be a nice way to see how my money benefits society. Perhaps this in itself could help people care more.
A Blended Economic System
An area of concern I have regarding any given economic system pertains to its ability to foster technological progress. I believe capitalism excels in this regard, while I remain more than a little skeptical about the capacity of alternative systems, particularly those leaning toward the socialist end of the spectrum.
However, I wonder about a blended system, perhaps not so dissimilar to our current system. What if we reduced the protected amount of time that patents are in place, and then provided some functionality within our government to socialize those technological advances. It seems as though a system like this would make the benefits more available to society as a whole, and perhaps even push private companies to push technological advancement even more quickly, since their patents would run out sooner and they would need to continue to innovate.
As an example, I believe it’s fairly inevitable soon that we will have fully automated farms, where bots and algorithms handle everything from dictating what gets grown and when, to the planting, land management, and harvesting. There is of course great incentive for private enterprise to chase the technology to achieve this, but the savings that such a system would provide to the end customer are a bit nebulous. Will the cost savings be passed onto the consumer? (Probably not).
But what if we reduced the amount that patents are applicable for, and then created some way as a society to fund the development of that known technology, perhaps by voting on what we want to build and utilize as a public good. We would then tax accordingly to fund those things. Perhaps even some of those goods could be distributed to citizens for free (I could envision a certain amount of fruits and vegetables grown for the public good, freely available to anyone).
Of course, many would argue that even after patents run out, the free market would foster competition on that technology, and do just fine at reducing the cost on those goods produced. And perhaps they’re right. However, perhaps there are things that the market wouldn’t optimize, or that we would want to provide for free or below market value.