text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Sociology

(fix the formating latter)

Do we know who we are‽

I have to remind you, that what follows is just a conjecture, ITS JUST AN UNPROVEN CONJECTURE, and conjectures are quite often wrong. In the 19th century, scientists argued that airplanes were impossible, because "the steam engine is too heavy", it made perfect sense then, imagine a locomotive with flapping wings. Quality and methodology here is the same as with the other primary sections.

4.1 Induction

I pondered how men fight and lose the battle and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men fight for what they meant under another name.(William Morris)

A little investigation in to religion. I'm dividing religion in to 2 components. A proto science component, theories about the world and corresponding solutions. It might seem strange to call this science, but when you don't know much about physics, assuming that lightnings are throng by an angry god, makes perfect scientific sense. The overlooked second component of religions, its that they have an anti-depressive effect(religious people are happier).

pop out and full size TV stations refused to air this, guess why your browser does not support the video tag, install

Theres great variability in the world, but a common pattern that detaches, is that the more oppressive a society is, the more religious people are. So a first working hypothesis is that they compensate there low "affection" level in there society with "affection" from religion, if society is not too oppressive, the need for extra "affection" is lower. Prime examples would be Saudi Arabia, while at the other end of the spectrum would be Sweden. It sounds good, but on closer inspection it doesn't cut it. It seems that the swedes too are compensating, not by religion, but by consumerism, that was in opposition to my preconceived ideas. They are rather rich, too well fed(fat), they buy endless junk for there homes, modern medicine, very well educated, the Internet, machine slaves, too much TV, too much porn, low fertility(cutting corners, for more fun), etc... All this luxury is way too much for prehistoric people, they had periodic famines, wars, they owned what they could carry, leaches as standard medication, illiterate, etc.... This mean that prehistoric people had to compensate some how, the only possible thing that could do this for them is religion. Swed society is very secular, and she doesn't fall apart, quite the opposite actually, so that religion is somehow important for a human society, doesn't cut it. I my self i'm atheist, yet i'm not particularly immoral. Shame works as well as guilt, in social stability. But then whats the point that human beens are so fragile, that need psychological compensation? They just seems to simply cancel each other out, religion and high emotional fragility, compensation for compensation sake? People feel an emptiness inside them, that they must fill, for no good evolutionary reason?

I must be doing something wrong here, the evidence seems to suggest, that prehistoric people where religious, to cover up a weakness. Why natural selection would do that, simply make people tougher at a genetic level, seems far beater. There are various guesses we can com up with, but all don't feel right, they don't feel like typical natural selection hack, "scales become tooths", it feels different, for me, it feels like "the steam engine is too heavy". I got bored and had a break, what about having a look in to animals just for fun. You know, a state of mind like when you ask calculus questions to your gold fish while your brain heals. The hope is that by investigating painstakingly, a great number of different animals, we'll get inspired to something that extrapolates in to humans. We start by being very lazy, the mouse? Hmmm to stupid. The baboon? Too ugly. The chimp? Yes thats very good, but which 1. There are 2 species of chimp, the common chimp and the bonobo. The common chimp has a very brutal social life, apparently they are really tough at every level, they don't seem to compensate in some way. The bonobo is believed to be closer to the common ancestors of chimps and humans(5M years), they changed the least from the 3 species and his anatomy is less specialized than that of the common chimp, they are closer to humans then common chimps. Bonobo prominent feature of there social life, is that they engage casually in great quantity and variety of sex, basically all conceivable acts: bisexual, orgy, adult-child, none reproductive incest..... All this sex, is used as a social cohesion mechanism, its not useless fun. Conjecturing that bonobo behavior is the normal social behavior of humans, explains away the seemingly excessive emotional fragility( requiring compensation) in modern humans :) .....processing..... O_O hin???? What???? ..... I wrote that? In short, religion stems from our natural excessive need for sex, sex here being a social cohesion mechanism o_O . After all, truth is stranger than fiction(Mark Twain 1897), isn't it?

In 1793, Lazzaro Spallanzani, after countless experiments to find out where he got it wrong, finally concluded that bats see in the dark with their ears and mouths.

Yes, i really did noticed that the conclusion is a mater anti-mater explosion, but looking more closely the details seems to comfort the conjecture. Bonobos are the most obscene species on the planet, and its just a coincidence, that its our closest living relative? Us? the most dominant species on the planet? Too many weird coincidences. Actually, the mere fact that on its own the theory combines so many hot potatoes, really really over all scales of controversy, hints that its really into something here. Coincidence? Again? Its so unbelievable, that it has to be true. And it smells social engineering. Its a scientific theory, and i'm doing my best with the available data. If the data points to something extremely controversial, wheeeel, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time the ancients, got it completely wrong.

Funny story. Sounds unbelievable. Probably true.(Rorschach)

4.1 bis Freudian syntax

The theory in Freudian syntax would give: People want a lot of forbidden sex(promiscuity, bisexuality, incest, etc), because its socially unacceptable, the desires are pushed in to the unconscious. From there, a projection is done to other alternatives, today its to consumerisms, in the not so distant past it was religion, and there was no projection 10-50.000 years ago. Oedipus complex and other Freudian sexual suppression theories are just special cases of this theory. Yes, thats right, Freud actually was right to recognise the importance of sex drive in human motivation. I think i'll hide behind him. 4.3 The devil is in the details

Keep in mind that writing was not invented until around 4000BC, and of course the older, the worse quality gets. So we have no other choice then doing a lot of guessing, for the periods before that. Bonobo-like society, comes packaged, you can not cherry pick what you like, its all of them simultaneously or none of them.

4.3.1 our dear ancestors

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

Our last common human/bonobo/CommonChimp ancestor lived 5 million years ago. His social structure was probably very similar to that of todays bonobos(if we are really hard wired like bonobos, its reasonable to expect that). None violent, a lot of sex(oversexed) with everybody, with social cohesion and conflict resolution in mind. Its like the emoticons on the Internet, but in reverse. Heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, group sex, polygynandry, adult-child, none reproductive incest, they even invented a sex position of there own(4 hands). Young bonobos are initiated by there own mothers, and participate as soon they are physically able. Incest is ok, as long as its not between a mother and her adult son, females leave the group at puberty so theres no issue with them.

Zoophilia between scientists and bonobos O_O :

They also comunicate through touch, but while infants want cudles for reassurance, older bonobos require the researchers to masturbate them during scientific tests. "When we have them in the testing room and they don't understand what's going on, they will scream and screech. They have a high-pitched voice and will waggle their crotch towards us. At the beginning I thought, 'Do we realy have to?' But it's more like if we don't do it now they will not do the test."[...]"It calms them down, it regulates tension, it reassures them that you are friendly and that you have friendly intentions and you won't hurt them."

Weeeeeeeeell, it's not so much we give them a hand job, its more that the girls want to g-g rub you and if you hold out your hand they will drag their clitoruses across it a few times, and the boys just want a reassuring pat on their penis. Does that count?

But things aren't perfect, they have there share of violence, zoos, can attest with stories of bitten off fingers and penises(ouch), but no death, as of yet, physical violence is kind of similar with what we do to each other. If they where perfectly pacifist, then they would be no need for extra social cohesion mechanism. Reproductive sex is actually secondary and overwhelmingly overtaken by social cohesion. Evolution, can't do much more then tinker with whats already there, this kind of recycling( sex for cohesion) is the norm, remember how we evolved(scales-->tooths). Of course they are higher and lower status individuals, that get different amounts of attention, but not the usual pronounced sharp difference, of all or nothing.

Notice, that such a social environment exerts quite unusual selective pressures. Its not that they are shovels and shovels of species behaving like the bonobos, they are really unique, alone in its category. So it would be an amazing coincidence, that the closest species to the dominant species of the planet, has these quirks, that are completely unrelated to our over sized brains. That would be 2 very unusual events happening, 1 next to the other. Probably the social situation exacerbated brain competition, when it started, by preserving very high female choice on mating(marriage is restrictive by design). Further more, our sex taboos seem to overlap with there sex customs, an other suspicious coincidence. If we are in our natural social condition, why all this taboo creep?

pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install pop out and full size your browser does not support the video tag, install

We are really big pervs, depending on the individual, we are preoccupied about what kind of sex we will do, or what kind of sex should be forbidden. Julius Caesar was a dictator, he overthrew the roman republic, made him self emperor, renamed after him self the month of July(Ruhnama, any 1?), an absolute ruler over the greatest empire the region had ever seen and caused a civil war. What people payed attention to? His affair with Cleopatra of course, what else. By standards of other animals this oversexism is greatly unusual, this hints of something out of the ordinary is going on. Other animals get exited for copulation, only certain periods of the year, clearly here copulation is for reproduction. Plenty of monogamous animals experience seasonal heat, so monogamy can't account for it. They would get repulsed, the same way we are repulsed by female chimps extreme slutiness, 10 males in 15 minutes. Even when a society is sex oppressive, she must exert a great deal of pressure to keep everybody in line, betraying that she goes against our nature. Common chimps deviate greatly from this, they are total survivors, there social life is rather brutal. Actually they look, the way we should be, tough enough to live at relative ease in there environment, no psychological compensation needed. We and bonobos on the other hand are delicate creatures. In WWII bombs dropped in a zoo of Germany, the bonobos died from the fright, while the chimps weren't visibly affected. It would be interesting to make various psychological experiments on bonobos, like sex deprivation of various degrees, growing up in a human like social environment, compensations... etc, but they are threaten with extinction.

Bonobos have changed the least (and probably never left there forests), and are closer to us, under this theory our normal behavior would be very similar to that of bonobos and our ancestors from at least 5 million years ago where wired to behave in this way, until +/- 10.000 years ago. If this true, then theres ground to reclassify humans, from "homo sapiens sapiens" to "pan sapiens sapiens" (pan = chimps, Pan paniscus = bonobo, Pan troglodytes = common chimp), stressing the fact we are animals and still part of nature. Reclassifying chimps as homo would have a weaker educational effect, simply singling out some special species. Setting up a classification where we are all alone in our group was 18th century navel gazing anthropocentric narcissism anyway.

4.3.2 genetics

Some direct genetic evidence for human promiscuity in our genes. Of course they are others.

Bonobos share 98% of there genes with us, thats about the distance between a fox and a dog. This means what it means.

Human penises, have a rather unusual and unique shape. The edges of the gland seem to be optimized to scoop out the semen of the rivals, (tested experimentally, yes various designs of latex penises where tested on latex vaginas) male refractory period is to avoid scooping his own semen. Presumably circumcision helps here, it reduces the chance that residue of scooped foreign sperm will fertilize an other woman(the official spouse), however the foreskin is probably there for protection reasons(fixed this with underwear). This feature is present at a lower extent in bonobos. In contrast, Gorillas have harems, and there penises are the bare minimum(petite).

Size of testicles: In gorillas, the alpha male has a harem and he is the boss, females are extremely faithful, believe it, your testicles are bigger then his. Chimps have huge testicles, they try to drown the rivals. We are in between, comparable to the bonobos. We are not extremely faithful as the gorillas, but not extremely promiscuous as in the chimps. Typically 10 males in 15 minutes, thats not human, the females try to blur paternity as much as possible, to avoid infanticide later, they copulate with as much males they physically can. Thats the evolutionary rational, female chimps only know that they are extremely horny, and males that they are jealous. Women(and female bonobos) have a real choice, in opposition to chimps and gorillas. Technically, it seems that 1/4 of our testicles would be enough(gorilla proportions), if there was no competition at all. If you had any illusions about faithfulness, testicular size simply seals the issue.

Sperm quality. Gorilla sperm, is not only less abundant, it is weak and doesn't know where the north is. Chimps sperm, is the grand armee of Napoleon, strong and fucking serious in his job. Human sperm is less hardened.

Sperm, can survive up to 3 days in the vagina. So any sperm competition trick is relevant only if females have vaginal sex with different males inside a period of 3 days. On top of this, none vaginal sex is discounted from sperm competition. Anal sex technology further pushes sperm competition down in humans, when compared with bonobos that don't practice it. Its a reasonable assumption that anal sex artificial lubrication was invented before fire use (+/-2M) but after humans/chimp/bonobo split (+/-5M). Frequency of copulation required for a successful impregnation is very high in bonobos and humans, alpha males win by there higher proportion of copulation, not by exclusivity. In contrast in chimps and Gorillas, copulation happens only when the female is ovulating. Presumably in humans and bonobos, this dilutes the pressure of sperm competition, hence smaller testicles then chimps. Chimps have to give all they've got at 1 go, simultaneously with, almost all the males of the group... and even some from neighboring groups. In human/bonobos, sperm competes with males of the last 3 days(5?), not the entire village and beyond(10s).

Sex drive in chimps and bonobos is high because of there slutty females. In gorillas sex drive is minimal, because the females of the harem are faithful. Humans have a high sex drive, so theres no way our females are very faithful.

Oestrus in women is hidden, even from them selves, in bonobos the period when they are sexually receptive is very extended. Hmmm, maybe its not oestrus that is hidden, but the period of none sexual receptiveness that got completely suppressed, but anyway. Presumably hidden oestrus coupled with promiscuity, completely obfuscates paternity, this way the males can't be sure which larva is theres, unlace they happen to have a lab. Hmm, maybe in us, oestrus got completely hidden because we got too smart, it is supposed that animals can't make the link, between copulation and babies, we surpassed that level a while now. So natural selection will make males docile and cooperative, no infanticide, no cheating aloud, they have to take care of all babies. And of course, they would have no other choice then to copulate continuously, if they want to have a chance to impregnate any female. In a monogamous species, why hide oestrus? Its too much work for no money.

Men/women size ratio is low, indicating a relative equality between men and women. In chimps and gorillas, the males are much bigger, wile in bonobos the size difference is the lowest of the 3. Complicating factors: Males are supposed to protect the females, so pressure for bigger size. A demanding pregnancy(big brain), developed important fat reserves(like a camel) in the buttocks and breast for the bad times(they had no fridge). A smaller size of women makes economies in food, so more food is available for the pregnancy. Size ratios could serve as proxies for investigating social behavior of our ancestors, social behavior doesn't fossilize very well; Pre-split bonobo/human ancestors(over 5M years), as well dead end branching species. Very interesting to see f/m ratios for the last millions of years.

As we where getting smart, primitive birth control tricks gradually got introduced, having some none 0 genetic contribution. Thus promiscuity's genetic inprints, got depressed.

Paternity tests show, that an important % of children are illegitimate, products of extramarital affairs, definitively we are not monogamous.

Women that live together, have there cycles synchronized. The reason escapes me, but it seems somehow relevant here.

It's still too early to tell, but up to now, the most important genetic differences with chimps are in brain cortex, language genes, immune system, etc. Not social aspects, that it would be probably some where in the limbic system. For now, at the most, genetic changes of social aspects with chimps/bonobos where "not huge". Under this theory, we should find social genes similarities with bonobos, but dissimilarities with chimps. Looking in the genes that, changed the most between bonobos/chimps(from a total of 0,4%) and simultaneously the least changed between humans/bonobos; hopefully should narrow down the search considerably. Hmm 0,4% max, that's our luck smiling, its doable to seal the truthfulness or not of the conjecture in just a couple of years. We have to keep in mind that this is still a 5M years distance. Investigation with Neanderthal genome(<30.000) is at the point of becoming technically feasible, interesting because they split 400K-500K years ago. Successful extraction from millions of years old fossils has never being done(yet?), neither from secondary sources(amber mosquitoes fossils... ). So for our older ancestors, gene comparisons will not happen any time soon. Behavior doesn't fossilize very well, but size ratios proxies(hint female/male equality) should give some vague hints for what happened between gorilla and bonobos splits(7M).

Note: Its reasonable to expect, that transgenerational epigenetic factors, widen a bit, the observed differences between bonobos/humans on the issues of interest, because of our different recent historical experiences.

4.3.3 great leap forward

torrent file

Around 10.000 years ago, dramatic climatic change occurred(end of ice age), a lot of species that needed from 100s of 1000s of years to millions of years to evolve went extinct(Quaternary extinction event), this show that climatic change was way out of usual cycle. The human hunting driven extinction theory, seams to be the most popular, but i'm not convinced by it. Among its problems: it overstate our importance back then (probably, proponents are overtrained by our current environmental impact) and doesn't explain what started the hunting spree in the first place. So, even this theory, silently assumes something weird and unusual happened to us. In my opinion, the apparent start of extinctions when humans colonize a place, is correlated with the climatic change that permitted the human colonization. The remaining theories are not very credible, but again consequences on humans are expected.

The most popularly known extinction was that of the woolly mammoths, the very last mammoths, died out in 1,650 BC, but where almost totally decimated well before that(12.000). The most notable extinctions were human species(that we know of), Homo neanderthalensis (24000) and Homo floresiensis(12000), today is the first time in geological history that theres only 1 species of humans. Some examples of less know casualties: the woolly rhino (8000), saber tooth (9000), Doedicurus (11000), Macrauchenia (20000), Megatherium (8000), european lion (10000). The numbers suggest a prolonged and gradual degradation, in which fragile beings died out first, while the toughest resisted longer. Other sign that something unusual happened 10.000 years ago, is the human colonization of the Americas around that time.

This climate change had a profound impact on humans, we didn't went extinct, but we had to adapt to the new situation, we suddenly invented agriculture, human societies had to adapt as well. Well, probably we had notions of agriculture from times imemorable, but we never based our food supply on agriculture. You have to keep in mind, that they had to invent everything, even which plant to use, and those plants where wild, with very low productivity. A clear indication that agriculture began forcibly on our ancestors, is that the health of skeletons around that time went way down. Even the size of there brains shrunk due to the bad nutrition. An indication that the last 10.000 years weren't easy, is the 100-fold acceleration of genetic human evolution in that period (increased selective pressure). The fact is that modern humans are basically the same since 100K years ago, an impressive change force them to initiate the civilizational revolutions of unprecedented scale, to the point of being the unchallenged boss of the planet. We went from, just an animal among others, to despotic rulers, while genetically we didn't change. I'm not trying to do a course in history, i'm demonstrating that there was a severe environmental stress on our ancestors, close to 10.000 years ago, that forced them to adapt in order to survive(and got too successful).

A slight nuance to the above, is a more protracted change, over a longer period of time. Technological revolution( great leap forward) in the fossil record start at 50.000 years ago, most probably again due to climatic issues. The Quaternary extinction event, would just be the peak of the climatic anomaly. We can fit in the continuum, the exodus from africa (60.000) and the colonization of australia(50-70.000). So, actual human social evolution that interest us here, would have happened between 10 and 60.000 years ago, probably closer to 10 then 60.000. Even in the worse case scenario(60.000), its too short for radical evolution to occur, genetic differences among human are still very small, despite the fact that for example, australians and africans where genetically separated for 50.000 years.

The Toba catastrophe,happened 70-75.000 years ago, a super-volcano eruption, the most powerful in the last 2-25M years, reducing total homo sapiens population(then, in africa only) possibly to 2-20.000 (mitDNA). Thats an other candidate for inducing change of that magnitude, at least first stages. Its an event of different quality then climate change, it could have triggered an exponential change (exponentials= extremely slow at the beginning, insanely fast at the end). Modern humans get out of africa to eurasia 60.000 years ago and arrived in Australia 50-70.000s years ago. All those populations today have "normal" sexual behavior, so that could put the change at 1 time 75.000s years ago, and not everywhere but independently 60-10.000 years ago. Independent planetary sexual behavior change is not so far fetched as it seams. Apparently agriculture got reinvented several times(wheat,rice,corn,etc), pyramids(Egyptian,Inca,etc), writing, etc... So inventing "normal" or "modern" sexuality, seams not impossible. The Americas where colonized last 10.000 years ago, so we can ignore it. If this theory is true, bonobo like society still apply to us, because it was a cultural adaptation, not a genetic adaptation. Granted that 70.000 years start to get too long, but i assume, its total effect lagged considerably in time. It triggered an exponential change, an insignificant initial change that fed to it self. The bulk of the change happened at the end, in the last 10.000 and especially in the last centuries, so the 70.000 years don't mater that much. Under this perspective, the human hunting driven extinction theory of the Quaternary extinction event, has his initial trigger.

A little reverse example that this "civilizational" change can indeed happen, is with a group of baboons near a land field. The land field is source of abundant food, for the group. The most ugly and despotic males, make sure they where the 1s that got the best stuff. Because of the land field, the baboons cached tuberculosis and a lot died, especially affected where the ugly despotic males, since they ate more junk food then the others. The effect on the group was surprising, an important swing to pacifism and egalitarianism, that still is maintained 20 years later, a very long time for baboons. Hmmm, is it that many other social species got violent, because of deregulated climate/volcano and still are, in the same way we got deregulated?

Trying to guess the life of prehistoric people by looking todays hunter gatherers is very perilous, these people have often complex histories of sendentarisations and renomadisations, migrations, important cultural contact with other civilizations, wars, ... It's believed, prehistoric societies where anarcho-comunist. As hunter gatherers life, meant they couldn't reach very high population densities, so everybody new everybody else, so this simplifies considerably administration. While being nomadic meant that it was impossible to own much, since you had to carry everything. If this sounds like an utopia, its because it was, this is not surprising, we got adapted best to this life style after millions of years of living like that. Basically i'm saying that prehistoric societies where structured close to that of bonobos, and severe extrinsic stress messed things up. This would excuse humanity's behavior from all its crimes, we are just environmentally stressed animals, and stressed animal are always violent.

In all cases, the civilization revolution, didn't happen just by our own free will. Something extrinsic and severe enough must have triggered it.

4.3.4 Big group organization

clic me incarnation of Horus

Social grooming takes time and energy, any individual can deploy a finite quantity. Depending on the political structure, the grooming effort must be redeployed, in order to preserve cohesion.

Sedentarisation, authorized private wealth, rendering inequalities possible, something completely new for people back then, no or weak inequality mitigating structures. When agriculture was finally mastered, this lead to demographic explosion. People progressively organized in too clans, tribes and finally the first states, this completely blow up the foundation of there society. For the first time ever, humans could interact with so many humans, that they couldn't know everybody, the system simply couldn't scale up, they had to improvise, so here is where religion was introduced. In this environment social cohesion, can't be achieved with sex, there are just too many people. People can't know each other, but they can all know common friends to act as intermediates, they redirected part of there "affection" needs to gods(same neural rules as promiscuity). Most probably, there were first waves of sexual oppression in the period before writing, more or less proportional to the level of centralization of the political system of the time. After the invention of writing the oppressive trend simply continued, again in correlation to the contemporary political system.

Around these periods, they invented marriage for procreation purposes, taking in to account the inequality of society and formalize alliance building. It regulates, a previously unregulated activity, in a basically communist economy(all females cared for). Now the rich and powerful took more then there fair share of resources, so the females run away towards them. The details can be quite complicated and messy, many variations where possible, for example monogamy, polygyny, modulation in women's rights, dowries, etc. An other innovation was corporal punishment of children. Not very effective in education, but not a big deal since this is not its primary purpose. CP helps break down cooperation among people by increasing aggressivity. This way, they become dependent to the central authority. With out it people would have a tendency to allie in groups against each other.

its not just a perversion Organize, a lot of litle fish can eat a big 1

You have to keep in mind that the very first cities, had to invent everything, basically there was no state, they made it up from scratch with no prior model, no rule of law, there was anarchy, no police, no courts, no army, no firemen, zip. We take many things for granted, but as certain failed african states demonstrate (or the situation in certain french suburbs, or unruly students etc....), these things don't just happen automatically. First civilizations where theocracies, so that everybody's common friends(gods) put some order in the chaos. First rulers, draw there legitimacy from the gods, its beater to have a dictator then total anarchy (its beater to have Saddam Hussein then live in Somalia, where every clan has rocket propelled grenades and there are no firemen). When the population was illiterate, dictators genuinely gave beater results then the alternative(anarchy), hence dictatorial societies simply imposed them selves on less structured 1s. If there wasn't some advantage in dictatorships, dictatorships wouldn't have lasted, they would have been overtaken by something else( with literacy democracy becomes viable). Of course this was the product of cultural evolution, it wasn't a conspiracy from a cabal in order to rule the other suckers.

Cultural evolution happened for practical reasons. Dictators, of the type of Ruhnama dude, for centuries and centuries, didn't left cultures unscarred. Old elites created all sex taboos/phobias (to divide and weaken the population under them). More specifically, monogamy helped to stifle alliances. Child corporal punishment is an other trick( increase mistrust in others). On top of "the stick", there is also the "carrot" of course, mainly through religion, old dictators used a lot of cult tricks( love bombing). Cohesive groups have disproportionately more influence then there simple size would suggest, due to social instincts and simple statistics. The reverse stays true, isolated individuals have disproportionately less influence. Dictators know this very well, thats why they try to brake, even the more mundane looking of gatherings, let alone permit the slightest form of promiscuity. The very first elites/aristocrats, where most probably nothing more then gangsters, selling there protection. Today's elites are attempting something similar with anti-piracy laws(Jammie Thomas-Rasset fined 1.920.000$ for 24 songs). If they where able to torture and kill offenders, they would be able eventually to impose a piracy taboo/phobia. Today, consumerism has a dividing effect on the population, thus protecting centralization. Probably, contemporary elites, know instinctively, that if consumption goes down, they are in trouble, they probably have the explanation wrong.

I remind you that Ruhnama dude like phenomenon, isn't rare, hinted by Julius Caesar(July), Augustus(august), Qin(china), etc. Today past dictators are romanticized, if the Taj Mahal was built today, it would be seen no differently then the 100 million mosque in the middle of the desert. Ruhnama extravagance shows that interventions of social character, for well thought or purely ideological reasons are quite possible. There's a dictators evolution, favoring those that willingly or just by chance render and maintain there serfs more obedient. Thus complementing the shift away from bonobo like societies. Of course the 2 can add up, a dictatorship is preferable to people then having anarchy.

4.3.5 culture

The gigantic variation among cultures, through space and time, for complex reasons, is consistent with the theory, hinting at a minimum, that not many, or even any contemporary society lives according to what there brains is hard wired for. This variation can't be normal, among all primates, humans have the most diverse societies. In 1 end of the scale, rather ancient and sex positive civilizations, like ancient greeks(pederasty), pacific islanders(sex positive) to the Saudis and Amish in the other end of the scale. Presumably pederasty custom has its roots in the times imemorable general behavior, the ancient greeks where the most famous, but by no mean abnormal by ancient standards. Pacific islander, had to adapt to there environment, tiny islands often separated by huge distances, to reduce inbreeding as much as possible, they had to be very sex positive, in order to not miss the rare chances they had to mix with foreign blood. For the Saudis, probably the deserts, more or less directly, didn't make them very sex positive.

A general trend that detaches, is that as we go back in time. Societies become more and more, sex positive, up until the beginning of writing(4000 BC). Beyond that we can't have accounts of direct witnesses. So the assumption here is that we can extrapolate this trend backwards.

Is it possible that we are that off, from our hard wiring? Culture can have a important effect on what people consider acceptable, good and beautiful.

The tradition of excision, in the mildest form, the clitoris is cut off. The most severe(infibulation), labias minoras are cut off too and the labias magoras are sewed together so that they cicatrize and fuse together. All this with out anesthesia of course, on young girls. For giving birth, the labias are cut open, after delivery they are resewed, this happens every time they give birth, and for the populations concerned, thats around 6-7 times, and with no anesthesia of course. This sound cruel and barbaric, but people practicing it, are genuinely convinced they are doing a good thing for there children, they are just normal average people, they aren't sick.

An other impressive case, was chinese foot binding(缠足), the foots of the girls are tied at a very young age, so that they get molded in the particular small shape. Initially the bones where broken and folded in shape, gradually tightening the bond. Of course this was very painful, and done with out anesthesia. The girls where then forced to walk on there broken foots so that they get molded beater. Infections was frequent, developing in to gangrene and toes where falling off, this was considered a blessing since the foots could be molded even smaller. These infections could some time be lethal. Long term consequences: difficult mobility, foot refractures, fungi infections in the folds, etc. What today would be considered a monstrosity, back then was considered, good, very beautiful and erotic. The Chinese weren't sick, they where normal people, they really believed that the practice was ok.

In Mauritania, fat women are considered beautiful. So traditionally, girls are fatten by being force fed camels milk, +/-15 liters a day. This is done with 2 sticks that clamp there fingers/toes, so that the intense pain averts the vomiting reflex, forbidding them to move(preserve calories) and other physical abuses, up to feeding them there own vomit. They can get killed(stomach rupture), have finger/toes broken and later they can develop diabetes, heart disease, gallstones, arthritis, etc... Again, for these people, this custom is perfectly normal.(obese girls get early puberty, and they get married young there, a connection?)

In these extremely brutal cases, normal people are convinced, that they are doing something right and normal. These people are normal and sane, they aren't sick. I want to show here that the brain, with apparent complete arbitrariness, can come to consider as normal a huge variety of behavior. So a society with a bonobo like behavior, is within what our brains is capable of considering as normal and right. And its with in the realm of possible, that we indeed greatly deviated from this initial condition.

And a little secondary theory on sent.

Sent plays a role in sexual arousal. Sent(pheromones) communicates information about the quality of an individual as a mate. I speculate, that historically, individual sent was suppressed, either with perfumes, either with bathing, in order to help suppress the sexual urges. Since proper understanding of germ theory, the focus moved to bathing, at the expense of perfumes. An indication that we are overdoing it with cleanliness, is the increased prevalence of autoimmune diseases. The immune system, knows it should be responding to a certain quota of attacks. If it doesn't reach the quota, it increases its sensibility until it reaches its quota( as usual, the body assumes, its the 1 that is broken). What is washed away, its not just dirt(that too), its our natural sent, all animals smell something, and not nothing. Secondarily, our sense of sent got oversensibilise, since it doesn't detect its wired quota per day, hence became less tolerant of strong(normal) sents( distinction, between smelling strongly and stinking). A couple of examples: Various religions prescribes bathing. In Islam, bathing(Ghusl, غسل) is a condition so that a prayer is considered valid. In europe, this got through medicine by the "miasma theory", bad smells carried diseases, so perfuming the place, keeped diseases away.

4.3.6 psy

pop out and full size completely uninhibited and smart monkey. your browser does not support the video tag, install

Freud, wasn't that wrong after all.

Simple animals like insects, are hard wired down to the slightest wiggle of there antenna. However, we are capable of taking in to account the environment and adapt to it. So we enjoy a important degree of maneuver, albeit its not really freedom.

However there are limits, whats especially important in us, is what we learn as children. Like the little monkey that was scared of white bunnies, in a similar way, what we learn as children gets cemented. And basically theres an important degree of arbitrariness injected in our behaviors. The disgust urge, has no much rationality in it, the apple juice was fine, the decorative real cockroach was sterile, so whats the problem? Why don't you drink? Not thirsty? Example of completely baseless social behavior, the Osu in Nigeria are live human sacrifices to the spirits, consisting of being untouchable, shunned from society and there status is past on to the next generations. This phenomenon account for the huge variability in world cultures, including the extream cases like excision and foot binding.

An important complicating factor is the catastrophic beliefs of the phobias( rationalization for the irrational fear). People don't have a profound understanding of the issues of interest, like for example the real threat that represents a sterile cockroach. Its not trivial to asses if certain sexual practices are really harmless. So the equivalent of "sterile cockroaches are dangerous" can really stand. As with standard catastrophic beliefs, the beliefs here maintains the phobia, preventing the verification of the real dangerosity of the event of interest by the brain( prevents desensitization).

About a bonobo-like human society: You feel uncomfortable about it, for a similar reason as the little monkey was scared of white bunnies, you simply learned it as a child. Higher rate of physical affection on children/adolescents correspond to societies with much lower rates of violence. So a bonobo like affectionate human society should proportionally have lower rates of general violence. Remember the prison and obedience experiment, you are a poor judge of what you would do in a given situation, you must be put in the situation to know for sure. Somatosensory-affectional deprivation theory (S-SAD) is pushed to its ultimate conclusion. A selective advantage, natural selection should push us in that direction. In practice affectionate would mean, extended breastfeeding, extended use of baby carriers and in general very open sexually.

Peoples "affection quota"(cohesive factor) isn't being reached by standard behavior, they are always looking for some form of substitute. The quota, prehistorically should have being reached(supposedly) by bonobo-like "perversion". Without its role in group cohesion, this substitute is just absurd and meaningless, like the colony instincts of a lonely ant. Currently we are like lonely ants in search of a colony substitute.

Its hear say and anecdotal evidence, but that homosexuals are less violent could be accounted for in there higher then average promiscuity. Presumably they are more promiscuous, because societal taboo focus is about heterosexual promiscuity, totally irrelevant to them(mechanism like that of the necrophiles). Societal taboo, only says, homosexuality is wrong, once that is gone, societal taboo is weak.

3 gays attacked a woman. 2 held her down and 1 brushed her hair

whats that thing‽‽‽‽‽

Our customs evolve back to .... normal, today a strong democratic modern state takes the place of gods as common friends, with the rule of law, the police, the courts, the army, power legitimacy, etc... More importantly, democracy, lowers inequality, rendering re-emergence in practice possible. Other wise women would simply run away to the rich. So, i'm making a prediction, say in some centuries, tops, we will be completely sexually liberated(the influence of this text is assumed 0, too pretentious to assume other wise). If we have a look at the evolution of morals the last centuries, a trend appears to that direction. Today, whats all this wave of unbridled promiscuity among teenagers? Maybe there brains knows something that we don't. You knew already that we gradually get more and more liberal, i'm just saying that it will go much further then any 1 seriously ever imagined, we are not even at half of it.

Evolution doesn't just magically happen, random changes first occur, and then the 1s that are actually good for the creature are retained. Similarly with cultural evolution, all the changes that lead to that future, at first happen at random, and simply because they are truly beneficial, spread to the entire population. New waves of change add them selves on top of the previous waves, and so on.

New communication technologies, have accelerating effects. In general, commercial mass media always provocatively test the limits, in order to differentiate there products from the competition. Especially powerful is the Internet, due to his point to point capabilities. Any perversion, you can imagine, you can't imagine and don't want to imagine, floats in there, and its completely uncensored. The assumption here is that increase exposure, brings sensibilities down, hence a catalyzing effect. The brain always tries to generalize, hence theres always crosstalking between issues.

4.3.7 past taboos

Those that don't understand the past are deemed to repeat it.

If we want to understand where we are going, we must know where we come from. Our not so distant past was very sex negative, a couple of centuries ago, we(europe) where comparable with the taliban.

Not so long ago.

Socially disproved activities: masturbation. Illegal activities: Premarital sex, adultery, fornication, oral and anal sex(sodomy), mixed race marriages, divorce, abortion, pornography, erotic literature, etc....   Death penalty: Homosexuality. Merenge dance was illegal, deemed too "hot". Victorian morals where exaggerated, but there was indeed something to exaggerate from. Various tales were for the sexual training of little girls. With little imagination you can spot the underlying moralistic meaning: Little red ridden hood(wolf = men, don't be a slut), Sleeping Beauty(wait until marriage, don't be a slut), The Frog Prince(submit to arrange marriage with old goat, don't be a slut), Beauty and the beast(old goat, don't be a slut), Snow white(wait for marriage, don't be a slut) ... Keep in mind that contemporary versions where watered down, in order not to scare the kids. For example: In little red ridden hood, theres no woodcutter, she just get raped. In snow white, the prince has sex with her and the movement dislodges the apple, no, he didn't knew she was alive. Judith A. Reisman(1935-), no comment:

erototoxins

Erotic literature was illegal, yes thats right, just "obscene" text, no images.

works written for the single purpose of corrupting the morals of youth and of a nature calculated to shock the common feelings of decency in any well-regulated mind. (Lord Chief Justice, UK and Ireland, 1857)

Some quotes of times past about masturbation. These are not odd balls of there time, where dead serious, and society was behind them. Todays anti smoking campaigns are leaner. Don't forget, kids where told similar things.

device(Cu) to unsure little boys didn't commit the sin of "self pollution", 19th century france

New Haven, Connecticut 1640s death penalty for

blasphemers, homosexuals and masturbators

.   A 1710 pamphlet titled:

Onania, or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution and All Its Frightful Consequences in Both Sexes, Considered with Spiritual and Physical Advice To Those Who Have Already Injured Themselves By This Abominable Practice

Consequences according to Dr. Samuel-Auguste Tissot 1760:

consumption, deterioration of eyesight, disorders of digestion, impotence, and insanity. [...] a perceptible reduction of strength, of memory and even of reason; blurred vision, all the nervous disorders, all types of gout and rheumatism, weakening of the organs of generation, blood in the urine, disturbance of the appetite, headaches and a great number of other disorders.

Consequences according to Dr. Benjamin Rus 1812:

seminal weakness, impotence, dysury, tabes dorsalis, pulmonary consumption, dyspepsia, dimness of sight, vertigo, epilepsy, hypochondriasis, loss of memory, manalgia, fatuity, and death.

Consequences according to Dr. Henry Maudsley 1867:

extreme perversion of feeling and corresponding derangement of thought, in earlier stages, and later by failure of intelligence, nocturnal halucinations, and suicidal and homicidal propensities.

From Dr. John H. Kellogg(1852-1943), yes the 1 of the breakfast cereals:

the silent killer of the night

Today: Survivor of times past, "Masturbation makes you blind". Just to show it was very wide spread, in frecnh its "deaf"(i'm not french). Today they are too many recognized benefits to count.

What we found was men who ejaculated most (more than five times a week) in their 20s, 30s and 40s had about a third less prostate cancer risk than men in the lowest category of ejaculation. (2003 Graham Giles et al, of the Cancer Council Victoria)

These people where normal, like you. There where convinced that there ways couldn't get any more normal. You too, are convinced that your behavior can't get any more normal. You are appalled by the projected evolution of society. But you also know that morals kept changing up until the people immediately behind you. Is this simply an amazing coincidence, that you are the first generation with truthfully good normality, in opposition with our recent ancestors that felt oppressed or acted sadistically or where plainly stupid? Or that simply a mechanism in your brain, fixes a series of arbitrary behaviors as what normality is and our recent ancestors where as convinced as you?

Remember, what you learn about the world, can have deep impact on you. The normal children of retarded parents that become them selves retarded is the most extream impact. Obesity and anorexia, are example of less extream neuronal deregulation. More universal example, the insectophagy taboo, its perfectly good food you know.

title: User:Super Quantum immortal/Sociology


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Incremental space solar power station

(fix the formating latter)

Incremental space solar power station The idea is to launch in to space very simple reflectors. They would simply reflect the light to the earths surface for use. This is not just a normal space mirror, one of the uses would be electricity production. The rational, is to minimize as much as possible what is send in to space. The normal space solar station require the launch of huge amounts of complex and fragile equipment. At later stages a microwave production unit could be launched.

The proposed reflector, should be thin and light, but also easily recyclable in orbit. Any launch of material should be usable for centuries and centuries. The ultra thin composite space mirrors would not do, i haven't look at it, but i doubt they would last more then some years. The best option is to use a simple metal alloy in the form of sheets. Simple aluminum foil comes in my mind, more exotic and expensive stuff are not excluded of course. These sheets should last decades as is. When too damaged, they will be simply remelted in to sheets in orbit by remotely controlled maintenance drones. In contrast, recycling solar panels is too complicated, and don't last more then 30 years any way.

Launch is greatly simplified. They can be send as sheets, in very compact storage, and taking in to account aerodynamic requirements. Alternatively, they can be send as ingots, and be remelted in to shape in orbit by a simple remotely controlled robot. They can be launched extremely brutally with canons(they promise 100€/kg), by small pieces. Using a great number of canons and projectiles, should drive costs down by economies of scale. Solar panels in contrast are fragile and need to be packaged carefully.

These reflectors can be used immediately, even before the whole station is finished. They can reflect sun light, for heat and light in cities. Already, solar panels there will get a small boost. At later stages, a concentrated beam can be redirected to a concentrating solar power station, somewhere in a desertic location.

Direct efficiency will be poor, but this would contrast with very low construction cost. Must compare one use solar panels, with infinitely recyclable aluminum foil. Important efficiency drop is during transmission through the atmosphere. As a compensation, the reflective area must be much bigger, for same power on the ground. Even 1 Km² of aluminum foil, doesn't weight that much. To avoid bad local meteorological conditions, a constellation of reflectors can be used. The light will be reflected to a choice of several earth installations. The light could be reflected multiple times in space, before it is reflected to a suitable earth station. When the power of concentrated light is justifiably big, a microwave production unit can be added to the system in orbit. The trick is, that we can put of launching it until very late.

Maintenance will be very simple, the structure it self will be very simple, a single alloy. They will be no or little mechanical and electronic parts. they will be no single point of failure, the structure keeps working if they are holes in it. Even if heavily damaged, it can be repaired back to a workable state, even if far from 100%. We don't have all or nothing failures. With recycling, the materials could be reused for centuries.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Graviton and neutrino optics

(fix the formating latter)

In short

Fire graviton and neutrino beams through random targets. Hope to observe a deflection or scattering( measurable refraction index n). Use the deflection phenomenon, to generate stronger beams, beater detectors, and smarted targets (theory/technology). Redo cycle of experiments/upgrade until graviton/neutrino optics are easy enough to use in normal applications (if possible).

(The speed of light in air, is 90km/s slower then in vacuum (n=1,0003). For He, its 10 times lower (n=1,000035). Simple variations in temperature can produce enough refraction differential(>>90Km/s difference) to bend light beams(mirage). It doesn't need much of a slow down to detect a deflection)

Hope dies last

The hope is, that they are materials with important refraction index to these beams(probably exotic). As far as i know, refraction indexes in optics are measured experimentally. Even if current theories rule out measurable refraction, we can still hope to detect a violation of current theories. This is arguments for in favour of the experiments, it doesn't assumes anything about the results. These are real pioneering experiments, they don't expect anything in particular. If current expectations hold true, it will be considerably hard to manipulate, neutrinos and gravity fields/waves.

Current experiments never attempted to see what the refraction indexes of gravity-waves/neutrinos really are. Even small slowdowns could be usable.

Electromagnetism was discovered by chance. A compass was left near an electric cable, and some one noticed that the needle moved. Here we hope to run in too something similarly new, by putting random stuff or doing stuff, on the trajectory of the beams.

We especially hope to run in too some retroaction mechanism.

In practice

We compare the normal detection, with detection when stuff are put/done in the path of the beam to the detector. When a deficit is detected, we scan the surroundings to determine the deflection angle.

These are very weak beams, we should cheat as hell in order to maximize detection of anomalies. I don't think i'll do this in my kitchen.

Gravity beams (my favourite)

They are various detectors alredy, from gravimeters to the huge gravity waves detectors with precision down to the diameter of a proton 8D. Gravitational wave detectors try to detect astronomical sources, we are not interested in that here. Generating gravity waves is actually trivial, simply accelerating any mass, will produce gravitational waves. Simply flapping your hands, will generate gravity waves. However, generating gravity waves that can be detected is a different matter. For self generated waves, we shouldn't need precisions of a proton.

coherent beam production

For the wave production, we could do it the stupid way, and just have a big mass vibrating. However it would be much more interesting to produce a monochromatic coherent beams (a gravitational laser).

First of all, little simplified intro on interference patterns. if we have 2 point sources of waves(same phase), on the Y axis. If they are distanced by λ/2. The waves cancel out along the Y axis, and add up along the X axis. At the direction of the X axis, the amplitude is maximal, as we turn away from the X axis, the amplitude of the wave pattern decrease gradually to 0, wile exhibiting an interference pattern (something like the function Gaussian*cosine). If the 2 point sources are distanced by λ, the 0 is on the X axis, and the max on the Y axis. A further useful conclusion, is the observation, that because of the conservation of energy law, when we know that in 1 direction the waves add up, in the other, they must cancel out, and vice versa.

We can use these observations to construct an interference pattern of gravity waves, that is actually a gravity "laser". More complex setups can be thought up, with combination of distance and phase manipulation. More complex setups could be technically more interesting. This scheme is the simplest. For technical reasons, in practice we may be forced to used a less optimum arrangement

We align in the Y direction a bunch of pairs of vibrating masses. The members of the pairs are distanced by λ/2, and there 0 axis is aligned with the Y axis. This is the proper way to do it, but if the number of sources is important, simply aligning them at random distances with each other would do. Then, wave sources are distanced randomly in the Y direction, half cancelling out with the other half. In the X direction, the waves tend to add up, producing a unified front, travelling at opposite directions. This also mean, that in the Y direction, the waves tend to cancel out more strongly then before (amplitudes reduce to 0 faster). The alignment must be significantly longer then λ, or the wave front will disperse too fast (diffraction). The longer it will be, the slowest it will disperse. Already, we get 2 relatively focused beams travelling.

Alignments are aligned in the X direction, distanced by λ, so that the wave fronts add up. Since they add up in the X direction, they cancel out further in the Y direction. The beams get more focused still.

In the Z direction, we pile up several layers of what we alredy constructed, in such a way that all are in pairs distanced by λ/2. Meaning, that the waves travelling along the Z axis cancelling out, and adding up along the X axis. The hight, must be significantly higher then λ, to minimize diffraction.

In the end, we get 2 focused beams at opposite directions. We can't get only 1 beam with interference patterns. The difference with normal waves, is that momentum equal and opposite to the waves is transferred to the matter of the emitter. The waves have momentum at one direction, and the emitter has equal and opposite momentum in the other direction. Here however the force of the gravity waves is so small, that momentum transfer is negligible. Finding materials that can interact in a non insignificant way, is actually 1 of the objectives of building this setup.

These kind of gravity beams, don't exactly occur naturally. Hope for unexpected results.

For practical reasons, the set up can be less then perfect. When wave length becomes a parameter things get difficult(c=λf). We can ignore the wave length, by having only alignments. Them selves aligned closer then 1 wave length, but at an appropriate phase shift so that they add up up front.

We can see that if the alignments are distanced by "L", then the second alignment should start emitting "L/c" before the first( the signal of the second layer reaches the first when it starts emitting, thus they will add up). The third should it self emit "L/c" before the second, etc. We still get an addition in the other direction on the X axis. In the Y directions they will tend to cancel out as before. Because of diffraction, the Y length should still be significantly greater then the wave length, if the wave length is too large, all this doesn't worth it. We can as well put them randomly together. An apparently acceptable technical limit, seams to be ~10^5Hz/10^3m

In the Z axis, if they are piled up at random distances, they should cancel out emission along the axis. (TODO a simulation)

We hope taking advantage of gravitomagnetic effects at relatively high frequencies. Maybe weird resonance effects at subatomic level. We could simulate a lensing effect. A lense, what it really does, is slow down the middle more then the periphery of a wave front. As the wave front keeps progressing and interfering with it self, it actually focusses. We would need to simulate the slowdowns, by an appropriate phase shift. Do a little Fourier series addition among different gravity beams(align properly different beam generators) to obtain various interesting wave patterns. Generation of a pulsed beam (in a period, almost all amplitude at 1 point, all the rest at almost 0), seams to be the most interesting. Dynamic feedback loop, output of detector coordinates generation at determined frequency. Automated system to adjust frequency to the easiest detectable. Wave reversion seams potentially useful here. How? I don't know.

Equations

a gravitational antenna( an oscillating mass) would give as equation in 1D Asin(|ωt+kx|)

if we put a second at point L and starting oscillating earlier by t0

Asin(|ω(t+t0)+k(x-L)|)

we want the two waves to add up at the (-) direction, so at point 0 the second wave should be Asin(0). We ignore periodicity, we want the smallest valius.

so 0=ω(0+t0)+k(0-L)

t0=kL/ω

hey, frequency is gone, neet

t0=L/c (technically doable, much more then 1GHz frequency on a macroscopic mass)

so we put a second layer of oscillating masses, at distance L from the first, and starting oscillating L/c before the first.

We do this again and again and again with multiple layers.

what happens in (+) direction? (x1>L)

at t1, x1 Asin(|ωt1+kx1|)

Asin(| ω(t1+t0)+k(x1-L) |) =ωt1+ωt0+kx1-kL= (ωt1+kx1) + ωt0-kL= (ωt1+kx1) + ωkL/ω - kL= ωt1+kx1

Exactly the same, they add up.

fucked up somewere?

The theory used, need more then just newtons theory of gravitation. However, it would be excessive in using general relativity. So gravitomagnetism equations are what we need.

The equations are like electromagnetism, but adapted for the gravity field(1/ε0=-4πG). Gravitational magnetism has nothing to do with magnetism of electricity, its different. The gravitomagnetism component (B) takes in to account in a simplified manner, a good approximation of relativistic effects. The field (E) component, is just plain old gravity field.

∇·E = -4πGρ ∇·B = 0 ∇XE = -∂B/∂t ∇XB = -(4πG/c²)J + (1/c²)∂E/∂t

from electromagnetism:

for an accelerated charge along Z

Power radiated (Larmor formula) P=q²*a² / (6π*ε0*c³)

Electric field (valid far from emitter, r>>λ/2π) E=q*a*sin(θ)/(4π*e0*c²*r)

(θ=0, we are on the Z axis, E is perpendicular to r, and in the plane)

so adapted in to gravitomagnetism it would give (if i'm not making a mistake)

P=m²a² (2G/3c³) (order of magnitude -38)

E=-m*a*sin(θ)G/rc² (order of magnitude -29)

Orders of magnitude

G=6.67428 * 10^-11 Ke=8.9875517873681764 * 10^9 c=299,792,458

from c=λ*f we get

100 Hz 10^6 m 10^4Hz 10^4 m 10^6Hz 100 m 10^9Hz 1 m

with lower frequencies we can get bigger masses, but λ becomes very big (over 100m). At low frequencies, λ becomes extremely big.

Neutrino beams

Production isn't that hard. A 4000MW nuclear reactor, actually generates 4185 MW of total energy, the 185MW are irradiated as neutrinos. Detection is an other matter, very hard. We alredy detect artificially generated neutrino beams. For example, neutrinos generated at fermilab are detected 700km away at a rate of 1ν/12houres.

Efforts (money) could be made to render the beams more coherent We could try producing slow ν(low frequency), intuitively, they should be more diffracting. But they will also be harder to detect(less nuclear reactions). We could attempt to concentrate slower neutrinos, and see if they are more reactions at the focus point. Consider a balance between refractability (concentration) and probability of reactions. Detecting material at relativistic speeds against the direction of the beam. Diffracting material at relativistic speeds, at the direction of the beam. In trying to being cheap, we could try to suck up cosmic radiation (zeta radiation), filter it and process it for the required reactions.

Applying on both neutrino/graviton

Targets could be normal materials as well as exotic stuff (superconductors, superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, plasma, etc...). Targets at low(or ultra low) temperatures. Play with the frequencies/energy and polarization. Try producing beams as coherent as possible. Use statistical methods. In short, it means making the experiment many times, making an average in the end. Calibrate the detector for the beam we are producing, not a generic detectors. We are not doing astronomy here. For example, we arrange the resonant frequency of the detector being the same as that of the beam. Detector/target/source at great distances. Small angles could be detectable this way. Put detector and emitter closer together. Deflection angles would be smaller, beams would be stronger. Use various geometries, like in normal optics. Choose geometries that enhance deflection. The most obvious trick, is to make targets larger. We can build them, or try to find huge natural targets with correct geometry/angle/composition (Mountains, planets, moons, sun, earth's core, etc). The dense cores of planets/sun should be particularly interesting. A less obvious geometry, is to use plates at very steep angle in relation to the beam, almost parallel. Any reflection would be maximized. Other more complex geometries can be devised, like alternating materials of various thicknesses and angles. Thicknesses of a multiple or a fraction of λ would be the most interesting. Use the same detector for many beams, from different directions, if 10 beams then detection is in a virtual way 10 times cheaper, use it at capacity. Do exactly the same experiment simultaneously from different directions, simply divide the measurement by the number of experiments for the real result. Vacuum as 1 of the refraction environments. In any refraction experiment, its the difference of refraction index that really matters. In any case, vacuum has a refraction index of 1, the lowest possible. If a beam crosses a vacuum/material intersection, we will get the maximum deflection possible. Moving targets. Like spinning, vibrating, sliding, etc. (we learned our lesson from electromagnetism). Use gravitational lensing, sun/planets/mountains/asteroids. The beams can go through inside the objects. What the focal point of the sun would be then? Many perfectly aligned and synchronized beam generators. Single use generators, a single pulse. Use of synchronized explosions, conventional or nuclear. Maybe these last 1s should be done in space. The explosions are treated as point sources, we arrange so that the waves generated add up at the detector.

Category:Original research Category:Research projects Category:Experimental Physics Category:Physics


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Political reforms

(fix the formating latter)

various ideas on political reforms.

electoral

Fractionairy votes for people with no current voting right (the bellow 18, criminals, foreigners, etc). In short, absolutely everybody has a voting right in absolutely all elections, the exact voting strength may vary depending on circumstances.

Its just numbers, it can be easily negotiated how the voting strength decreases with a decreasing parameter. Depending on negotiation, the curve could be anything. Depending on the crime, time of stay, eu citizens, or any other consideration.

For example, if you are 17, now you have 0 vote, it can change to ... 1/2 vote. EU citizens gain a fractionairy vote in state elections. Foreigners get a small fraction, depending on how long they are there.

Copyright

Non uniform reduction of punishments. If the copyright violation is on 74 year old copyright, the penalty should be far less then if it a 1 year old copyright. The exact degration is up for negotiation, it can be any curve.

European union

Rename CFSP and CSDP to EFSP and ESDP

Create eastern Euro at parity with western Euro.

EU treaty reform ideas

EU treaty reform ideas

Council of Europe/European Union

They should join CoE

Japan, Korea, Cape Verde.

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya(?) and any country of the region with successful regime change. Remains to be seen, if the 2011 revolutions will hold.

they should try to join the EU in more long term.

Ripple Implementing Ripple would be great.


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Incremental space launch

(fix the formating latter)

Incremental space launch In short:

Use ever greater, thinner and faster wings, to glide through ever thinner upper layers of earth's atmosphere. Wile using low thrust engines, for a very long period (days? mouths?). Up to an altitude/speed, that a simple low thrust engine can send you anywhere in the solar system.

overview

You might be surprised to learn, that there is some air at very high altitudes. The atmosphere gets thinner and thinner, but it never disappear abruptly. There's not clear distinction between atmosphere and vacuum. This residual atmosphere generates drag for the ISS and other objects in orbit. At satellite orbital altitude, air is way to thin for normal wings, but if we imagine very thin wings(light), of very big size and travelling at very great speed, there's a reasonable chance to get enough usable lift (L=(1/2)*ρ*v²*A*Cl).

Rockets, aren't really good commercially. We use airplanes, and not rockets to move around. Rockets are interesting for the military. With rockets we can go really fast, but why would we want to be that in a hurry? Only the military want to be that fast.

The usual way of alternative non rocket schemes, is trough the use of high velocities, in some way, in order to attain this satellising speed. Even if the scheme manages to be reasonable from a energy point of view, the required engineering becomes pharaonic. I believe, my scheme is much more reasonable, then the other alternatives we have seen.

space wings

It might seem absurd to use wings, in what is essentially vacuum. What's important, its the right combination of speed, weight and size (and shape). Intuitively the thinner the air, you need to go faster and/or have bigger wings.

The wings can be ultra thin, with minimal structural elements. Maybe something like aluminium foil wings, or thinner. The craft could look like a bat. Technically, it shouldn't be that different then a solar sail. Inflatable parts holding the membranes (gas pressure can be small, basically vacuum out side)

Engines

The engines can be jets type, meaning they absorb particles from the outside, in order to generate the trust. They can be rocket type, meaning they just hold all the propellent they will use. Energy could come from photovoltaics, beamed microwaves from the ground, etc. The jet engines, could have larger diameters, greater compression rates, electromagnetic, etc. The rocket types could be some form of electric engines (ionic, plasma, etc). We can imagine hybrids, both on board and outside propellants, supplementing one an other depending on the technical situation. What they will all have in common is that they will generate relatively low trust. At least enough to overcome the drag, and build up speed slowly.

New engines must be designed, for the very special conditions of air density and low trust requirements they will work in. All current engines, either work in normal air, either they are just rockets.

In practice:

With a relatively normal airplane, we can get up to a certain altitude. There we deploy bigger and thinner wings (more fragile), able to generate enough lift, and survive the wing conditions of the local environment. We use specially designed engines for the thinner air.

When the craft reaches its altitude limit, it redeploys other wings, even bigger and thinner and more fragile, and uses other engines. These wings are too fragile for lower altitudes, but good enough for the new altitudes. The engines are adapted to the much lower air density.

When the second lifting apparatus reaches its limit too, we redeploy a third, and as many other necessary to be able to gain more and more hight.

advantage

We can take our time in building up kinetic energy. Hopefully, photovoltaics will generate enough power for the lift off. It might take weeks to reach satellising speed, but it will be with a fully reusable craft.

The craft will have comparable complexity as that of a normal airplane. The craft will never be exposed to sudden changes of the outside environment, materials should be more tolerant and need less frequent maintenance.

The technology requirements seam to be reasonable. It should be doable at a fraction of the cost of rocket technology. Intermediates could be used as a form of very low orbit satellites

The same scheme could be used for landing too. Currently, space ships re-enter the atmosphere at very high speed, needing thermal shielding if it wants to survive. With wings the re-entry can be spread over very long time at a controlled manner, dissipating the excess energy slowly. It will may, or may not use reverse thrust, or some form of drag generating apparatus. All that in a controlled manner.

At high altitude, the wings could be used as solar sails, at least supplementing for trust of the engines. The pressure from solar radiation should be also be taken in too account, near the end of the "launch".

Prevailing "winds" could be helpful. Up lifting flow of particles could push an craft higher and faster then what it is possible just by its own capabilities. Either this will be used as normal use, or use it for saving money.

Problems

Can we build the right combination of weight, strength and size?

Never done these things before. Uncharted engineering territory. They are the lift and drag equations, but i don't think they were ever tested for these kind of conditions.

Equations

D=(1/2)*ρ*v²*A*Cd L=(1/2)*ρ*v²*A*Cl

L/D lift/drag force ρ air density v true airspeed A platform area CL/Cd lift/drag coefficient

not certain they remain valid for ultra thin atmosphere. If we believe the equations, the lower air density can be made up for by higher speed and surface area. The coefficients are determined on a case by case basis by direct experimental measurements.

Very simplistic numeric example: If ρ becomes ρ*1/1000, then if v becomes 10v and A becomes 10A. We should have comparable lift to a normal aircraft. 10v and 10A seam doable.

The problem with these equations, is that the proportions of "ρ*v²*A" don't necessarily stay true in our conditions.

The trick is, to maximize the lift, while minimizing the drag

Experiments

An appropriate "wind" tunnel would be nice. Probably, it would need to be rather big, in order to be able to measure something. It shouldn't be that expensive. Maybe use cold plasma flow for simplicity.

Maybe, it would be simpler, to just do a computer simulation first. Maybe use Boinc.

From bellow: Gradually build gliders that go higher and higher. With second series of deployable wings etc.

From above: Send a craft on rockets at high altitude/speed, use his gliding ability to perform the end of the satellisation.

The two projects will meet somewhere in the middle.


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Sympatric speciation in modern humans

(fix the formating latter)

Sympatric speciation

They are 2 major speciation roots. The first 1 that every one knows, is physical isolation. The second 1, sympatric speciation, is more subtle, speciation occurs with out physical segregation. They are many possibilities, but a nice example is with birds beaks. The beak mutates, in order to adapt in the consumption of a new food source, simultaneously, the mutation causes the bird to sign differently, not attracting non mutated birds and interbreeding with in its own group.

In humans, because of technological developments, only sympatric speciation is possible in the relatively near future. Its a bit hard to isolate a human population when we can go anywhere in the world in less then 2 days.

Lesbians/Homosexuals

Potential speciating individuals should be able to come in to contact with each other, in order to perform strong enough assortive mating so that "hybridization" is kept low enough. As with the bird, potential sympatric speciation should start with what appears as some form of sexual aberration. The most obvious candidates to look for, is in the LGBTQI(strong evidence for genetic causes) communities. They already form communities where assortive mating can happen. From those TBQI don't provide a potential barrier to reproduction with other populations.

On the other hand, LG provide powerful potential mating barriers. They can't breed with each other, but this could be over come in the near future by technological means. The hard way would be to directly form an embryo with 2 same sex gametes. A much faster and easier way, would be to have some sort of second gender for LG.

The best potential candidates for the job, are LG fertile transsexuals, lets call them male lesbians and female Gays, since we discuss speciation in to a lesbian human species and a gay human species (i refer to there reproductive potential, not there heads). Being biologically of the right gender, all its needed, is to preserve there fertility. From the 2, the LM are the easiest to preserve fertility, they can at a minimum, just freeze loads of sperm before there transition (one healthy ejaculation could in theory impregnate all the women of Europe and more ), anecdotal evidence(i read it in a forum, i don't think there's any research on the issue) suggest that fertility in MTF comes back when HRT stops. An important note, on MTF transsexuals, is that irreversible squeletical changes occur at puberty, if HRT start before puberty, they would be totally indistinguishable from standard women(Kim Petras 12), except with there genitals. Fertility might then get more complex then with transsexuals that transitioned as adults, but its not impossible. The female L, is normally fertile female.

For the GF, that is a bit more complex, biological females don't produce much gametes (can't really bank it up), and they are supposed to do the heavy lifting by being pregnant. Preserving fertility can be harder, yet it was done, some FTM became pregnant after ceasing there hormone regime. Lactation is also an issue, bolted milk is a sub optimum solution.

Actually it seams the greatest difficulty is social discrimination, a FTM becoming pregnant, is difficult not to notice and provoke an out cry. A lesbian becoming pregnant is not a big deal, even if the father is a MTF.

LG speciation theory, illustrates nicely the messy and random way natural selection works, requiring a good enough deal of imperfection to be able to work with. We have one mutation on one hand (LG) that is rather detrimental to reproduction, we have an other (TL/TG) that is too detrimental to reproduction. The 2 meet, and the situation normalizes.

This process will probably be done only once. After speciation has occured, the new LG will simply integrate in existing LG communities. Being far less fertile combinations, they would allow some hybridization, gene flow will be reduced.

Autistics

Autism!= retardation or handicapped. Autism is about social interaction problems with neurotypicals. Problems that disappear when they are put with each other.

An other potential speciating group, under important pressure. Strong social divide between autistics and NTs. Strong social taboo on autism. Contrary to the LGBQTI group, social acceptance will not bridge the social divide. Evidence of assortive mating. Autistic community is under formation, in the process of becoming politically active and advocating for it self.

Special needs schools for autistics(!= retarded) will contribute to the assortive matting. Beater screening will have the unintended effect of increasing the divide.

Others

More long term, maybe the internet will help in a generalized rise of assortive mating, making other groups susceptible in speciating.

Long term

Contrary to what you might think. Speciation is not a disaster. Natural election actively tries to make new species. The idea is that you get more diversity, so if something really bad happens, at least some will survive by shear luck.

As a single species, a single diseases could kill millions. As multiple species, we would have at lest some immunity from the others diseases. As multiple species, we will be able to specialise in different aspects of the functioning of an advance civilization. There's going to be symbiotic interdependence.


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Eu treaty reform ideas

(fix the formating latter)

EU treaty reform ideas The following proposals try really hard to be as consensual as possible. Heavily inspired by Switzerland. Switzerland as a multinational federation share a lot of similarities with the EU. The mechanisms of the swiss solutions are understood and then adapted to the European reality. Its not just verbatim copying with out understanding. These solution, DO work in Switzerland, they had 800 years to sort them out. Its not just theory. I say all this, because the proposals will seam too technocratic, complicated and out right odd.

Short summary:

1. On straightening the governance of the Union: a) On fiscal union: Real EU tax powers, inside certain restrictions, that expire after a set time period( example 35 years). b) On foreign affairs and defense: Exclusive European powers on foreign affairs and defense that are strictly neutral. Defense spendings at 1% of EU GDP.

(a) and (b) should be done together. This way the states will horse trade.

2. On treaty changes: States can vote "yes", "no" and "veto". An amendment needs a QMV of "yes" and no "veto".

3. On the commission: Becomes fully collegial, its size is reduced to 7, appointed as a block in there portfolios, can not be removed individually, meet in secret, acts publicly unanimously, the unified Union presidency rotates equally among them, and an absolute veto replaces the exclusive right to legislative initiative.

4. On enlargement: Enlarge simultaneously to Russia, Korea and Japan.

More in detail:

1. On straightening the governance of the Union. a) On fiscal union: The states are afraid to give this power for indefinitely. Its mostly an irrational fear. With expiration clauses, fiscal union will be able to proceed. Every time the taxation powers of the Union are about to expire, it would be needed a renewal of the taxation powers in the treaties. At least in the beginning we will go from extension to extension. The states will feel comfort in the though, that they can always veto the next extension, in practice having a stronger European tax system, then if perpetual power of taxation where given to the Union.

b) On foreign affairs and defense: I think you are all exacerbated by the lack of any serious movement in the area. Again states have fears. The neutrality clause will do away with those fears. Neutrality gives predictability, and reassurance that they will not be dragged in to unwanted future wars. Its a good compromise among diverging states, some are to the right, some to the left, some are neutral. Neutrality is the best way to accommodate all diverging views simultaneously. In reality, the Union, is already neutral, we just need to make it official, and take in the states. The Union is neutral, not weak, as some may be thinking. Actually, neutrality is the only reasonable way to achieve communitarisation in this field. I don't know what this would mean for the seat in the UN security council though. The military budget should be set in the treaties, at 1% of GDP, that would actually make economies in defense spending. Several states are already neutral, avoiding this field in order to protect there neutrality. If the Union it self is neutral there complaint becomes largely void. And yes, this means the end of NATO. On a lighter note, the seat of the European army will be based in France, in exchange, the EU parliament will meet in Brussels only.

(a) and (b) Should be done together. Various states would strongly want one, and not the other. Binding the two together will permit them to trade amendments, and avoid simply having the lowest common denominator. For example, Germany wants (b) but not (a), France wants (a) but not (b), they can have a deal.

2. On treaty changes: Apparently, nothing will change, but this is not the case. As human beings we are social animals. We have build in instincts, that make us go along an overwhelming majority in a group. Psychologically it, would be hard for people to actually use the veto, if a "no" vote is available. I expect, even in a UK referendum, we will not get a veto. Simply statistically, it would split the current "no" votes in to "no" and "veto" camps, the "yes" side however will stay as is. In practice it would be used for very sensible issues, like abortion for example. Further more, it will permit a real debate during votes for treaty amendments. The current system of, "yes" or "veto" simply kills all possibility in having a real debate, in essence, you accept what is presented, or we scrap it totally.

3. On the commission: It will be appointed as a block, in to there portfolios, by a majority of 2/3 in parliament. It would be best if the council is cut out of the vote. Alternatively, the MEPs and state MPs that would sit in the council of Europe parliamentary assembly could do the vote. The commissioners should be balanced according to geographic region and sex.

They can not be removed individually, the whole commission must be brought down. Commission meetings are kept secret, and the minutes sealed for 100 years. Breach of secrecy would be a criminal offense with severe prison terms. The commissioners are required to act publicly unanimously, they share responsibility of the whole commission, not just there portfolios. States are afraid, that commissioners are agents of other states, being very relinquient to let go their commissioner. The secrecy, will ensure to the eyes of the states, that the commission is independent from the influence of there home state. Reduction of the size of the commission is long overdue.

Parliament, council and citizen petition, gain right of initiative. However, in order to preserve the community method, the commission also gains an absolute veto.

The position of commission president is merged with the position of council president. The new position will rotate equally among the commission members. The merger is wanted by federalist, but rejected by intergovernmentalists, having the post rotate inside the commission is a compromise of both sides. Because of the rotating presidency, the size of the commission must be limited to 7. If the commission is too big, it will be unable to act in a coherent manner.

4. On enlargement( legally, its a treaty amendment): It would be nice to enlarge to Russia, but we don't have enough money. So we take in Korea and Japan, they will help pay for the enlargement. Its a win-win for everybody, benefits are too numerous to count. The Union will increase in size by 60%, over night, to over 800 million. I believe its doable in less then 15 years. With out Korea and Japan, an enlargement to Russia could easily take 30 or more years. And Turkey will have to wait.

-

Normally all the proposals should be done simultaneously. After strengthening the governance. The constitution procedure should also change, because of the requirement of expiration of the EU tax powers. The enlargement should be performed, to calm the fears of certain people about the neutrality clause. After all this reorganization, the commission must be correctly reformed, because of all the added powers it will dispose.


text:
User:Super Quantum immortal/Autism

(fix the formating latter)

Brain storming on solutions to sensory problems in Autism I start from the principle that autism in it self is not a disorder. So we avoid completely psychoactive drugs and behavioural therapy. However the sensory problems that can be associated with autism are certainly an "annoyance".

sensitivities

On all, use a drug, or a cocktail of drugs that attenuate or enhance sensitivity. More or less mild local anaesthetics or dilute anaesthetics.

hearing

custom made earplugs. A series of earplugs with varying degree of sound blocking capability. Added extra local anaesthesia in the ear canal for more comfortable and prolonged wearing. Need attention to complications.

drugs that more or less specifically attenuate or enhance hearing.

Example of drugs: TODO

There's a little muscle attached to the ear drum, it contracts when sounds are to strong. We could try to intervene on that.

The auditory nerves are well inside the skull, intervening directly on that would require drilling. Bad idea.

touch

Appropriate anaesthetics should do the trick.

Appropriate enhancers of sensitivity should do the trick.

Example of drugs: TODO

On eye site, smells and taste.

We could try using drugs and anaesthetics of some type. Its just easier to wear sun glasses and avoid strong tastes. Nothing new here, i'm not going to bother more on this.

Experiments

There are local anaesthetics with a half life of minutes( example Novocaine), could experiment with that first, before trying out more hard stuff. In short, use palliative care techniques.

title: User:Super Quantum immortal/Autism