Procrastinating on My Essay

This will be the first installment of my Ramblings Series

Well, I am here. I don't really want to write this essay. Can't I just not do any work and still receive the benefits of said work? That would be pretty nice. I mean if we (the human race) could actually completely cooperate together, we would probably be able to work extremely minimally and just have so much free time to enjoy ourselves.

We would not have to put any money towards war, advertising, or government. Of course, this is assuming that we could just instantly communicate with everybody in the world or just naturally do what is best for the world community. I guess the second option would strip us of something that many may consider "makes us human" whatever that means. If we had to do what was best for the community would that be restricting our free will? Well it must to some degree, but there could still be an infinite amount of possibilities to consider (remember the whole thing that there are infinite real numbers on the real number line, but also between 1 and 2, just less of them). And I mean we are already restricted in our "free will" now. We're still bound by physics and all that stuff. I can't just decide to fly because I want to.

That doesn't even take into account the nature of free will. It seems much more logical for me that our bodies (including our brains) are just extremely complex machines that take in input and output actions and thoughts. I guess using logic is probably not the most reasonable lens to look at such existential questions, or at least it isn't the most optimistic one.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a good. Taking an infinitely broad look at our lives, there is zero reason for reality to exist. There could just not be anything, and who would be around to give a shit? Even before the Big Bang or possibly the bubble that formed in space-time (or whatever that stuff is that sort of sounds like what I am talking about), why did any of that have to be there. There must be something that doesn't exist.

I guess we can imagine things that don't exist, but once we imagine them there is still some semblance of them made up of the specific synapses that are firing in our brain. So are you able to actually comprehend nonexistence? Probably most who think they would be able to would be able to grasp the concept through a feeling. But that seems more like just a failure to be able to adequately describe our feelings; it's not really something profound, just a shortcoming of our language. Or I guess your feeling wouldn't really be feeling true nonexistent (therefore paradoxically rendering it existing), but maybe just the effects of imagining it. So a sort of secondary observation could accomplish it.

Well, to get back on track with this very precise, focused piece of writing, I would like to go back to the first option for accomplishing a perfect world: just everybody being able to communicate to each others. Even with this ability, there would still be different mindsets and problems, right? Or maybe not. I mean sure if it just changed today, its not like everybody would just drop their guns and hug each other, but what if that ability was present since the beginning of humanity? Obviously we would have developed differently. I'm hoping that we would have come to a point in which there was no more war or things of that nature. Even now I think we're moving in the right direction. (Well depending on the different metrics or time scales you use.)

I mean crime has definitely gone down, but I haven't really looked closely as to how that's determined (do we use today's laws looking back or the laws of the time? If we used today's laws, then it would be biased since some crimes now weren't crimes before. If we used the second option, it seems like the results would be more representative of what the laws were. I guess you could just try both methods and gather information for each crime (then and now) and check that way. Is that what regression analysis is?), but I guess wealth inequality has gone up (at least in recent years), and with the dawn of "civilization" as opposed to those savage egalitarian hunter gatherer groups that enjoyed a lot of free time. I don't know if I want to give up my iPod for that life, though.

Having options can be shitty sometimes. It's not even missing what you don't have, but also that's just a piece of behavioral economics as well. I though learning about that was cool. I guess that doesn't really rely on not having options, but just giving the appearance that you don't have options, thus forcing your opponent in the "game" (ie game theory) into an option or some shit like that. I haven't taken the game theory course yet. I do know about mixed strategies, though. (That one's for you, Jessie.)

Sure economics is fun to do, but does analysis even get you that far? We have had the best minds working on learning how to impact inflation, and the European Union is still below target. It is pretty crazy to think how we have created this system (it's not like currency, markets, etc. are natural) and we can't even figure it out. I guess there isn't even an incentive to. As confusion rises, knowledge becomes more valuable. You don't need to be smart, just smarter. Why would economists try to bring about stability when their livelihood is based upon fluctuations and being better than the common person at anticipating/responding to those fluctuations?

Well fuck, I probably should get back to work now. I also just fucking want money. So I'm going to post an Amazon link here somewhere so someone might accidentally click on it then buy something in the next 24 hours so I get a cut from Amazon. Cheers.

Whenever I need to start, crawl, or excavate something, this is my go to machine! Convincing enough?

Published: April 7, 2015

The bounty for this page is $1