Philosophy of Everything

 Let's start by observing that, when someone does something that is easy or inexpensive for him, that creates a benefit way bigger to someone else, the overall welfare in the World increases.  We would like that most people would apply the above: do a little kind act when the benefit for the others is way greater than his effort. In theory, his reward from others that would do the same to him should be much higher than his loss in helping others. For example, if you realize other people would lose a lot of time without some information, you can do the extra step to inform them, even if this was not your duty. Your time investment is small, but even one individual that is helped saves way more time. When you manage to help many people, the welfare return of investment can be orders of magnitude higher. This idea is not new, some people are even practice it, but too few unfortunately. There are practical problems that prevented this practice to become more widely used. However,...

 Secular Morality series 1.  Punishment is not really about free wil l 2. Morality and killing 3. Morality applied to animals 4. Hell 5. Devil's offer 6. A secular God 7. Morality derived from space colonization 8. On "morality derived from space colonization"     Please share this article if you find it interesting. Thank you.

Imagine that humanity is offered the following deal: All living humans will enjoy 100 more years of healthy and happy life, finished by a peaceful death in sleep. Immediately after signing the deal, humans will forget the deal and will not worry about this "deadline". If you sign the deal, no human will even experience any suffering. As life will be extended to 100 years from now regardless of the starting age, no human will even witness the death of another human. Even old people would enjoy a healthy and happy life, becoming physically young again and regaining their mental capacity - without losing their experience. Each life will be full of accomplishments, not only by material welfare, but also with most spiritual accomplishments that a human can reasonably expect. Children will still be born, parents will still be happy about them - even more so, because all would go smooth with no worries and no accidents. People would live happily and without any worry until the ...

We have many anecdotal evidences that economical capitalism creates more welfare than economical communism. However, we lack a clear model to explain what is necessary for the capitalism to work and what is only contingent - not contributing or even affecting the welfare creation. Without such model, we are left debating with ideological arguments like "private property is a natural right" or the anecdotal argument that "communism never worked well enough". The opposing side would naturally reply with some other anecdotal evidence about the shortcomings of capitalism and the possibility that "communism failed because it was not correctly implemented". I will argue here that we can actually model the way private property positively impact the creation of overall welfare. On the other hand, we can also identify cases when private property can negatively impact the overall welfare. I use "common welfare" in the common, intuitive sense: th...

We often hear the expression "this creates jobs". But job creation cannot be good in itself. The state could create well payed jobs for everyone for doing nothing. Even with jobs, if nobody produces food, then people would starve. What is important is welfare creation - goods and services, that is often accompanied by occupied people that have jobs. Such welfare creation should equate to a better life for the ones who consume that created welfare. There are many nuances here. In these days, only a fraction of jobs is actually involved in creating goods and services that directly affect the quality of life. There is a high portion of jobs that are involved in organizing the welfare creation and redistribution. This includes management, state administration, banks, lawyers, police and more. Without a system to control the fair exchange of goods through money, people would tend to break contracts and steal from the welfare created by others. While such "administrative...

Reality is pretty complex, alright... Normally we expect reality to be far more complex than we can comprehend in a limited human mind. Each time we look to one object, many other objects go outside our perception field, even if the eye can still see them. And this is OK, because we have only a limited processing brain power for perceiving the reality. It's not only the limit of perceiving reality, there is also a limit in our capacity of "knowing" about reality. If we think about it, it is very intuitive: the physical mind is far smaller than the reality we want to know about. In order to know about reality, we need to have a model about reality stored inside our minds.

There is a certain economical logic in companies going bankrupt or being forced to do layoffs. When a company does not provide enough value anymore to society, it should release some of the resources (namely people and materials) for doing something more useful for society. There are, of course, some pitfalls here. When someone that is fired cannot find another job, the actual value in society is decreasing. Even premature retirement can have a similar loss effect on society if that person was still creating some value and after retirement he doesn't find something useful to do (like volunteering, helping family).

I think that nobody should be coerced to vaccinate, himself or his child. I vaccinated my child because I considered that it is better like this. However, each person should have the right to choose for himself, ideally after knowing the true known risks of vaccinating and not vaccinating. There is this theory that people that refuses to vaccinate prevents the full eradication of many diseases. They say that refusal to vaccinate not only affect the people that decides this, but also the people that vaccinate themselves but are in the small percent of people where vaccine is not effective. I say we should take this risk of having not-vaccinated people in society. Here are some arguments: