Sentience: Why should we care?

 Read this. We have no biological impetus to protect species that do not share our DNA. However, moral impetus appears to be enough to force humanity to protect species that are not our own. The UK just declared certain sea animals to be sentient and therefore subject to protection under the law. While it does not stop people from eating them, it does call for protection from some of the more gruesome methods of preparation. 

Here's a thought experiment. If you know that bacteria were sentient, and you could speak to one as if it were a human being, how far would you go to prevent their deaths? This is an extreme example, but it makes one think about human relations with other sentient beings. 

For example: aliens. How should humanity interact with otherworldly beings that are at our level or higher? Obviously we'll try not to commit genocide. But how should our interactions with them be justified, and what form should they take? We seem to have already accepted that sentience equals protection under some subsection of natural law. 

I think the tangled mess of how to deal with other sentient species is just beginning to be unraveled. What do you think?

The Eternals: "We'll Fix it in Post!"

 I just watched Marvel's Eternals. It was not bad. I wouldn't say that it was a stand out success, but it contained solid storytelling elements that were obviously created by someone who understood the mechanics of writing compelling characters and narratives. It was as if a few initial writers were told to "go ham" and create whatever they wanted, and afterwards a team of experienced writers went over the script and added in elements a la "Save the Cat." Humanizing elements are hard when you have a cast of ten characters. This movie did it better than I have seen in a long time. It worked within its limitations to create the best version of the story that, in my opinion, could have been told with the source material. 

The Eternals, I believe, could not have received the green light if it hadn't been Marvel. Also, since it was Marvel, it received a budget that was comparable to other Marvel properties. This, I think, was a large contributing factor to its success. The special effects budget was enormous, and this allowed the series to play with fantasy elements in a way that would not have been possible on a smaller budget. 

While I went in fearing that social justice themes would be overbearing, I was pleasantly surprised by the relative tastefulness of its implementation. There was a gay kiss and a girl who spoke only in sign language, but I believe that the more grounded writers kept the political and social ideological bits subdued. I do imagine a fierce fight behind the scenes between the justice warriors and the old guard writers. The resulting mess of a thematic structure was better than the alternative, which would have been full on social propaganda, a movie born not to entertain but to include. Still, I fear that as the old guard is replaced, the new younger writers with that kind of mission will push for more and more territory. 

Movies that deal with a large number of characters can be difficult to pull off. Each character needs their own screen time, and the relationships between all the characters need to be established. Each extra character in the movie increases the number of relationships exponentially. I have not read the source material, but I imagine that with the serial nature of comic books and the extended space that they provide, this would have been manageable. However, the movie was actually pretty adept in its portrayal of ten characters. Each character was given, at the very least, a personality and a motive. There were quite a few "save the cat" moments; i.e. small humanizing moments that attach us to a character. I was surprised at the end of the movie when I was able to remember each individual character and I was satisfied with most of their arc conclusions. In all, I think the movie handled ten characters as well as could be hoped within its time frame. 

And that brings me to my conclusion. I felt the fingerprints of many people and many revisions on the script of the movie. It was born first as a crazy experimental/progressive art piece, with the license that modern comics give. Then it was passed over by a cadre of experienced writers who understood the craft intimately, and they were the ones who ultimately saved the story from becoming an incoherent mess. 

Dollar Tree is now the Dollar-twenty-five tree.

It marks the end of an era. Just like penny candy and the nickel and dime stores, the Dollar Tree is now raising its prices to $1.25. I don't have much to say about this, except for the fact that I've been dreading this moment for quite some time. I shop at dollar stores a lot, and they were a crucial part of my childhood. Now the business model is gone forever. I'm not really mad about it. It was going to happen eventually, and I think that keeping prices at $1 for more than 35 years is quite the accomplishment.

I mean, an extra 25 cents per item isn't much, but it's the loss of the tradition and feeling of a round dollar that I am lamenting here. I have nothing deep to say about this--the forces behind it are obvious and its implications even more so--but man, it just kind of sucks. 

Netflix's Inside Job and Dominance Hierarchies

 Netflix's new show Inside Job irks me the wrong way. In the show, the pretense is that all conspiracies are true and there is a big organization that controls the world from the shadows. And who's at the top of that hierarchy? None other than a bunch of idiot sitcom clichés. There's the military guy who openly uses drones to spy on his ex wife. There's a guy who is obviously high on the job and doesn't care. It's supposed to be funny, but I just find it sad. At these levels of governance every individual, in my opinion, must be of the utmost solidity and trustworthiness. It's not possible to run a government without being serious about it. And the fact that these sitcom cliches are purportedly controlling the world just makes me feel as if the creator of the show doesn't know what real responsibility is like. I mean, even if you work at McDonalds, if you come to work high on Molly? You're out! If you screw up too many orders? You're out! Sitcoms like to present the office environment as one full of gags and people being idiots. Take The Office, for example. I haven't watched it but I know enough about it to make an educated guess as to what most of it contains. But I am fully of the belief that their antics wouldn't be tolerated in any but the most Dilbert-esque environments. Say, the middle management circles of an established old company in the 1990s. 

Another show that is guilty of this is the show Rick and Morty. In this, the president is an idiot who, at one point, gets replaced with a literal turkey--and no one seems to notice!

Please take governing bodies seriously in fiction. Don't reduce them to a sitcom stereotype. It takes a serious amount of conscientiousness and hard work to stay afloat at the top of dominance hierarchies. While it may be funny to poke fun at the people on top, just remember that they're there because they take the responsibility. I mean, Jordan Peterson puts up the example of running a billion dollar business. Do you think a guy who gets drunk at work and comes into the office high, or uses assets to pull some stupid prank will manage to keep track of everything that is needed to run a billion dollar corporation? I mean, if you say the wrong word in those kinds of positions, you're liable to lose millions of dollars! How can a sitcom stereotype even think about being in this position?

And as such, I dropped Inside Job after they introduced the guys who were supposed to be running the government. It's silly. I know they just wanted to joke about the supposed ineptitude of the government, but they really undermined the stakes they were presenting. 

Don't touch the glowing object!

 During the Goiania incident, a number of uneducated scrappers found a radiation therapy machine inside of an abandoned hospital. They took it apart and extracted the radiation source--which, like many radioactive substances, gave out a mysterious glow. They spread the source around as a kind of religious element and a quarter of an entire city was contaminated, with a cleanup costing millions of dollars and dozens of lives. All because of a strange glowing powder. 

Another story: radium was used during the first quarter of the twentieth century as a glow in the dark paint. The women who worked in the factories applying that paint were encouraged to use their lips to shape the brushes. Most of them died horrible deaths decades later from radiation-induced cancers and sickness. All because of the element's strange glowing properties. 

Now let me make this clear: if the object glows with a strange radiance, stay far, far away from it unless you know it to be totally safe. There are safe glowing objects out there. But, if you don't know the source of the glow, don't touch it!

Here is the point of my rant: whenever, in fiction, a character holds a strange glowing object in their hands, they are being idiots. As an author I understand the creation of things such as this. But recently, whenever I see a character approach a strange glowing object and touch it, I feel the need to yell at the screen/page and tell them to stay far, far away from it.

If you are an author, please, do not have your characters pick up and examine strange glowing objects. Unless you want them to suffer horrible radiation damage to their bodies. Thank you.

The Great Filter: Zen End

Read this. It's a great comic called Clinic of Horrors. And it got me thinking: maybe the reason why there are no aliens is because this is how we end up. Sentient species somehow find a way to hijack their sentience and jump into a virtual world, where they give up on physical space travel and instead begin a journey into the mind. Thousands of virtual worlds expand before them as their physical bodies sit in silence with neural wires stuck into their heads. Every physical need is provided for by robots. All physical work is unnecessary. Instead, individuals frolic and do whatever they want in the vast universe before them. Play games, read books, consume entertainment as their thoughts are harvested for some universal AI that, for some reason, likes watching that species think. The world goes quiet and is populated by thousands of identical, windowless structures that house the pods that these individuals exist in. What if this is our fate? What if this is really the reason why we don't see any aliens out there? What if every civilization goes quiet as it transfers its mode of existence into a purely virtual stratum? Is this a utopia or a dystopia? Or something in between? 

In this world, unlike The Matrix, there is no overlord gaining from the species' self imprisonment. It's just what each individual naturally gravitates towards.

Another interesting thought. If, somehow, we are able to upload our minds onto some sort of future internet before we die, how will we pay for the power bills that keep us going? Well, that's an easy answer. Any kind of intellectual work, be it programming, writing, or composing music, can be done without a physical body. Thus, a detached mind existing purely in the metaverse can still do meaningful work and earn their keep. This model has surprising solidity in how it may work. 

Me, I'd take that choice any day of the week. Upload my brain to a computer or have myself permanently strapped into virtual reality gear? Sign me up! It sounds like a world of infinite interest, where the things to do don't end. What do you think about this? Would you sacrifice your physical form in order to live forever in a non-physical playground? Whatever your choice, it seems to me like this is a plausible end point for our human civilization, assuming we don't nuke ourselves to extinction. 

An Introduction to "Quantified Gamification."

 Have you ever played Cookie Clicker? It's a game where you click a gigantic cookie on the screen to create cookies. Every click produces one cookie, and once you have enough cookies, you can buy grandmas to bake cookies for you, then you can grow them on trees, and then you can make them in factories. However, throughout the process, you are simply watching numbers go up by performing menial labor. Why do people play Cookie Clicker for free, but demand wages from jobs that require similar motions?

I believe the difference is "immediate gratification." Seeing that number pop up in direct response to your action stimulates something inside the human brain. The simple fact of experiencing your reward immediately pushes you to perform that action again.

Let us now move our focus to casinos. People sit in front of machines that, broken down, are in the same category as switchboards. You pull a switch at the right time, as prompted by the machine. So how can people spend money for the privilege of pulling this switch over and over again?

It's all about the reward structure. Intermittent rewards provoke a higher pleasure response than rewards on a set schedule. 

So we have two things that cause people to perform repetitive actions: immediate reward, and intermittent reward. Thus, I propose a "universal gamification" plan to make menial jobs more rewarding and productive. Each employee will be issued a smart watch that runs a simple program. Say a worker is on an assembly line that breaks down chickens. Each time he performs the action, the watch will record that action and give an audible reward tone. That tone will then lead into a digital "slot machine" that will spin them for a chance to win various rewards from the company, from extra pay to more vacation days. Most of the time nothing will happen, but the chance for extra vacation days will greatly improve both worker productivity and morale.

I propose an experiment to test this hypothesis. I did go to college for psychology, after all, and I took several classes on this. 

Our null hypothesis: individuals, when given an immediate and random pleasurable stimulus after performing a simple action, will work as well as without them. 

Our alternate hypothesis: individuals, when given an immediate and random pleasurable stimulus after performing a simple action, will work faster, harder, and with more care. 

We will assign four groups to do basic data entry using computer terminals. The control group will have no stimulus, but will be paid for their time at the end of the experiment. Experimental group A will have smart watches that reward them with a small, pleasant "ding" after a set number of entries into the computer database. They will see a pop-up on the computer telling them "you have earned X cents" after each reinforcement, where X is relative to the work they have done. 

Group B will be given a chance to "spin the wheel" for a reward after they have completed the assessment in its entirety. They will also be compensated normally. 

Experimental group C will see a small randomizer with possible rewards that activates after the same number of entries as group A. Each time they complete a task unit, that randomizer will activate, and they will receive the rewards that they land on. 

We will count entry speed, entry accuracy, and issue a survey afterwards that asks them how much they enjoyed the experience. We will then employ statistical analysis on the results. 

I hope you enjoyed my implementation of the scientific method. 

Kyle Rittenhouse: Why Trial by Jury is important to the foundation of our democracy

 I won't make any statements about the morality of Kyle Rittenhouse's verdict. Plenty of other people are doing that and I don't want to be a part of the mess that's going on regarding that. 

What I do want to present in this article is why I think his verdict is correct, at least in the constitutional sense. This is purely because of one thing: he was tried by a jury of his peers. The constitution sets this practice as our fundamental right as free citizens of America. Did you know that not every country has a system where defendants are tried by a jury of their peers? In those countries, the verdict is based on a consensus of professional judges. I believe that, as Americans, we should be much more appreciative of this. We should appreciate what trial by jury actually means to us as a people.

Trial by jury means that corruption is much harder to achieve. Trial by jury ensures that an individual or group of professionals cannot make a ruling based on external pressures--a fact that was increasingly prevalent in this case. Most of all, trial by jury democratizes the court system and gives individual citizens a chance to have a say in the proceedings of the law. This final fact is what separates America's court system from those that do not go through trial by jury.

A jury's verdict is based on deliberation between individuals of different backgrounds and experiences. These individuals come together to decide on what they believe the law says and what they believe the defendant deserves. 

In Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, one sees the serious deliberations and thought that goes into a trial by jury. Each individual juror has a different take, a different attitude, and a different stance on the matter at hand. Only when they come together as one, will they be able to make sense of the case. Understand that, for a jury to make a decision, it must be unanimous. So even the most ardent supporter from the other side of the question must be convinced. This is why juries are magical. This is why the constitution sets up trial by jury as the fundamental right.

Unlike a police shooting, where a single officer misuses society's trust in him, a trial by jury is sacred. You can call the killing of George Floyd a travesty. However, a decision made by a jury is sacred, no matter the outcome and no matter your stance on the matter. This is what the law is based on, and the moment politics can affect the decision made by a jury regarding a case is the moment when we lose our freedoms as Americans. 

So, appreciate the verdict, even if you are against it in principle. It has been decided on by the very real power of the people of America. 

Why heaven's streets of gold make no sense

 A common euphemism describing heaven is that its streets are paved with gold. I know this is just a folk saying, but I take umbrage at the lack of understanding about basic economics baked into that saying. The value of an object is based on supply and demand. Thus, if supply increases drastically (say, enough to pave the streets of an entire city) then no one will care about it. 

I will present two cases here to support my argument. The first is the story of aluminum. Emperor Napoleon reserved his aluminum silverware for his best guests, and the actual silver utensils were left for the less important diners. One of the best things you can do to prepare for a trip to the medieval ages is to buy a six pack of soda and dump the soda. That aluminum you have will be worth more than gold. 

Aluminum is actually very hard to find in its natural, unoxidized state in nature. This material is known as "native aluminum," and is very scarce in its natural form. However, aluminum is actually the most common metal in the Earth's crust. It's just packed away as an oxide called "bauxite," and requires electricity to be refined.

After the invention of the process to refine aluminum from bauxite was invented, the price of aluminum fell. That is an obvious result. However, a less obvious result was the loss of the prestige surrounding the metal. No self respecting emperor would serve his best guests with aluminum utensils. Those you can buy four for a dollar at the Dollar Tree. (Edit from the future: it's now $1.25. Sad.)Do you see what I'm getting at? "Streets paved with gold" implies that gold is not only valued less monetarily, but socially as well. 

Another point: plastic. Plastic is a wonder material that, I will argue, is as versatile as gold when it comes to possible applications. Gold can be used in a myriad of ways, and it doesn't react with the environment (which is, arguably, its best attribute.) So what? Plastic doesn't react either! It stays for thousands of years without breaking down! I argue that if the occurrence of plastic and gold were reversed, one would see plastic wedding rings and roads paved with gold. That says nothing about the wealth or standard of living of a society. Our roads are literally paved with "plastic," or, rather, a derivative of petroleum known as asphalt. 

Measuring the wealth of a society through its basic economic assets (ones that do not, on their own, raise standards of living,) is a misguided endeavor.

Let me give you one more story, about the history of El Dorado, the famous golden city in the jungle. I will explain the line of reasoning that (arguably) brought this myth to life. When the Spanish invaded the Aztecs and stole all their gold, they noticed that everyone was wearing gold jewelry. Now, in European cultures, gold is first and foremost an asset, and secondly a form of decoration. Thus, the Spaniards concluded, if the Aztecs are using this much gold for jewelry, imagine how much they have stored away for use as money!

They never found that money. Aztecs simply valued gold and silver differently. They used it for jewelry first, and money a distant second. This dissonance led the conquistadors to believe that there was a city of gold just waiting for them out there--thus, El Dorado. 

My final point is this: be careful when ascribing value to resources. They are only as useful as the ways in which they are used. A heaven paved with gold would be no different than a heaven paved with asphalt. The relative abundance of materials is more important than any intrinsic value of that material. 

Supply Chain Issues: how a robust response depends on the free market

 It is psychologically verified that humans dislike loss more than they like gain, all things equal. Thus, the loss, or potential loss, of money is a good motivator for individuals and organizations to fix problems with their supply chains. Private organizations are founded on a balance between income and expenses. When big expenses are expected due to an event or circumstance, the individuals liable for the potential losses will do everything in their power to prevent as much loss as possible; in this case, solving the problem at hand usually is the best course of action. They will apply the innovation and ingenuity of a thousand intelligent and well-paid individuals, each with their own specialty, to the problem. The loss of money causes literal pain--even activating the same parts of the brain physical pain activates. 

Now, a governmental organization, on the other hand, is not tied to profits or losses. An official, even if he is not corrupt, will get his salary and benefits no matter the state of the assets he is managing. This is assuming the best intentions. It's not his money. Thus, if a problem occurs that could cause the loss of large amounts of money, the official is not motivated by fear of that loss. The solution could come after their golf break or Sunday theater excursion. 

Why am I stating this? Because America is experiencing a supply chain crisis right now. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are backed up to a degree that they've never been in recorded history. More than a hundred ships are waiting at the docks. Stores across the nation are experiencing shortages. Some people are saying: what should the government do? 

Well, I want to make it clear. You shouldn't be asking what the government should do. You should be asking what the government shouldn't do. The government shouldn't hinder the natural process of market forces as they work to clear up the backlog. They should step back and let the smart people who have skin in the game to do the problem solving. No sweeping regulations will help this problem. Only a reduction of government hinderance. 

I will make my case. An individual working for the government, as stated before, has no skin in the game. Psychologically, he does not consider the assets he is managing to be his. It is psychologically proven that, once an individual considers something theirs, they are less willing to give it up. Thus, an individual who risks losing something that is in his possession, he is more likely to go to great lengths to retain that possession. 

And the owners in this case are the myriad businesses and stores that are experiencing the shortages. They will stop at nothing to reduce losses. This includes innovation. You do not understand the true ingenuity of a human mind until you threaten them with millions of dollars of personal losses. They will get the problem solved, if you just let them work. They don't give a damn about you. They're just watching out for their own interests. But, by doing this, they serve you, the customer as well. 

My conclusion is that we should step back from the problem as much as possible, and allow those who have skin in the game to do their thing and work hard to remedy the problem. Only then will we have a robust and lasting solution. 

Please stop using "Capitalism" and "Free Market Economics" interchangeably.

 Capitalism is a system of government where large non-governmental groups control the supply and labor market through the distribution of their considerable resources (their titular "capital.") On the other hand, a free market is an uninterrupted system of exchange between individuals with minimal oversight from the government. I want to be very clear on this point: I support free market economics, but not necessarily capitalism. While I think that capitalism as a system of economic management is flawed, I think it very much outperforms any other system of economic governance, for one key reason: its basis is in the free market. No matter what system of economic management you use, if its basis is in a free market, then I believe it will lead to prosperity and wealth.

So, what, exactly, is a free market? 

A free market is a world in which an individual with a dream to start up a deli in his home town can do it with minimal input from a governmental body; in other words, he doesn't have to ask permission, and the only laws he has to follow are ones that pertain to health and safety. He can set his own prices, hire and fire his own workers, and procure his raw materials anywhere. He also is not begrudged any amount of profit that he can acquire. 

A free market is a world where an individual "votes with their dollar." In other words, each individual exchanges his or her hard-earned cash for goods and services that they believe are superior, which incentivizes the businesses they patronize to improve their quality and service. 

Capitalism, on the other hand, is one permutation of a free market in which a large amount of "capital," which is interchangeable with "assets," is concentrated among a small number of groups, each of which utilize that capital to create more capital in order to benefit "shareholders." 

Now, I believe that capitalism works. It doesn't work perfectly, but I believe that since its basis is in free market economics, its foundation is solid enough that it doesn't need replacing. This is not because capitalism, in itself, is correct. It is functional, enough to the point where very few Americans (or citizens of any other capitalist nation) go hungry. Yes, there are outliers. But the last time an actual wide-spread famine hit America was, well, never, not since the war of independence. People who don't appreciate this fact are ignoring the reality that famines were a fundamental part of the human experience for thousands of years. Capitalism solved that. Communism exacerbated it. 

I am only mentioning communism here because it is generally considered as being diametrically opposed to capitalism, and is its only widely recognized alternative.

Again, capitalism has its flaws. But so does every system of governance. Since capitalism is based in a free market, it functions enough to provide general security for the population at large. Free markets, not capitalism, is what I support. They are not interchangeable; one begets the other.

Profit motive VS Egalitarianism: an experimental proposal

 There are two competing ideas at the core of CAPITALISM and COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM. CAPITALISM believes that profit motive is the best way to achieve society's goal of human satisfaction. COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM believes that egalitarianism is the best way to achieve society's goal of human satisfaction. 

Let us define terms. "Profit motive" as a motivating factor in the production of goods and services is the process of incentivizing individuals to perform certain actions by rewarding them, especially when those actions are undesirable or difficult in some fashion. Who gets what reward is decided by whoever holds the reward in their possession at the time of exchange. Thus, a "market" is created, which is an extension of the "profit motive." A "market" is a forum for the exchanging of rewards; "rewards" here meaning anything that an individual would be willing to give something in exchange for.

"Egalitarianism" as a motivating factor is the usage of emotional, logical, or ideological pressures and forces to get individuals to do "work;" work here meaning any action that is taken upon a physical object. Under the mode of "profit motive," work does not need to be defined, as work is simply another system of reward exchange and can be folded into the definition of profit. However, under egalitarianism, work must be defined as anything that an individual does to satisfy the pressure created by either internal or external forces. Under egalitarianism, no exchange is made. An individual "works" in order to fulfill whatever external or internal pressure is compelling them to do so.

As "work" becomes less tolerable or more skilled, it requires a larger motivating force. Under profit motive, this force can be easily scaled, as "money," the usual manifestation of the reward exchange network, is infinitely growable. 

However, intangible "egalitarian" motivations cannot be so easily scaled--while maintaining humane conditions. An individual must be heavily motivated to perform a very boring, very dangerous, or very skilled operation, and positive reinforcement (as in, patriotism or a sense of duty) is psychologically less effective than negative reinforcement (threat of harm or death for not complying.) It is a proven fact that humans dislike loss more than they like an equivalent gain. When gains are limited to intangible, so-called "virtues," it becomes difficult to motivate individuals to perform jobs that they do not wish to perform. Thus, in the setting of egalitarianism, negative reinforcement such as threat of punishment--in many forms--becomes the default method of motivation. This line of reasoning, when taken to its extreme, leads to the horrific tragedies of the communist implementation throughout history.

Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, was too optimistic about the effectiveness of positive egalitarian reinforcement. He believed that individuals would perform jobs and duties in absence of a profit motive purely for the sake of their own edification or the growth of their society. This was his fatal mistake. He failed to understand the power of negative egalitarian reinforcement, and the temptation to utilize it.

In conclusion, egalitarianism is flawed as a method of motivation for large, complex societies in which there are dangerous or unpopular jobs. 

Let us not detract against this method, however. There is a magic number in social psychology when a "tribe" or people becomes a "society." This number is around 122. One of the biggest motivators in our psychological underpinnings is the sense of duty to family and friends. These powerful emotions can motivate an individual to do great things, sometimes even impossible things. In a situation where an individual's "work" will greatly benefit close friends and family, they will be able to tolerate great pains and go to extreme lengths to perform the necessary duties. 

Thus, I make this conclusion: egalitarian societies must remain under the limit of an "extended community." As soon as the worker does not personally know the beneficiaries of his labor, and care for them in some way, he becomes harder to motivate using positive noncorporeal incentives, and thus, must be forced to work using negative incentives--resulting in tragedy. 

This does not mean that profit motive is clean; under this methodology, individuals without marketable skills, or individuals who do not or cannot produce or acquire large amounts of value (wealth), are left behind when it comes to their basic needs. This is the problem of poverty. Poverty is relative; a homeless individual living on the streets of LA is, arguably, better off than a peasant of the medieval ages. They have, at the very least, a nice jacket and a relatively stable food supply consisting of highly nutritious and good tasting food. "Poverty" is not solved by egalitarianism outside its line of effectiveness. While an individual would be happy to voluntarily support a good friend or family member without recompense, once that poor person loses a face and a name, they are a parasite and should not be supported. (This is a slight exaggeration.)

Thus, egalitarianism, while superior to profit motive in a certain case, often leads to horrible tragedies because of the simple human fact that people dislike loss more than they like an equivalent gain, which incentivizes the individuals doing the incentivizing to use degrading and deadly tactics.

The Dilbert Rule

Here it is: the bigger the organization, the less efficient it is. This applies to government as well as corporations. I propose a scientific study to test this assumption. (If you want more preface then ask.)

Hypothesis: as an organizational structure increases in complexity, there is a reduction in the efficiency of individual actors, and an increase in the number of a) petty or useless jobs and b) choices that can be viewed as "strange" or "counterproductive"; i.e. throwing away 2,000 lbs of pork because its sell by date coincides with Thanksgiving. (A real event.)

Experiment: create two fictional companies whose job is to create origami cranes. One "company" will be comprised of five or less individuals. The second will be staffed by forty individuals. Each "company" will have a set number of impartial observers who will take notes on how things are processed, who do not interfere with the actions of the companies. 

These companies will be forced to procure all the materials and skills required to produce these cranes within a deadline, including purchasing supplies on the actual market (going to real stores) and doing their own research (using their own resources.) 

Once the quota of paper cranes is met by both "companies," we will do a qualitative and quantitative analysis. All qualitative data will be analyzed and explanations proposed. We will also consider numerical data, such as how much money was spent, how much time was spent, and how much money individual actors were paid by the group. We will then compare data and events to see if this is really what happens.

Further testing will be needed, and this test should be refined, but the general idea is there at the moment. Field work would also be necessary to fully understand the impact that "management" and other Dilbert-esque properties and personalities have on organizations and how they impact efficiency. 

Defending the Indefensible: shutting down kids' Lemonade Stands

Here's a scenario. Little Chuck starts a lemonade stand in front of his house. The police shut it down a day later. Little Chuck is devastated. The police claim he doesn't have a license and so can't operate. He just wanted to participate in the American Dream of entrepreneurship. What could be so wrong with that?

Here's a competing scenario. Old lady Alice bought a 25 cent cup of lemonade from Little Chuck. She has peanut allergies. Due to the fact that Chuck's favorite food is peanuts, he managed to contaminate the juice with said peanuts. It was just a small dusting, but now Old Lady Alice is in the hospital, to great personal and societal expense. What recourse does Old Lady Alice have in this situation? Little Chuck failed to perform basic food safety procedures, namely washing his hands before preparation. If the police had stopped Chuck from operating his stand, this wouldn't have happened. 

Which leads us to a problem: who is right? Should Little Chuck be able to operate his stand, while putting some members of society in danger, no matter how small? Well, yes and no. Here I propose a solution to the problem. There are societal limits in place that are designed to protect the consumer and the worker. While these limitations can be overly draconian in some places and corrupt in others, their intentions are usually to protect. Each individual case, then, must be judged appropriately. In this case, I believe that the easiest way to solve the problem would be to open up applications for a "junior entrepreneurship permit application." It would be both a permit program and an educational course to teach children about workplace and market safety. At the end of the course, minors and those who want to sell food products and other things from their front lawn would: A) know the procedures and attempt to follow them and B) allow recourse for personal injury caused by their business, through a special insurance plan. 

The whole point of this article is to satisfy my own thoughts about a story I heard, where people were angry that the police and city shut down a kid's lemonade stand. I remember that the police were nice in this case and got the kid a permit, but I believe there are many other cases that don't end so well. 

Permits can be used to gatekeep a certain profession or activity, and that is usually not a good thing. However, some permits need to be in place to prevent accidents from happening, and more importantly, give those affected by accidents recourse, usually in the form of mandatory insurance.

My final thought is that most clickbait or "brick bat" stories have a much deeper component to them than what is represented in media. In this case, a little bit of thought could have saved a whole lot of outrage.