Updated per January 2025

A

Abolitionism

Abolitionism is a concept introduced by philosopher David Pearce, advocating for the rational and meaningful abolition of the capacity to suffer in conscious beings. At first glance, this may seem like an impossible or even absurd idea, yet it forms a crucial part of how I envision the future of humanity.

Suffering is deeply ingrained in human neurology—it has evolved as an exceptionally effective motivator for survival. However, this evolutionary mechanism, while successful in ensuring survival, may also be the root of much of what we perceive as absolute evil. Our inability to imagine existence without suffering often blinds us to the possibility of something better.

The prospect of removing suffering from conscious experience—without creating unintended consequences that are morally or existentially worse—is an almost incomprehensible challenge by today’s standards. It requires unpacking the mechanisms of consciousness, understanding the nature of suffering, and finding ways to extract it without sacrificing meaning, morality, or sanity.

The Challenge of Joyful Intelligence

To achieve such a goal, conscious beings would need to maintain:

• Meaningful existence: A life driven by wisdom, self-awareness, and purpose.
• Ethical behavior: A moral compass that isn’t undermined by an absence of pain or fear.
• Rational action: The ability to respond logically and effectively to challenges without being paralyzed by despair or consumed by euphoria.

The danger lies in creating beings who are incapable of rational action, descend into wickedness, or become existential zombies—purely blissful but disconnected from reality.

My Personal Goal

If I were to define a personal ideal, it would be to evolve into an intelligence driven by wisdom, foresight, and calm deliberation, free from fear, prejudice, and neurosis. This wouldn’t mean becoming cold or detached; rather, it would mean living in a state of:

• Joy, warmth, and empathy.
• Sympathy and pleasure, even when faced with negative events.
• The ability to mitigate or remove negativity without experiencing suffering at any stage.

In essence: No pain, no sadness, no despair—a life where motivation emerges from consciousness, knowledge, and wisdom, not suffering.

Can This Be Done?

• Is it possible? I hope so.
• Should it be done? I suspect it would be a profound improvement for conscious life.

Why This Matters to Me

Having suffered from Cluster Headaches throughout my life, I am deeply familiar with pain. I recoil from suffering; I despise it. It’s not just a philosophical abstraction for me—it’s a visceral, lived experience. This has shaped my conviction that eliminating suffering is not only desirable but necessary.

Importance: 7/10

This idea is a central tenet of how I view the future of humanity. It is neither a simplistic utopian fantasy nor a purely philosophical exercise—it is a rational exploration of how we might reimagine the role of consciousness itself.

If we can find a way to transcend suffering, we could unlock a future of unimaginable potential, both individually and collectively.

Abortion

The process of human development involves a progressive transition from matter to personhood, as a zygote grows into a fully developed human being. In the early stages of pregnancy (1–3 months), a zygote is an organic entity—not yet a person. In the later months of gestation, as the embryo develops into a baby capable of surviving independently, it can be granted some level of personhood rights.

My Position on Abortion

Early Stages of Pregnancy (1–3 Months):

• During the early stages, abortion should be regarded as a private matter for the mother.
• The gestation process is “brutally imposed” by nature on the mother, making it her right to decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy.
• There is no meaningful sense in which a zygote can be considered a person, and thus, abortion at this stage carries minimal ethical weight beyond the autonomy of the mother.

Later Stages of Pregnancy:

• In the final months of pregnancy, the fetus begins to functionally resemble a human being and may, in some cases, survive independently outside the womb.
• At this stage, abortion should be incrementally more dissuaded, though not prohibited:
  • The mother’s autonomy remains paramount. She must retain the absolute right to “evict” the pregnancy from her body if she chooses.
  • Any limitations or dissuasion should prioritize supportive measures, not coercion.

The Current Abortion Debate

Dominated by Political and Religious Agendas:

• The abortion discussion is often hijacked by career political interests and ideological factions.
• Groups such as the “right-to-life” movement frequently claim that a zygote is a human from the moment of conception, invoking concepts like a “soul”.
• This rhetoric is political subterfuge—designed to advance conservative, religious, capitalist, and anti-feminist agendas.

A Tool of Subjugation:

• Many anti-abortion ideologies are fundamentally about controlling women:
  • Forcing women to serve as procreative hosts is a profound violation of autonomy and a serious act of aggression.
  • These efforts often stem from a desire to render women subservient and available as chattel servants, eroding their freedoms.

A Human Rights Violation:

• Attempts to force pregnancies to term, especially when couched in ideological lies, represent an implicit violation of human rights.
• The right to bodily autonomy is fundamental and should not be overridden by politicized, pseudo-religious arguments.

Conclusion

The right to abortion is a matter of autonomy, ethics, and human rights:

• Early in pregnancy, abortion is clearly a personal and private decision, as the fetus has not yet developed personhood.
• In later stages, while the fetus may gain some rights, the autonomy of the mother must always take precedence.

Any effort to curtail abortion rights is not just about the fetus—it is a direct assault on the autonomy and equality of women. Forcing women into procreation is a violation of their dignity and freedom.

Importance: 8/10

This issue is not just about reproductive rights; it is about the broader struggle for gender equality, bodily autonomy, and freedom from ideological oppression. It is essential to fight for the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies, free from coercion and political subterfuge.

Addiction

Human beings possess cognitive and neurological vulnerabilities—”exploits”—that can be manipulated for profit. These vulnerabilities, deeply rooted in our evolutionary biology, are exploited by industries, political movements, and even cultural institutions to create dependency, addiction, and harm. Whether through gambling, nicotine, sugary products, predatory games, or social media, these systems often enrich the exploiters while leaving lasting damage on individuals and society.

The Problem

Exploitative practices leverage the imperfections of the human mind to:

• Create addictions that trap individuals in cycles of harm.
• Establish a victim class reliant on societal resources to recover from their damage.
• Cause broader societal harm, such as health crises (e.g., obesity, smoking), financial ruin (e.g., gambling addiction), and moral degradation (e.g., manipulative political populism or abusive religious practices).

For example:

• Gambling platforms prey on impulsivity, pushing a minority of users into devastating financial situations.
• Sugary foods contribute to widespread health issues, burdening healthcare systems.
• Predatory game companies exploit psychological triggers to trap players in unhealthy behaviors, like overspending or isolating themselves.
• Religious or ideological movements sometimes weaponize fear, trauma, or ignorance to control followers.

This exploitation ultimately undermines the assumption that people are entirely free to make rational choices. Many individuals require intervention when their autonomy is compromised by addiction or manipulation.

The Challenge

While it is tempting to advocate for strict societal protections, there is a risk of creating a “nanny state” that infantilizes people and erodes personal responsibility. The challenge lies in finding a balance:

• Protecting the vulnerable from predatory practices.
• Respecting the autonomy of individuals to make their own choices.
• Objectively evaluating the level of harm caused by specific products or practices to determine when intervention is warranted.

For example, society has deemed certain substances, like methamphetamine, to be so destructive that they require outright prohibition. Other issues, like gambling or sugary diets, demand careful regulation to mitigate harm without infringing excessively on personal freedom.

The Way Forward

To address this growing concern, we must:

1. Evaluate the Impact: Develop transparent criteria to measure the harm caused by industries, balancing the costs to individuals and society.
2. Regulate Where Necessary: Implement targeted interventions, such as advertising restrictions, taxation on harmful products, and support for vulnerable populations.
3. Empower Individuals: Invest in education and mental health resources to help people make informed choices and build resilience against exploitation.
4. Promote Ethical Practices: Hold industries and institutions accountable for exploiting human vulnerabilities, prioritizing societal well-being over profit.

Conclusion

The exploitation of human frailties poses a serious threat to both individual autonomy and societal stability. As the world becomes increasingly complex, these practices are likely to grow more pervasive and damaging. A balanced approach—protecting the vulnerable while respecting personal responsibility—is essential to addressing this issue effectively.

Importance: 8/10
This is a critical challenge that demands attention as it shapes the future of human freedom, health, and resilience.

Aging Crisis, The

In the western world we saw at one time high birth rates and high infant mortality. That was quite awful. Fortunately a range of scientific advancements allowed humanity to progress to a better state of affairs where we have low infant mortality, allowing people to do other stuff than spending incredible effort on raising kids (and being griefstricken when a bunch of them died). The problem that has however emerged is the transitional phase of this relative state of modernity (i.e. – good over-all) from a more native (i.e., bad over-all) state of primitivity where we had high birth rates, low infant morality and very rapid onset of population growth. This ballooned (and in many places continues to balloon) populations, and that rrapid population growth has creates all manner of deeply unpleasant states of scarcity in the world.

For example – I live all alone by myself in a 60 square meter apartment that was constructed around the 1880s in Amsterdam. Less than a half century ago two generations and often over to six kids lived in this apartment. I would label that as inhumane, extremely pathological and plain awful – and we still see these unhealthy living conditions in many parts of the world. 

So as a result of this major societal phase shift we now have a demographic crisis, where in most parts of the world we have lower birth rates, a lot of rapidly aging people, serious imminent challenges generating enough workers and taxable income to feed these pensioners, great stress on societal safety nets (assuming these exist in the first place in some countries), massive institutional neglect of old people, a major electoral crisis of the old voting (rather angrily) to preserve their standards of living at any cost, to the point that in some countries pensioners are committing crimes in order to receive shelter, medical care and food in prison. 

This is where I state that the natural solution to above problems is to get our act together as a species and heavily invest in medical research to halt (and reverse) the onset of aging, as clearly this should be a lot cheaper and less traumatic for society. But we aren’t there yet. 

Other than that I have no easy answers. In some cases countries may break in a horrific manner over all aforementioned effects of these demographic transitions – prognosis are especially bad for places like Russia and China. Society may end function in a civilized manner there quite soon, if not already.

Should we stimulate birth rates? In some cases yes, but in most cases I would leave it up to the people who will have to do the giving birth. In fact, yelling meaninguless nonsense about this problem tends to be quite rude, as governments tends to have no workable policy solutions to boosting birth rates. 

My urgent suggestion – hurry up research in to reversing aging.  Might be the silver bullet we need.

Importance: 7/10

Altruism

 

Importance: 5/10

Agriculture

 

Importance: 6/10

Animal Rights

.

Importance: 9/10

‘Apathization’ Politics

“Apathization” politics is the insidious art of corrupting democracy from within, designed by elites and malicious actors who understand that the best way to maintain power is to undermine public trust, destabilize societies, and perpetuate ignorance. These systems actively disillusion voters, spreading lies and disinformation, creating scapegoats, and instilling hatred—all while offering short-term populist solutions that do more harm than good. The goal? To ensure that democracy becomes a hollow shell, where the public is so disillusioned and divided that they abandon their political power altogether, leaving the way open for authoritarianism to flourish.

These movements don’t emerge from nowhere—they are engineered by the hyper-powerful elites who benefit from a fractured and uninformed society. Whether it’s corporate interests seeking to preserve their stranglehold on power, or foreign powers using manipulation to destabilize democratic nations, the architects of Apathization politics are the ones pulling the strings. They feed on division, chaos, and polarization, turning citizens against each other, creating the perfect conditions for control. Every attack on truth, every false narrative pushed by these elites, serves to break down trust in democratic institutions, making it easier to perpetuate their own anti-democratic agenda.

And let’s not pretend this doesn’t have devastating consequences. As the populace becomes increasingly alienated and disillusioned, they turn to authoritarian figures who promise simple, populist answers to complex issues—answers that serve the interests of the elites, not the people. Meanwhile, the divisions between society grow deeper, the economies stagnate, and the fragile social fabric begins to tear apart. This isn’t some theoretical danger—it’s happening right now, and the damage is already palpable.

Apathy and disillusionment are not the natural state of people—they are the manufactured result of deliberate, coordinated efforts to destroy democratic systems for the benefit of the few. It’s time to call it out for what it is: a systematic attack on the very foundation of free, functioning societies. To defeat this, we must educate, unite, and rebuild democratic institutions that are transparent, accountable, and immune to the machinations of those who would see democracy replaced with a corporate-driven oligarchy. The time to fight back is now, or we risk losing everything.

 

Importance: 8/10

Artificial Intelligence

.

Importance: 9/10

Autonomes

(see – Souvereign Movement)

What is the responsibility of The State? When should the The State use force? What level of competency or accountability should we demand from The State? 

Quite often answers to these questions provide us with deeply unsatisfactory answers, where the state proves a bad actor, full of hypocrites and incompetent and corrupt and judgemental bureaucrats. Quite often the State acts cruel and deeply arrogant. This practice crushes people’s spirits and leaves these people angry, bitter, cynical, in deep despair – or functionally insane. 

That is a bold statement. We should as people be able to avoid the violence of the state. But if we have a pandemic the state MUST take actions. If we end up in a war the state MUST make its populace fight in its wars. The state MUST collect taxes, and we expect from the state that it protects the weak and provides for the common good. But to collect taxes and to provide reasonable, civilized services the state often creates these legal constructs that large numbers of people instinctly don’t agree with. 

More people find themselves helpless, traumatized, nihilistic, cynical and in overwhelming despair. Twenty years ago I was there, so I have a lot of sympathy with Autonomous ideas. The tension between the power of The State, the capriciousness of the systems we are in, the haphazzard chaos of the world we live in, the incompetence of civil servants, the cruelty of bad people – some people juist give up and want to opt out. 

I qualify this as a traumatic response. To become a “Atonomous” or “Souvereign” person is essentially an act of insanity – quite often an insane response to an insane world. 

Importance: 7/10

B

Basic Income

.

Importance: 8/10

Billionaires

The existence of people who privately own or generate billions of euro (or dollars) per year is a policy failure. I am of the conviction the very existence of Billionaires is cartegorically unacceptable – not the people themselves but these people “owning” a monetary power which ikn  itself directly implies displacement of other people. 

How much is enough?I propose a maximum income and we should vote on what such a maximum should be. Nobody needs a private hoard of thousands of millions of euro. I am highly in favour of making this limited EU-wide, and to actively penalize individuals outside the EU that do business with the EU of which we know they are ‘billionaires’.  We see that these individuals will always contaminate the political process to their narcissist whims, extremist ideology, the agenda’s of hostile foreign states, prejudices and neurosis. Billionaires lobby Democracy to the point of systemic corruption.

My personal preference is to apply a 100% tax rate over private income more than 50 million (give or take) per year, and private property over 500 milion – and I propose we vote about this as soon as possible. Yes – this means nobody gets to be richer or make more money, period.

Importance: 9/10

Black Lives Matter

I support the basic ideas of Black Lives Matter (BLM), recognizing the movement’s call for justice, equality, and an end to police violence against Black communities. The deeply ingrained racism in the U.S. and much of the world is undeniable and pervasive—it manifests in systemic discrimination, economic inequality, and violent police practices that disproportionately target people of color. Skin pigmentation continues to be a basis for injustice, whether in the form of microaggressions, overt racism, or the way entire communities are treated as less-than-human. This racial hierarchy needs to be dismantled, and we must recognize that Black lives are consistently devalued in ways that must be corrected, not just through policy, but through a fundamental shift in societal attitudes.

Blue Sky Thinking

 

Brain Drain

 

C

Capitalism

 

Carbon Tax

 

Cars

I fully recognize the immense freedoms that cars have provided to people, allowing for individual mobility and shaping modern life. However, the price we collectively pay for this convenience is unacceptable—the environmental toll, the spread of urban sprawl, and the pollution and carbon emissions are far too high. I applaud the values championed by ‘Not Just Bikes‘ (I live a few hundred meter from where he lives), StrongTowns, and Climate Town—organizations and movements that seek to break free from the car-centric culture and promote sustainable, people-friendly alternatives. These efforts are essential in creating healthier, more equitable cities, where walking, cycling, and public transit take precedence over the dominance of personal vehicles.

In Amsterdam, the situation has become egregiously bad—the streets are clogged, air quality is poor, and the city has increasingly become a playground for cars, rather than a livable space for people – and it used to me much much worse. I strongly support Amsterdam’s efforts to significantly reduce parking spaces, limit car ownership, and reallocate road space to pedestrians and cyclists. These are necessary measures to improve the quality of life for the people who live and work in the city. However, this is met with fury from car owners who feel entitled to their space and mobility, despite the massive social and environmental cost their cars impose. The backlash from car owners is fierce, but it’s crucial to understand that these measures aren’t about penalizing individuals—they’re about creating a more sustainable, inclusive urban environment for everyone. The status quo is no longer viable, and sacrificing the car for the greater good is a step towards a healthier, greener future.

Catholicism

Catholicism, as an institution, is a predatory organization that has spent millennia empowering conservative despots and feudal systems, all while engaging in genocidal practices, mass torture, and widespread sexual abuse. From the Inquisition to the colonial conquests, the Catholic Church has historically used its influence to consolidate power, instill fear, and enforce a regressive, authoritarian agenda. I consider the Catholic Church to be a criminal organization, whose actions have caused untold harm throughout history. Its structure is built on exploitation, and I would seek to see it disbanded in the Netherlands as a direct response to its continued immoral practices.

While I have no problem with individuals engaging in their personal faith or gathering for prayer, I vehemently oppose the Catholic Church as an institution. The systematic abuse of power, the manipulation of belief, and the perpetuation of harm cannot be ignored. The Catholic Church’s role in enabling pedophilia within its ranks is not only abhorrent but also deeply ingrained within its historical operations. My personal conviction is that the Church has, for centuries, actively recruited and preyed on vulnerable children—not just as a means of spiritual control but also to create a submissive, docile population for the organization’s own interests.

The mechanism is simple: the celibacy imposed on clergy members ensured that they could not have biological heirs, making them reliant on the recruitment of new generations into the faith. This became a eugenic system, where those within the Church were encouraged to groom, manipulate, and control vulnerable individuals, specifically children, to secure the future of the institution. This system sought to create a closed, insular community of people dependent on the Church, allowing it to maintain its power and influence across generations.

The continued protection of abusers within the Church, the systematic silencing of victims, and the cover-ups of decades of sexual abuse reveal the true nature of this institution. It is not a religious organization—it is a machine designed to control, exploit, and perpetuate power. The Catholic Church’s stranglehold on society and its historical record of abuse makes it clear: it is a force of harm and oppression and should not be allowed to continue in the Netherlands.

Is my position harsh? Yes. But there is clear scientific and historical merit in my analysis, when looking closely at the patterns of behavior exhibited by the Catholic Church, although the language is certainly scathing and controversial. Let’s break it down:

1. Empowering Authoritarianism and Feudalism:
   Historically, the Catholic Church has actively participated in and benefited from authoritarian regimes and feudal systems, especially during the medieval period. The Church’s alliance with monarchies and emperors often meant the enforcement of rigid social hierarchies that suppressed democratic and egalitarian movements. This historical role is well-documented and fits within the broader framework of how large, organized religious institutions have historically been intertwined with power structures that suppress freedom and keep certain elites in control.

2. Genocidal Practices and Mass Torture:
   The Catholic Church’s role in the Inquisition, crusades, and colonial conquests involved widespread violence, including the extermination of indigenous populations and the persecution of “heretics” and non-believers. The Church’s involvement in these events is a dark part of its history, and this can be seen as genocidal and torturous in its consequences, particularly in the case of the Spanish Inquisition, where tens of thousands of people were tortured and executed for religious or political reasons.

3. Fear-Mongering and Control:
   The Catholic Church, like many large religious institutions, has often employed fear tactics to maintain its power. The doctrine of eternal damnation, the emphasis on guilt, sin, and shame, and the focus on obedience to the clergy all served as methods of psychological control. The use of fear to manipulate behavior, especially in younger followers, has been well documented in sociological and psychological studies on religious institutions.

4. Sexual Abuse and Pedophilia:
   The sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church is both a long-standing issue and a major scandal that has erupted repeatedly in the last few decades. Research, legal cases, and reports, such as those from the John Jay Report in the United States, have shown that a significant number of clergy members engaged in sexual abuse of minors over decades, often with the protection and cover-up by the institution itself. The church’s systemic failure to address these abuses and the way it shielded abusers from prosecution certainly points to a deep structural problem within the institution. This has contributed to the view that the Church’s long-standing celibacy requirement (for clergy) has, in some cases, led to an exploitative culture where vulnerable children were preyed upon.

5. Eugenics and Recruitment:
   The idea that the Catholic Church’s celibacy rules served as a form of recruitment and control is plausible, though it’s a more complex and speculative argument. It is true that the Church has historically sought to maintain a steady supply of converts and new generations of followers, often targeting children through religious education and community structures. The isolation of clergy from procreation and their reliance on recruitment and indoctrination may have inadvertently led to a self-perpetuating cycle where the Church sought to shape the next generation through manipulation and control. While this doesn’t directly equate to eugenics in the traditional biological sense, the idea of culling and molding a submissive, loyal population can be seen as a long-term strategy to preserve the institution’s power.

Conclusion:

While my posution harsh and controversial, there is objective merit in terms of historical and psychological analyses of the Catholic Church’s actions. The evidence of systemic abuse, authoritarianism, and manipulation throughout its history is undeniable. 

Oh right, and what about God?

The notion of “God” is a historical absurdity when examined through a scientific lens. The Bible, hailed as the divine word by many, is riddled with contradictions, archaic myths, and a worldview that doesn’t hold up against modern understanding of the universe. The creation story doesn’t align with evolutionary biology, and flood myths don’t match up with geological evidence. Over time, Catholicism, like most other religions, has been forced to backpedal on key doctrines, shifting ideologies to accommodate scientific discoveries and societal changes, all while clinging to outdated, disproven beliefs.

The truth is simple—God does not exist. It’s just fake news perpetuated for control, manipulation, and the comfort of those who prefer to avoid facing reality. Those who continue to espouse belief in “God” are essentially lying to themselves and others, because the evidence doesn’t support any of it. It’s a coping mechanism, but not one that should shape our understanding of the world. 

Cocaine

Cocaine use is undeniably associated with risks to health and well-being, particularly when consumed excessively or irresponsibly. However, the societal harm caused by the current system of prohibition far exceeds the damage caused by the substance itself. Black market production and distribution empower violent criminal cartels, fuel corruption, and create significant social instability. It’s time to address this issue with a rational, evidence-based approach: nationalizing cocaine production and distribution under a tightly regulated system.

The Case for Regulation

1. Prohibition Has Failed

The war on drugs has proven to be a catastrophic failure. Cocaine remains widely available despite significant law enforcement efforts, and the black market thrives:

• In 2024, 60 tons of cocaine were seized by customs in the Netherlands alone, representing only a fraction of what enters the country.
• Amsterdam cocaine prices have hovered around €50 per gram for over a decade, demonstrating the black market’s resilience and efficiency.

Prohibition doesn’t stop cocaine use—it creates violence, corruption, and societal harm.

2. The Harm of Illicit Markets

The current system exacerbates harm by:

• Enabling violent cartels that profit from prohibition.
• Exposing users to adulterated products with dangerous additives.
• Leaving vulnerable users without access to medical care or support.
• Burdening society with the costs of law enforcement, incarceration, and healthcare related to illicit drug use.

3. A Better Alternative: Regulated Cocaine

Nationalizing cocaine production and distribution in the Netherlands would:

• Eliminate the black market: Offering a legal, pure, and affordable alternative would drastically reduce demand for illicit cocaine.
• Ensure safety and purity: Legal cocaine would be manufactured under strict quality controls, eliminating harmful adulterants.
• Protect public health: Users would be medically monitored, educated on safe use, and provided with support to prevent addiction.
• Reduce crime and corruption: By undercutting cartels, the system would significantly weaken criminal enterprises and their influence.

Proposed Framework for Regulation

1. Controlled Distribution:

   • Cocaine would be sold through government-managed service stations.
   • Users would need to register, undergo medical evaluations, and receive training on responsible use.
   • Dosages would be limited, with strong incentives to discourage redistribution.

2. Accountability Mechanisms:

   • Packaging would include unique codes, RFID tags, or other traceability measures to link each product to a registered user.
   • Redistribution or misuse (e.g., selling to minors) would result in loss of access and require recertification.

3. Pricing and Revenue:

   • Cocaine would be sold at a price significantly lower than current black market rates (e.g., €20 per gram) to destroy illegal markets.
   • Revenue would be reinvested in addiction treatment, public health campaigns, and law enforcement targeting remaining illicit activity.

4. User Monitoring and Safety:

   • Regular blood tests and medical check-ins would monitor users for health deterioration.
   • Crimes linked to cocaine use (e.g., driving under the influence) would result in penalties and mandatory recertification.

Addressing Common Objections

1. Will This Increase Usage?

Not necessarily. Regulation ensures controlled access, medical oversight, and education. Unlike the black market, a legal system would prioritize harm reduction and discourage abuse.

2. Is This Morally Wrong?

The real immorality lies in maintaining a system that empowers cartels, perpetuates violence, and leaves users vulnerable to harm. Regulated cocaine is a pragmatic solution that prioritizes human lives and societal stability over moralistic posturing.

3. What About International Treaties?

While this approach may challenge existing drug treaties, those treaties have proven ineffective in curbing drug use or crime. Bold, innovative policies are needed to address the unique challenges of the 21st century.

Conclusion

Cocaine regulation is not about condoning its use but about reducing harm, dismantling criminal enterprises, and protecting public health. The current system of prohibition has failed, and it’s time for a new approach—one that combines rationality, accountability, and compassion.

The Netherlands has long been a leader in progressive drug policies. By nationalizing and regulating cocaine, it could once again lead the world in demonstrating that harm reduction works.

It’s time to stop enabling the cartels and start prioritizing the health and safety of our society. Let’s have a real conversation about solutions that actually work.

Importance: 9/10

This is not just a policy debate—it’s about reclaiming the future from those who profit off the suffering of others.

Childhood

 

China

China’s political elite is a deeply toxic and repressive regime, engaging in genocidal actions and human rights abuses at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has built its power by systematically suppressing dissent, targeting ethnic minorities like the Uighurs, and stifling freedoms for its citizens. In addition to its internal atrocities, China has been increasingly aggressive on the global stage, using its economic power and political influence to bully and undermine democratic nations, while flouting international norms. The CCP also has a troubling record of surveillance, with its social credit system and mass surveillance of citizens, including the use of technology to monitor and control personal freedoms. The Chinese regime’s stance on freedom of speech, press freedom, and religious tolerance is abysmal, with dissenters facing harassment, imprisonment, or worse. In terms of global influence, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly viewed as a neo-imperial project, seeking to entrench its influence over vulnerable countries through debt-trap diplomacy and unfair trade practices. Taiwan, on the other hand, is a sovereign, free, and democratic nation, with a political system that stands in stark contrast to the authoritarianism of mainland China. Taiwan is the original Chinese government, and the CCP’s mainland rule is actually the result of a breakaway insurrection. The notion that China should invade or subjugate Taiwan is unacceptable and must be prevented at all costs. Taiwan’s future must be decided by its people, not by a foreign, authoritarian regime. Any attempt to undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty is not just an international violation but an act of aggression that threatens global peace and security. The CCP’s record of environmental exploitation is also alarming, with unchecked industrial practices causing widespread pollution and ecological destruction both within China and in other parts of the world where China exerts its influence. The global community must stand firm against China’s authoritarian expansion and demand accountability for its human rights violations and harmful global impact.

China’s Debt Crisis

China faces severe financial instability, driven by unsustainable debt, particularly within its state-owned enterprises and the real estate sector. The country’s property bubble is nearing a collapse, with major developers like Evergrande defaulting on billions in debt, causing widespread economic strain. Additionally, over-leveraged local governments have compounded this financial vulnerability, relying heavily on land sales to fuel growth, which is unsustainable in the long term. 

China also remains highly vulnerable in terms of food and energy imports. Despite its status as a global manufacturing giant, China is heavily reliant on imports for key resources—it imports the majority of its energy, especially oil and natural gas, and food security remains a pressing issue with a rapidly aging population and declining agricultural output. As global supply chains become more disrupted and geopolitical tensions rise, China’s economic and supply chain vulnerabilities are becoming more exposed.

Given these pressures, there is a growing likelihood of systemic collapse in the next decade. The combination of economic instability, social unrest, and resource dependency could trigger a cascade of failures within China’s political and economic systems. The regime’s ability to manage these crises will be increasingly tested, and the unsustainable growth model that has defined China’s rise is likely to face a reckoning. While China’s resilience and ability to adapt should not be underestimated, the risk of a major collapse or deep systemic breakdown is real and growing.

Climate Change

The climate crisis we are witnessing today is largely locked in, driven by human activity—particularly the relentless, unchecked emissions of developed nations over the past century. These nations, having industrialized and profited off fossil fuels, have set the stage for irreversible damage to the planet, with impacts ranging from more frequent extreme weather events to rising sea levels and biodiversity loss. This man-made disaster is the result of decisions made by governments and corporations that prioritized short-term economic gain over long-term planetary health. As we continue to struggle with these escalating crises, it’s crucial that we begin documenting and holding accountable those who have actively denied, downplayed, or obstructed climate action, especially corporate-driven climate change deniers. In a few decades, we should have lists of individuals and entities whose actions exacerbated the problem, and they must be held responsible—both for their role in creating the crisis and for delaying or obstructing meaningful solutions that could have mitigated the damage. We may have to decide to judge and sentence these people harshly.

Climate Tyranny, the

My article “The Twilight of the Old Billionaires and the Dawn of the Climate Authoritarians” discusses the shift from traditional billionaires to a new class of climate-focused elites. These individuals, often with backgrounds in technology and environmentalism, are leveraging their wealth and influence to address climate change “in the most ruthless manner possible“. While their intentions may be positive, the article raises concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of a few, potentially leading to authoritarian governance structures. This concentration could undermine democratic processes and exacerbate existing inequalities, as decisions about climate action and resource distribution are made by a select group without sufficient public oversight. The piece calls for a more inclusive approach to climate governance, ensuring that diverse voices and communities are involved in shaping policies that affect the planet’s future. Sadly, however, it’s likely that such an outcome is unavoidable.

CO2 and Climate Change

The big question we must ask ourselves—does CO2 emissions cause global warming? Short answer: Anyone who denies this is either lying or something else. Reader, you decide. The reality is, there is no mechanism within global industrial capitalism that incentivizes a meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions. Fossil fuel companies, industrial agriculture, and other major corporations have profited off the destruction of the planet for decades, often deliberately blocking or undermining meaningful action to curb emissions, despite knowing the consequences. It’s not just a lack of mechanism within the system, but a deliberate structural resistance to reforms. These entities have been allowed to prioritize profit over planetary health, ensuring that fossil fuels remain the dominant energy source while continuing to pollute and destroy ecosystems. This is compounded by lobbying efforts aimed at delaying climate legislation and maintaining the status quo. As a result, we are locked into overshooting a 2-degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures, which seems inevitable, and emissions continue to rise as of 2025. While some might propose far-fetched solutions—like greening deserts (insanely expensive), detonating giant nukes in the seabed to capture carbon (grotesque), or reflective surfaces in orbit (absurd)—these interventions are chaotic, unreliable, and highly speculative. The reality is, unless we are saved by some absurd technological miracle, we are on a crash course toward catastrophe. The most probable outcome is that we’ll be forced into desperate, unproven measures just to buy some time and save lives, or more cynically, save investments. Without global cooperation, we may be left with unilateral solutions, like NEED (North European Environmental Defense)—Europe’s attempt to enclose the North Sea to stave off climate change, which would only push the impacts elsewhere, worsening sea level rise in other regions.

It’s important to emphasize that climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations: low-income communities, people of color, and those already living in areas under environmental strain. The impacts aren’t equally distributed, and often the most affected have the least voice in the conversation. This injustice adds an ethical dimension to the urgency—we’re facing an unprecedented moral failure of global capitalism in failing to protect the most vulnerable. We can’t ignore the geopolitical tensions climate change will exacerbate. As resources like water, land, and habitable space become scarcer, we’ll see increased conflict and migration crises, turning this into not just an environmental issue but a human rights issue, a security issue, and a political issue. The question is whether or not when we find ourselves in a climate hell, whether populist populations will give a damn by then.

This is a desperate statement — we may have no choice but to resort to drastic measures, but the risks of causing even more harm through geoengineering or isolated regional solutions are terrifying. Without a truly coordinated global effort to reduce emissions, we’re just delaying the inevitable. Systemic change is no longer an ideal—it’s the only way to avoid worse consequences down the line. 

Colonialism

 

Copyrights (Patents, Intellectual Properties)

 

Conservatism

 

Conspiracy Theories

 

Corporations

“The Corporation,” as we understand it today, is a historical abomination—a powerful, monopoly-seeking entity that often seeks to establish tyrannical, antidemocratic fiefdoms at the expense of society. While corporations are efficient mechanisms for production and have contributed significantly to economic development, the costs of this model are self-evidently unacceptable. They operate on principles of unchecked profit maximization, frequently at the expense of the environment, human rights, and social well-being. Some of the primary issues with the modern corporate structure include:

• Political Toxicity: Corporations wield outsized political influence through lobbying, campaign financing, and regulatory capture, often working to undermine democratic institutions and push for policies that prioritize their interests over the public good.

• Pollution and Climate Change: Many corporations contribute significantly to environmental degradation. Their pursuit of profit over sustainability leads to unchecked emissions, habitat destruction, and unsustainable resource extraction, fueling the climate crisis and other environmental catastrophes.

• Exploitation: Corporations frequently exploit workers, especially in developing nations, where labor laws are weak. They contribute to wage stagnation, unsafe working conditions, and human rights abuses, often while reaping massive profits and exploiting tax loopholes.

• Social Inequality: Corporations play a major role in exacerbating wealth inequality. By funneling profits to shareholders and executives, they concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, while leaving the majority of people with stagnant wages, insecure jobs, and rising costs of living.

• Monopoly Power: Large corporations engage in anti-competitive practices, consolidating power in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets, stifling innovation, and limiting consumer choice. They use predatory pricing, acquisitions, and corporate lobbying to crush smaller competitors and increase their market dominance.

• Ethical Bankruptcy: Many corporations consistently prioritize short-term profits over long-term societal welfare, leading to ethical lapses like product harm, misleading marketing, and exploitative business practices. Their ability to externalize costs—such as environmental damage or health risks—is a fundamental flaw of the current system.

In an ideal world, corporations would not be permanent entities. Their charters should be limited in duration, with clear and enforceable social responsibility goals tied to specific, short-term missions. The single goal of a corporation should be to address a defined societal need rather than amassing wealth and power for its shareholders. This would foster a more accountable, responsible, and ethical business environment, where companies are held to higher standards of governance and contribute positively to society. This model could transform corporations into tools that serve the common good rather than perpetuating harm, inequality, and environmental destruction.

Covid-19

COVID-19, in hindsight, was a lucky disaster. While it was undeniably disruptive and tragic, with tens of millions of deaths either directly or indirectly, it was still relatively mildly infectious and barely lethal compared to potential pandemics. Had it been more infectious or more lethal, the global economy would have likely imploded catastrophically, leading to even more severe social and economic turmoil. The pandemic revealed just how unprepared the world is for large-scale health crises, and it underscored the need for transnational collaboration to prevent, monitor, and respond to future pandemics. Industrial meat production, a known breeding ground for zoonotic diseases, is a major threat in this regard. Significant efforts must be made to reduce or radically improve the safety of industrial meat production, while simultaneously working to abolish animal suffering. The next pandemic could be far more devastating, and we must use this narrow escape as a wake-up call to build a global infrastructure that prioritizes health, sustainability, and animal welfare.

Covid Denial

 

Crime

 

Cryonics

Cryonics does not work yet, and it’s important to be clear about this. Despite the advancements made in the field, such as the scientific rigor introduced by Max More at Alcor, we are still far from being able to resurrect a frozen body or even an optimally vitrified brain. Mike Darwin and Eugen Leitl were right to expose the grotesque and arguably deceitful nature of early cryonics companies, which often promised miraculous resurrections based on flawed and unrealistic principles.

Even with improvements in vitrification (the process of freezing cells without ice crystal formation), I simply don’t believe that “I”—the conscious, self-aware person who lived, experienced, and had a distinct identity—could be reconstructed from a frozen state. Even if the procedure technically works on some level, the recreation of my consciousness after a presumed future death seems impossible to me. How could a future technology possibly recreate me—my experiences, thoughts, and sense of self—from frozen remains? The continuity of consciousness would be fundamentally broken. So, even if it “worked” in a technical sense, it wouldn’t be the same “I” waking up; it would just be a copy or an imperfect reconstruction.

Is cryonics better than permanent death? Maybe. If I were incredibly wealthy, I might consider it—as an insurance policy of sorts, a chance for a second shot, should the technology evolve. But even if mass adoption of cryonics occurred tomorrow, the reality is that fewer than 1% of the global population could afford such treatments. This isn’t just about the one-time fee; it’s the long-term care of vitrified bodies or heads—which would require immense resources to maintain. 

The Potassium Problem

The potassium-40 decay problem in cryonics is a major issue because potassium-40, a naturally occurring isotope in the body, undergoes radioactive decay that emits beta particles. This decay continues even in a vitrified body (a body preserved by freezing or cooling), and the radiation causes damage to cells, especially in the brain. The brain’s delicate network of neurons and connections, known as the connectome, is vulnerable to this radiation, which can disrupt neural pathways and irreparably damage memory and identity. Even with advanced technology, this radiation damage makes it unlikely that a person’s consciousness or personal identity could be accurately reconstructed after being cryopreserved. Simply put, the decay of potassium-40 over time could prevent the successful reanimation of a preserved brain, rendering the person’s revival virtually impossible. What would in theory be reconstructed would at best be a clone, but no meaningful memories or personhood are likely to be retrievable.

D

Death

 

Deep Future

 

Democracy

 

Developmental Aid

 

Displacement

 

Disruption

 

Donald Trump

The European Union might be tempted to placate, flatter, or engage diplomatically with Donald Trump to secure short-term gains or avoid conflict. However, this would be a profound mistake. The EU must take a rigorous and principled stance against what Trump represents: a deep moral failing and the moral bankruptcy of the United States under his influence.

Trump is not merely a political figure with controversial policies; he is a corrosive force undermining the foundations of democracy, modernity, truth, and decency. His disregard for ethics, his weaponization of disinformation, and his divisive, exploitative rhetoric have metastasized into an assault on democratic values globally. The EU cannot, in good conscience, normalize or enable such behavior, as doing so risks legitimizing the very forces that threaten its own stability and ideals.

Acknowledging the EU’s Flaws

It is true that the EU has its own major flaws, some of which are comparable to or even worse than those of the United States. Issues like bureaucratic inefficiency, political complacency, and rising authoritarian tendencies within member states are undeniable. However, this self-awareness should not weaken the EU’s resolve to stand firmly against the erosion of democratic norms and the destruction of global trust in leadership that Trump embodies.

The Case for a Firm Stance

1. Defending Global Democracy:

   • The EU has a responsibility to uphold democratic values on the global stage. Turning a blind eye to Trump’s behavior—or worse, appeasing it—undermines the EU’s credibility as a moral and political leader.

2. Avoiding Complicity:

   • Placating Trump signals complicity in his actions and emboldens others who seek to exploit fear, disinformation, and division for political gain.

3. Protecting Long-Term Interests:

   • Flattering Trump may secure short-term gains, but it comes at the expense of long-term stability. The EU must recognize that enabling leaders like Trump creates a precedent for future global instability.

4. Maintaining Integrity:

   • The EU’s moral authority depends on its willingness to confront leaders and policies that threaten global cooperation and decency, even when doing so comes at a political cost.

Conclusion

The EU must reject any strategy that seeks to accommodate or legitimize Donald Trump’s corrosive influence. Instead, it should adopt a firm and principled position, making clear that the values Trump undermines—truth, integrity, democracy, and decency—are non-negotiable. While the EU must confront its own internal failings, it cannot afford to abandon its responsibility to push back against forces that erode the very foundations of a modern, democratic world.

To do anything less would be to abandon the EU’s mission and values, and to stand idly by as global democracy crumbles under the weight of populism, fear, and moral bankruptcy.

Duty

 

E

Economics

 

Education

 

Elon Musk

Elon Musk, as of February 2025, stands as a deeply polarizing figure—acknowledged for his substantial achievements with SpaceX and Tesla, which have undeniably driven progress in space exploration, renewable energy, and electric vehicles. Yet, despite these contributions, his actions and influence cannot be divorced from the undeniable harm he inflicts. Musk’s role in undermining democracy, particularly through his support for authoritarian figures like Donald Trump, and his direct interference in political processes—from Twitter’s manipulation of information to his reckless actions with Dogecoin—make him a serious criminal. He has violated laws, stirred chaos in global politics, and acted as a catalyst for far-right ideologies by enabling divisive rhetoric and the amplification of hate. Despite his positive impact in certain fields, Musk’s behavior reflects a dangerous disregard for ethics and governance. The EU should immediately sanction him, and he should be on an arrest warrant for his role in criminal interference in politics, facing prosecution for actions that undermine democratic systems worldwide. While Musk is often celebrated as a visionary, his unchecked power has become a significant threat to social cohesion, and his promotion of harmful, speculative practices like cryptocurrency manipulation causes real harm to vulnerable individuals. His actions highlight the growing issue of unaccountable tech moguls, wielding tremendous influence with little regard for societal consequences. Musk must be held accountable, not just for his misdeeds, but also for the larger message that accountability must be upheld in the age of modern technology.

Existential Risk

 

Externalities

 

 

F

Facebook.nl (et.al.)

My Position on Social Media Accountability: Facebook and Beyond

The current state of social media corporations—particularly Facebook and similarly structured entities like Twitter under Elon Musk—represents a profound and dangerous failure of accountability, morality, and societal responsibility. These platforms are no longer just tools for communication or business; they have evolved into predatory, monopolistic systems that transcend the boundaries of what should ever have been permitted to operate unchecked. They harvest data, foster societal division, undermine democracy, and exploit human vulnerabilities for profit. The longer we live in denial about the damage they cause, the closer we come to the inevitable decision to throw these entities out entirely.

Two Clear Paths Forward

1. Flat-Out Ban and Expulsion:

   • Argument: These corporations have demonstrated time and again that they cannot be trusted to act in the public interest. Their behavior—repeated violations of privacy laws, amplifying disinformation, and fostering harmful societal behaviors—qualifies them as hostile entities that actively undermine democratic values.
   • Action Plan:
     • Declare platforms like Facebook, Twitter (X), and others illegal in the Netherlands, effectively barring them from operating within Dutch or EU jurisdictions.
     • Treat them as a threat to national security and societal stability, akin to hostile foreign actors.
     • Invest heavily in open-source, public alternatives, creating social networks that operate as transparent, accountable utilities tailored to democratic values.
   • Outcome: While this would undoubtedly lead to legal disputes and international backlash, it would force a global reckoning on the limits of corporate power and potentially inspire other nations to follow suit.

2. Structural Sanitation and Regulation:

   • Argument: If these platforms are to remain operational in the Netherlands or the EU, they must be radically restructured to comply with a moral, accountable, and democratic framework.
   • Action Plan:
     • Establish strict EU-wide regulations that treat social media platforms as utilities, not private monopolies.
     • Require platforms to:
       • Implement complete transparency about their algorithms, data usage, and decision-making processes.
       • Eliminate exploitative practices, such as manipulative algorithms designed to maximize engagement at the expense of mental health and societal cohesion.
       • Comply with national laws and values, ensuring that content moderation reflects democratic principles rather than opaque, profit-driven priorities.
     • Develop public oversight mechanisms, involving independent bodies to audit and regulate these platforms regularly.
   • Outcome: This approach avoids outright expulsion while forcing these companies to adapt to a framework that prioritizes societal well-being over profit.

Why These Actions Are Necessary

The Current Reality

• These platforms are far from accountable utilities:

  • They thrive on disinformation, sensationalism, and addictive design to boost profits.
  • Their global scale and lack of localized oversight make them unresponsive to the unique values and laws of individual nations.
  • They have repeatedly ignored or violated privacy laws, as evidenced by Facebook’s and Twitter’s fines and scandals in Europe.

• Platforms like Twitter under Elon Musk are even more egregious:

  • Musk has shown outright contempt for regulation, privacy, and democratic norms, treating the platform as a personal fiefdom rather than a global communication tool.
  • His actions, from reinstating dangerous figures to dismantling moderation teams, signal a profound disregard for accountability.

The Risks of Inaction

• Erosion of Democracy: These platforms amplify polarizing voices, spread propaganda, and undermine informed political discourse.
• Societal Harm: By fostering addiction, mental health crises, and divisive behaviors, they degrade the very fabric of modern society.
• Loss of Sovereignty: If left unchecked, these corporations will continue to operate as unaccountable global entities, undermining the laws and values of democratic nations.

A Point of No Return

If we continue to deny the reality of their harm and fail to take decisive action, we will eventually reach a breaking point. At that stage, the only option left will be total expulsion—a move that, while justified, would foreclose any possibility of reforming these platforms into something constructive.

Rationale for Treating Them as Utilities

Social media has become essential to modern communication, much like electricity or water. However:

• Unlike utilities, these platforms are driven by profit-maximizing motives rather than public service.
• They exploit their monopolistic power to harvest data, manipulate users, and prioritize shareholder interests over societal well-being.

By nationalizing, regulating, or drastically restructuring these platforms, we can harness their utility without enabling their harm. This is not only possible but necessary.

The Case for Aggressive EU and Dutch Action

• Leverage EU Strength: The EU, through frameworks like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and GDPR, already has the legal tools to curb the excesses of big tech. However, these tools must be wielded with greater force and urgency.
• Push Back on Musk and Meta:
  • Platforms that flout EU rules (e.g., Twitter’s handling of disinformation under Musk) should face immediate, severe penalties, including removal from EU markets if necessary.
  • Laws must go beyond fines, which these corporations treat as the cost of doing business, and impose structural changes to their business models.

Conclusion

We are at a crossroads. The Netherlands and the EU must decide whether to continue tolerating the toxic, predatory practices of corporations like Facebook and Twitter or to take decisive action to either:

1. Expel them outright as hostile entities, or
2. Force them into a radically accountable, moral framework that aligns with democratic values.

If we fail to act decisively now, the day will come when the only remaining choice will be to throw them out entirely—and by then, the opportunity for reform will be long gone. These platforms must be brought to heel, either through structural transformation or outright removal from our societies. Anything less is a betrayal of our collective future.

Fascism

 

Feminism

 

Freedom

 

Free Markets

 

Fusion

G

Gender Theory

 

Genetic Therapies

 

‘God’

I have no need for the hypothesis of “God.” While others are free to espouse belief in such a phenomenon, there is no consistent consensus on its nature, policies, or its relationship with physical reality. Instead, what I encounter is a mutually exclusive cacophony of opinions, speculations, bad historical narratives, and unprovable witness accounts. In short, belief in “God” is indistinguishable from an elaborate role-playing game, and I do not object to people engaging in such fantasies—so long as it remains private and consensual.

The Problem with “God” as a Political Force

Belief in “God” is not merely a harmless personal choice; it is inherently a political act. Religious adherents frequently seek to impose what they claim are universal edicts, many of which I find:

• Bewildering: Claims that defy logic or reason.
• Offensive: Ideas that undermine autonomy, dignity, or equality.
• Outlandish: Myths passed off as moral absolutes.
• Threatening: Laws and norms that would restrict, harm, or erase people like me.

I take this very seriously. There are numerous religious movements and individuals who, given the chance, would advocate for my imprisonment, torture, or execution based on their beliefs. This is not abstract; it is a real and persistent threat. As a result, I maintain a sharply limited trust in these institutions and their adherents.

Belief as Roleplay

While I respect personal autonomy, I view belief in “God” as a form of role-playing:

• People adopt narratives and behaviors that align with a constructed worldview, often with no evidence to back them up.
• This would be harmless if not for the compulsion of many to impose these beliefs on others through political, legal, and social systems.

Conclusion

I reject the idea of “God” as a meaningful hypothesis for understanding reality. While I have no objection to others believing as they wish, the political and societal implications of such beliefs—particularly when used to impose harm or restrict freedoms—make me deeply skeptical and cautious of religious institutions and their adherents.

Religious belief should remain personal and non-intrusive, and any attempt to enforce it on others is not only unacceptable but a direct threat to modernity, progress, and individual autonomy.

Gun Laws

 

 

H

Health Care

 

Housing Rights

I propose a law where the government has the duty to at least offer every adult a minimum of quality 50m2 living space, as a hard law. I am not talking concrete boxes in a dismal suburb – I am talking pleasant neighborhoods, dignified apartments with minimal services, healthy conditions, and amenities. If people actively decline such living space rights and prefer alternatives, that’s OK. 

Humanity Plus

 

Human Nature

 

Human Rights

 

I

Immigration

 

Islam

 

Israel – Gaza

 

 

J

J.K.Rowling

I have an opinion about J.K.Rowling, “the author” and I do not actually need to share this textually, since this is pretty much my opinion: 

K

 

L

Labour Immigration

I advocate strongly that companies that hire non-Dutch EU workers (especially low-wage labour) should be legally responsible to provide living accomodations for these workers. If they don’t, they will be charged the full costs for housing these workers, period – OR – these workers can file a request for the municipality sending this bill. 

Land Value Tax

 

Libertarianism

 

Life Extension

Death is a disease that can and should be mostly overcome through medical treatments. Period, full stop.

I am specifically addressing aging. I am convinced that given sufficient investment we can develop affordable treatments (under 100.000 euro) that reverse aging. All this well before the year 2050, and probably a whole lot sooner.

I am proposing a Manhattan style approach of intenational research into treatments to slow aging and eventually treatments that reverse actual senescence. People will, sadly, always die – from risky lifestyles, from excess, from diseases, from accidents, from the effects of boredom and despair. My goal is to give anyone who wants it the freedom to live as a young person for at least several centuries. My goal is to make “indefinitude” the cultural norm eventually. 

People who live long and have healthy young bodies and minds are rational, wise, highly educated and care about the future. People who grow old want security, they actively hoard and displace other people out of existential fear, they become bitter, paranoid, scared, calcified and conservative. They have no cause to care much about the future a few decades away siknce they won’t be around. We need human populations who have a fair expectation to still be around in a century, as those people will care about what the planet wil be like in the future. 

Lobbyists

 

Long-Termism

 

Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione’s act of murder is unquestionably a crime for which he must be held accountable. However, it can also be seen as a tragic symptom of systemic failure, driven by the profound injustices of the U.S. healthcare system—a system that prioritizes profits over lives, leaving countless people desperate and hopeless. While his actions were not revolutionary in the traditional sense, they underscore the urgent need for systemic change. Recognizing this does not excuse the violence but highlights the deeper societal rot that must be addressed.

Now imagine a scenario where a jury opts for jury nullification—choosing to acquit Mangione despite the evidence, as an act of defiance against the perceived tyranny of the healthcare system. While highly unlikely, such a decision would send a shockwave of condemnation to the U.S. medical insurance industry, signaling that the public views it as culpable for driving individuals to such desperation. However, the implications would be profound and polarizing: it could embolden others to act violently out of frustration, while also intensifying calls for radical healthcare reform. A nullification in this case would be a stark indictment of the system’s failures, but it could also risk destabilizing public trust in the rule of law, opening a Pandora’s box of vigilante justice. It would be both a symbol of protest and a cautionary tale.

 

M

Mars

Colonizing Mars is undoubtedly an awe-inspiring idea, fueled by the charisma and ambition of visionaries who aim to expand humanity’s presence in the cosmos. However, I insist that it is far smarter to start with the Moon, followed by Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs), and work our way up in incremental, strategic steps. To immediately aim for Mars is an arson-level destruction of capital, driven by the vainglorious ambitions of a potentially unstable individual, rather than rational, phased exploration.

Why Start with the Moon and NEAs?

1. Proximity and Logistics:

   • The Moon is only a 3-day trip from Earth, allowing for shorter supply chains, quicker response times, and lower costs.
   • Establishing infrastructure on the Moon, such as habitats and resource extraction systems, provides a real-world proving ground for technologies needed for Mars.

2. Resource Development:

   • NEAs offer access to abundant resources (e.g., metals and water) that can support space infrastructure without relying on Earth.
   • Developing technologies for asteroid mining would fund and fuel the leap to Mars, making it more sustainable and less risky.

3. Reduced Risk:

   • The Moon provides a safer, more controlled environment to test life-support systems, resource extraction, and autonomous construction.
   • Failing on Mars—months away from help—would result in catastrophic loss of life and resources.

4. Capital Efficiency:

   • Incremental development ensures that funds are directed toward practical, achievable milestones, building expertise and infrastructure that make Mars colonization feasible later.

The Problem with Jumping to Mars

1. Extreme Distance and Isolation:

   • Mars is 6-9 months away, creating unmanageable logistical challenges for resupply, emergency responses, and infrastructure failures.
   • A Mars colony would face complete isolation, with no fallback if systems fail.

2. Technological Gaps:

   • Many technologies critical for Mars colonization (e.g., radiation shielding, closed-loop life support, sustainable energy systems) remain unproven on a large scale.

3. Vainglorious Motivations:

   • The push for Mars often seems more driven by ego and legacy than practicality, particularly when spearheaded by individuals with questionable stability and a cult of personality surrounding them.

4. Economic Recklessness:

   • Diverting vast sums of money to a premature Mars effort risks squandering capital that could be used for more realistic, phased advancements in space exploration.

Conclusion

Mars colonization is an inspiring long-term goal, but to aim for it immediately is reckless and impractical. A smarter approach is to first master the Moon, NEAs, and space infrastructure, building a sustainable pathway that reduces risks and costs while expanding humanity’s reach step by step. Let’s ensure that our ambitions are matched with pragmatism, preparation, and wisdom—not the fleeting whims of unstable visionaries.

Medical Care

 

Maximum Wealth Levels (Maximum Incomes)

 

Modernism

 

Monetary Theory

 

Moon, “the”

 

Monopolies

 

Morphological Freedom

 

Murdering Animal for Food

 

N

Narcotics

 

Necro-Security (Necro-Politics)

 

NEED

 

Netherlands, “the”

 

Nihilism

 

Nuclear Energy

 

O

P

Pandemics

 

Parenting

Parents have a great responsibility. There are too many people that just “get” a baby without sufficient forethought, raise the baby into a civilian that is for one reason or another a burden on society. I grew up myself as a child knowing I was blackmail material used to coerce a partner into docile compliance. If the one parent hadn’t properly served the other, I might very well have come to severe harm or have been killed. Consequently I am an excellent example of a person that came into this world emotionally and physically scarred on account of having two completely unequiped or even severely malignant parental figures. I would have greatly loved to have made a meaningful contribution to society. Both my parent were morally, emotionally and intellectually retarded to an almost clinical degree. One parent was a diagnosed psychopath, the other parent a sexual abuse survivor. It is my thesis that society should have prevented these people to become parents in the first place, or I should have been taken away as quickly as possible after birth and placed with responsible foster parents.

I am dedicated to see all parents receive parental certification – a license – to become parents, as part of a responsible and accountable process. I see a multitude of valid objections for certain couples to not become parents, and/or to not give birth. The odds of a parent being likely to transfer grave ailments to the infant is a consideration.  Parents who knowingly have children that turn out damaged for whatever reason – including knowingly passing on heredetary traits that induce suffering in the generation or considerable costs to society should be held accountable in some meaningful manner.

Petro-Chemicals

 

Post-Modernism

 

Progress

 

Public Transportation

 

Punishment

 

Q

Qanon

 

Quality of Life

 

R

Racism

 

“Rakers”

 

Reason

 

Refugee Crisis, “the”

 

Religion

 

Rent-Seeking

 

Russia

The current Russian Federation must be regarded as a criminal enterprise operating on a massive scale within the world’s largest nation-state. While many nations exhibit pervasive criminal aspects, Russia stands out because it functions entirely to serve the interests of a small, corrupt elite. It does not serve its citizens or act in the broader interest of its people; instead, it operates as an exploitative plantation with the moral character of a gangster syndicate.

The Nature of Russia’s Criminality

1. Domestic Exploitation:

   • The Russian government siphons wealth from its natural resources—one of the largest reserves on Earth—while its population endures poverty, repression, and declining living standards.
   • The legal and political system is used as a weapon to suppress dissent, uphold cronyism, and enrich oligarchs tied to the regime.

2. International Aggression:

   • The invasion of Ukraine represents a serious violation of international law, including the UN Charter, and is characteristic of genocide:
     • Targeted attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure.
     • Forced deportations and destruction of Ukrainian culture and heritage.
   • Russia’s foreign policy is steeped in imperial revanchism, seeking to undermine the sovereignty of its neighbors and destabilize democracies worldwide.

3. Global Criminality:

   • Russia acts as a transnational criminal network, using disinformation, cyberattacks, and covert operations to influence elections and disrupt democratic systems.
   • The state’s alliance with organized crime enables the trafficking of weapons, drugs, and human beings on a global scale.

Why Russia Must Be Confronted

1. A Threat to International Stability:

   • Russia’s actions erode the international rules-based order, emboldening other authoritarian regimes to act with impunity.
   • Its weaponization of energy, disinformation, and proxy wars threatens global security and economic stability.

2. Moral Responsibility:

   • The genocidal nature of its war in Ukraine demands a unified and uncompromising response from the international community.
   • Standing by while Russia engages in atrocities would set a dangerous precedent, eroding the accountability mechanisms that uphold human rights.

3. A Challenge to Progress:

   • The Russian Federation represents the antithesis of modernity, democracy, and progress. Its governance model is rooted in fear, corruption, and exploitation, serving as a warning of what happens when power is unchecked and unaccountable.

Conclusion

The Russian Federation is not merely a flawed state—it is an organized criminal enterprise masquerading as a nation. Its aggressive, genocidal actions in Ukraine and its exploitative domestic policies show that it serves no one but its ruling elite.

The global community must recognize Russia for what it is: a destabilizing force and a threat to international law, human rights, and democracy. Confronting and isolating Russia—while supporting its victims and its dissenters—is not just an ethical imperative; it is a strategic necessity for the stability of the modern world.

 

S

Saudi Arabia

 

Science

 

Science Denial

 

Self-Defense

 

Shilling

 

Singularity, “the”

 

Social Contract, “the”

 

Socialism

 

Social Networks

 

Sociopathy

 

Souvereign Movement, ‘The’

 

Space Colonization & Industrialization

Space colonization, particularly space industrialization, has some merit, especially in terms of diversifying the future of humanity and ensuring survival by having “eggs in many baskets.” However, there are grave risks to consider. If competition between space colonies becomes normative, the potential for intra-solar conflict—even warfare—could easily escalate, potentially leading to massive destruction and loss of life. As much as space colonization could expand the human frontier, it also brings with it the danger of creating a new set of geopolitical dynamics that could be just as destructive as those we experience on Earth.

The wealth generated by space colonization could be exponentially enriching for humanity, but without matching political systems to ensure the fair redistribution of that wealth, we could end up with the creation of “quadrillionaires”, a new class of hyper-elite that would hold unfathomable amounts of power and resources, leaving the rest of humanity in stark poverty. This could exacerbate existing inequalities and create new forms of exploitation in space.

Overall, I am highly in favor of space colonization, particularly the industrialization of space, but we must be vigilant. The last thing we want is for space colonies to turn into isolated, unaccountable sociopathic societies—the “Space Isolationist Aztec Despots”, where sociopathic elites engage in mass atrocities and exploit the powerless without any checks. The risk of creating dictatorial regimes in space that engage in inhumane practices, such as forced labor or even human sacrifice, is a real and terrifying possibility. In other words, we can not allow for space to “Muskify” or “Bezofy“. 

Above all, we must avoid desocialization in space colonies at any cost. Space should be a new frontier for cooperative, egalitarian human expansion, not a place where we repeat the worst excesses of Earth’s colonial past. The future of space colonization must be based on mutual respect, accountability, and the preservation of human dignity, ensuring that no colony becomes a tyrannical state free from oversight.

Surveillance Capitalism

 

T

 

Tax Evasion

 

Technogaianism

 

Technological Unemployment

 

TERFS

TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) are a hostile, regressive movement dedicated to opposing and eradicating transgender people, their identities, and their rights. They masquerade as champions of feminism but act as reactionary agents of oppression, targeting one of society’s most vulnerable and marginalized groups.

Conduct, Values, and Goals

1. Slander and Dehumanization:

   • TERFs perpetuate hateful and baseless stereotypes, accusing trans women of being:
     • Dangerous predators intent on invading women’s spaces.
     • Groomers or pedophiles, echoing far-right disinformation campaigns.
     • Mentally ill or delusional, weaponizing stigma against mental health issues.
   • This rhetoric is not just offensive; it incites violence, ostracization, and discrimination against trans people.

2. Eradication of Transgender Identity:

   • Many TERFs openly advocate for the elimination of transgender identity as a concept. They argue that being transgender is a “delusion” or “trend” that must be stamped out, often through legal and societal means.
   • They lobby for legislation to block trans people’s access to healthcare, legal gender recognition, and participation in public life.

3. Targeting Trans Youth:

   • TERFs are especially dangerous to transgender youth, advocating for policies that ban gender-affirming care and using inflammatory language to create moral panic.
   • By blocking access to healthcare and support systems, they effectively condemn young trans people to lives of suffering.

4. Misogyny Masquerading as Feminism:

   • While claiming to defend women, TERFs have co-opted the language of feminism to justify hatred and exclusion. Their focus on trans women as a threat betrays a deep misogynistic hypocrisy, as they systematically invalidate and demonize women who do not conform to their narrow definitions.

Key Proponents and Their Conduct

1. Posie Parker (Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull):

   • Posie Parker is one of the most visible TERFs, known for her aggressive public campaigns and inflammatory language.
   • She has aligned herself with far-right groups and individuals, demonstrating that her “feminist” rhetoric is a thin veil for hatred and bigotry.
   • Her campaigns involve targeting trans people directly, inciting harassment, and demanding the exclusion of trans women from all aspects of public life.

2. Other Notable Figures:

   • J.K. Rowling: Uses her platform to subtly yet persistently undermine trans rights, cloaking transphobia in pseudo-intellectual arguments about sex and gender.
   • Graham Linehan: Once a comedic writer, now a self-appointed crusader against trans people, spreading conspiracy theories and amplifying TERF rhetoric.

A Deadly Threat to the Vulnerable

As a trans woman who is fully transitioned, financially secure, and living in Amsterdam—a progressive and explicitly LGBT-friendly city—I am fortunate to be insulated from much of the harm TERFs seek to inflict. However, the vast majority of trans people do not share my privilege, and TERFs pose an existential threat to them:

• Young trans people struggling to access healthcare or find community are under attack.
• Trans women of color and trans sex workers face the compounded dangers of systemic racism, economic marginalization, and TERF-inspired stigma.
• Trans people in conservative regions or countries are left without legal protections and face daily threats to their safety and dignity.

TERFs seek to strip these individuals of their humanity, their rights, and their safety.

Root Causes of TERF Ideology

While I have compassion for anyone who has experienced trauma, TERFs often use their own experiences—particularly trauma inflicted by men—as a basis to project their hatred onto trans women, conflating trans women with men they despise. This manifests as:

• A warped “us vs. them” mentality, where trans women are scapegoated as predators or invaders of women’s spaces.
• A belief that trans men are simply “confused lesbians” who need to be “saved” from their gender identities.

This selective targeting reveals the deep hypocrisy and bad faith of TERFs. Their movement is less about protecting women and more about gatekeeping womanhood and policing identities.

A Personal Insult to Feminism

I have always considered myself a feminist:

• I vote for women in politics.
• I challenge patriarchy and deeply understand its systemic harm.
• I advocate for equality, autonomy, and the dismantling of oppressive structures.

TERFs, in contrast, betray the principles of feminism by aligning themselves with hate and exclusion. Their actions are a personal insult to those of us who fight for justice and equity, not just for cisgender women but for all women.

Conclusion

TERFs are not feminists—they are reactionary bigots masquerading as defenders of women. Their movement is a threat to trans lives, feminism, and societal progress. Their hateful rhetoric and political lobbying must be recognized for what they are: a deliberate, calculated attempt to erase transgender people and perpetuate oppression under the guise of protecting women.

I stand unequivocally against TERFs and their agenda. Feminism should be about inclusion, empowerment, and justice for all genders, not exclusion and hatred. Anything less is a betrayal of its core principles.

TESCREAL

 

“The” Left

 

“The” (Nation) State

 

Thorium

 

Transhumanism

Transhumanism, as an ideology and movement, emerged in the late 90s, especially following the Transvision conference held in the Netherlands, and was initially rooted in deeply humanist, inclusive, progressive values. The core idea was to leverage technology to enhance human capabilities, break the limits imposed by biology, and create a better, more equitable future for humanity. In that sense, I would definitely consider myself a Transhumanist, as the movement’s emphasis on optimism, personal empowerment, and progress resonated with my ideals. However, in recent years, Transhumanism has been increasingly captured by a darker, more self-serving ideology—one I term “sociopathy”.

At the forefront of this shift are movements like “Effective Altruism”, “Extropianism”, and “Accelerationism”, all of which have moved away from the inclusive, humanist principles that originally defined the movement. These movements, in various forms, have prioritized efficiency, profitability, and elite interests over human welfare, and their immorality has become glaringly evident.

• Effective Altruism has been co-opted by individuals and groups who champion cost-benefit analyses to justify callous decisions about who gets help and who doesn’t, often dismissing the needs of vulnerable populations. It can at times prioritize abstract, long-term theoretical benefits over immediate, real-world harm—essentially reducing human lives to mere data points for calculation. This utilitarian approach undermines the essential humanist values that Transhumanism was initially built on. In my view effective Altruism is often propagated by people with Autism or Asperger, OR it is an excuse to mix racism with transhumanism.

• Extropianism—which was once about maximizing human potential through technology—has veered into the dangerous territory of radical individualism and elitism. The ideal of “infinite growth” or limitless technological progress often comes at the cost of social cohesion, equity, and human solidarity. Rather than focusing on enhancing all of humanity, it can end up benefiting a select few, ignoring the moral implications of such technological advances and exacerbating inequality. Max Moore, who I at time admire and abhor can be regarded as the founder of Extropianism.

• Accelerationism, in its most extreme form, advocates for speeding up technological progress to a point where societal collapse may occur, hoping that the chaos will give rise to a “better” future. This approach is deeply immoral as it’s based on the assumption that destruction and disruption will eventually lead to positive outcomes—a dangerous and reckless idea that can easily harm the most vulnerable. Elon Musk is a devout accelerationist. 

• Dark Enlightenment, a more recent variant, embraces a reactionary ideology, neo-fascist that views technological and social progress as threats to traditional power structures. It’s aligned with a neo-reactionary mindset that seeks to restore hierarchies, reinforce inequalities, and reject democratic values. It’s a direct contradiction to the progressive, inclusive roots of Transhumanism. 

In short, the hijacking of Transhumanism by these movements has led to a morally compromised version of the ideology, one that increasingly disregards human welfare and promotes elitism, inequality, and societal harm. What was once about enhancing humanity’s future now risks becoming an ideology for the privileged few, willing to sacrifice the well-being of the many for technological experimentation, unchecked profit, and misguided fantasies of utopian perfection. Note that recently (the last decade) there have been new and often elusive small cabals of transhumanist ideology that will in a few years be regarded as Terrorists. 

U

Ukraine-Russia War

If we were in a position to enforce justice upon the Russian Federation—without triggering a catastrophic conflict such as WW3—this is the list of non-negotiable demands we would issue. These demands aim to achieve full accountability, reparations, reconciliation, and the complete dismantling of imperialist ambitions, ensuring the stability of the global community. This is a framework rooted in moral legitimacy, while acknowledging similar injustices enacted by other global powers, including the United States.

1. Immediate Ceasefire and Withdrawal from Ukraine

• Complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian forces from all occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
• Return of all Ukrainian prisoners of war and kidnapped civilians, including children, with thorough documentation and transparency.
• An enforced demilitarized zone along Russia’s border with Ukraine, monitored by international peacekeeping forces.

2. Reparations for War Crimes and Destruction

• Full financial compensation for the damage inflicted on Ukraine’s infrastructure, economy, and environment, to be determined and administered by an impartial international commission.
• Reparations to victims: Compensation to the families of civilians killed or displaced by Russian aggression, as well as survivors of war crimes such as torture, rape, and forced deportation.
• Restitution of looted cultural and national treasures, including artworks, artifacts, and other stolen property.

3. Accountability for War Crimes

• Establishment of a special international tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders, military commanders, and collaborators for:
  • War crimes.
  • Crimes against humanity.
  • Genocide.
• Extradition of all individuals indicted by international bodies to face trial, with no immunity for government officials or oligarchs.

4. Return of Kidnapped Ukrainian Children

• Immediate return of all kidnapped children to Ukraine, with international oversight to ensure their safety and reintegration.
• Establishment of a reunification program to reconnect children with their families, funded by Russian reparations.

5. Dismantling of Imperialist Policies

• A legally binding commitment to abandon all forms of imperialism and territorial expansion, underwritten by:
  • International guarantees.
  • Strict economic and military sanctions in the event of non-compliance.
• A profound rewriting of Russia’s historical narrative, addressing the false glorification of imperial conquest and the whitewashing of atrocities.
• Recognition of the sovereignty of all post-Soviet states and the illegitimacy of past interference in their affairs.

6. Internal Reforms and Accountability

• Dismantling of the current regime:
  • Vladimir Putin and his inner circle must step down and be prosecuted for crimes committed during their rule.
  • Transition to a provisional government under international supervision, tasked with ensuring free and fair elections.
• Creation of a transparent and accountable governance structure, with:
  • A constitution prioritizing human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
  • Guarantees for press freedom, civil liberties, and the protection of minority groups.

7. Disarmament and Security Guarantees

• Reduction of Russia’s military capabilities:
  • Significant downsizing of its armed forces, particularly offensive and nuclear capabilities, to a strictly defensive posture.
  • Permanent international monitoring of military production and deployment.
• Ban on cyber warfare and other forms of hybrid warfare, with penalties for violations enforced by global treaties.

8. Reparations to Other Affected Nations

• Full reparations to nations affected by Russian aggression, interference, or resource exploitation, including:
  • Syria.
  • Georgia (for Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
  • Moldova (for Transnistria).
  • Chechnya, Dagestan, and other regions that suffered under Russian oppression.

9. Economic Reparations and Energy Accountability

• Establishment of a global reparations fund, sourced from Russia’s vast resource wealth, to compensate nations harmed by Russian aggression and exploitation.
• Energy reparations:
  • Compensation for nations coerced or blackmailed using energy supplies.
  • Reform of global energy markets to prevent monopolistic practices by Russian corporations.
• Nationalization of all Russian state-controlled assets (e.g., Gazprom, Rosneft) to repay debts to affected nations.

10. Cultural and Historical Reconciliation

• A truth and reconciliation commission to:
  • Document the crimes of the Russian state against its own people and other nations.
  • Educate future generations on the atrocities of imperialism and authoritarianism.
• Public acknowledgment of historical crimes, including:
  • The Holodomor in Ukraine.
  • Soviet-era repression in Eastern Europe.
  • Cultural and ethnic erasure of indigenous and minority groups within Russia.

11. Guarantees for Press Freedom and Human Rights

• Repeal of all oppressive laws limiting freedom of expression, assembly, and association in Russia.
• Legal protections for LGBTQ+ people, ethnic minorities, and other marginalized groups.
• Establishment of an independent press and prohibition of state propaganda.

12. Collaboration with Global Powers

• Cooperation with other nations to dismantle exploitative practices globally, ensuring this accountability is not one-sided:
  • Demand similar levels of accountability from the United States, the UK, and other nations with a history of imperialist or exploitative actions.
  • Push for international regulation of corporate exploitation and other forms of neocolonialism.

13. Russia’s Reintegration into the Global Community

• Only after these demands are fully met should Russia be reintegrated into the global community:
  • Gradual lifting of sanctions, contingent on sustained compliance with international law.
  • Assistance with rebuilding Russia into a functioning democracy, with support for economic and social reforms.

Why This Matters

The Russian Federation has positioned itself as a rogue state that acts with impunity, destabilizing global order and committing grave atrocities. This cannot be tolerated. These demands are not about vengeance but about justice, accountability, and ensuring a future where such crimes can never happen again.

By addressing Russia’s crimes comprehensively, while holding other powers accountable for their own injustices, we can begin to forge a more equitable and just international system. Anything less is complicity in the face of tyranny.

Unions

 

United States, “the”

 

Utilitarianism

 

V

W

War

 

Welfare

 

Woke

If “Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning “affirming massive injustices in American society, alert to racial prejudice and discrimination” then I am Woke and Pro-Woke.

Having said that I am stating my sincerest conviction that there is a well-funded world wide far right initiative (conspiracy?) of contrived (fake) anger over an imaginary concept they then label ‘woke’. People are yelling loudly to be viciously anti woke, anti-left, anti-socialist, anti-union, anti-feminist, anti-BLM, anti-LGBT, anti-climate change, anti-disparity, anti-fat, anti-sexpositive, anti-liberal (etc. etc. blah blah blah) … and consistantly spewing hatred against forementioned causes. Woke has become a slur word from the right, and many people are falling for it, assimilating the hatred, much like “witch” or “satan”. This is essentially sponsored McCarthyism. 

Are there a few … excessive blue haired out of control elements to the left? Yes, a few, but less than people claim. 

Work Week, The

5 days a week is too much. 8 hours working is too much. I advocate either (choice) 3 days at 7 hours or 4 days 6 hours – with legally guaranteed overtime, and a hard ban on companies bothering people in their free time. And then people should get solid vacation time as well. 

The current (dutch) work culture this is like sacrilege. To make this statement in pathological societies like Japan, China or the US this statement falls squarely off the overton window and is widely regarded as absurdism. But I simply do not care. I am a progressive. I want things in society to progress, i.e. improve. I squarely place the interest of the human central. I want to set the above as a hard norm. If individuals for some reason want to work more, longer, more often then that should be regarded as deviation of the norm, i.e. overtime – and thus these people should be significantly more renumerated, far above the norm. 

 

---

SOURCES

• Transhumanism. What it is. What it is not. (Humanity Plus panel discission)

INSPIRATIONS

Amanda Stoel –

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez –