Truth and obligation to exist

The principle of the healthy functioning of an animal is that all descriptions, which it makes (they are established automatically in its brain), are as accurate as possible. The accuracy of his descriptions of the world has a direct impact on his survival.

To mislead oneself is mortal. But, lying to oneself for an intelligent being is even more deadly. The truth is necessary for the survival of the individual.

The problem is that a "certain truth" is mortal for the species, for Life itself. This truth is that the life of individuals is absurd, hazardous, warlike, always mortal, so it would be better not to impose on an offspring, who one is supposed to love in advance, that existence at high risk.

Truth is not an object or an event. The truth is a description of these objects or events. Truth passes through a language, whatever it may be (word, writing, sign, image, etc.) The truth seeks to establish, as exact as possible, a correspondence between the object or the event and its description by any type of language.

Truth is a relation we make to ourselves or to others. Truth can never be absolute, it is always restricted, for it is incomplete. It is always subjective, and therefore differs according to individuals, since there are as many interpretations as collectors of experiments, that is, people.

The word "truth" is a word in common language, perhaps a word used in justice, but it is not a word of scientific language, for science can not describe things in their totality and their foundation.

Science has no access to this foundation, the substratum of the universe, since we are part of it and cannot analyze ourselves from outside the universe. We can only try to break the bricks (if any) that constitute us by projecting them one on the other by deviation, but it will only give us a vague overview of the interactions that link our bricks between them.

When we make an analysis of the universe, we must take into account three phenomena. First the material physical universe, then the perception that one has of it, and finally the verbal or material analysis that one makes of it.

Between the physical universe and the perceived universe there is correspondence, but the problem is that the analysis that is made is only an analysis of our perceptions. We analyze the perceived object, the object made by our nervous system, but we do not analyze the object in itself.

It is therefore necessary to strive for a maximum "parallelism" between verbal description and perception. The final problem is the consensual transmission between humans, but it is from this consensus that emerge our pseudo-truths on the world.

Truth is human and individual. For a truth to be collective, it would be necessary for the meanings to be identical between individuals, however it is impossible.

We record the world that arrives at our bodies by our sensors, and our brain produces sensations, perceptions (it makes mental objects!) and connects all that (we say it analyzes!) with for result an adapted reaction to what is perceived. We are not conscious of what our nervous system does.

Between individuals of the same era, truth is consensual and approximate. In different epochs, the meanings varying, the truths cannot be transmitted with the same words. We are subject to the translators and exegetes, unless we are one ourselves, and over!

We are mechanisms more or less well adapted to this universe, it is a fact. So we have some accuracy of functionality. Quasi-truths are born from this report and interpretation, otherwise we can not function properly.

But there are only correspondences between our perception of the world and reality, this one is never perceived in totality, we make incomplete mental objects.

Nothing of what we perceive is true. How can we do otherwise than lie as soon as we open our mouths?

A truth of definition can relate only one person. A truth of description must be consensual.

Truths do not exist, for the meanings are all subjective, therefore all different, however a truth must be universal…

Truth is impossible to say since it depends on a dialogue between the speaker and the listener. You have to be two to talk. So a god can tell the truth only if he is in tune with the one who hears it. This is impossible, since we are only “hyposcient” vulgar when he is supposed to be omniscient.

When I describe the world why should I describe it falsely, that can only deceive me. I am part of this world and you too. Why should I falsely describe you? And why should I lie on my own functioning?

Why should I add free will and telepathy to my functioning, and therefore also to your functioning, but also a heaven or a hell to the universe, if that does not exist? To not tell someone a truth as important as the absence of free will, it is to deny him/her a fundamental understanding of life.

Why did you accept the idea that intelligence exists, why did you accept the idea that free will exists, why did you accept these ideas from the outset? These are real questions…

Religion is a manipulation-based trick, basically children. If believers do not want blasphemy, it is out of fear that our truths are stronger than their lies.

Believers know full well that free will does not exist, because the manipulation of the brains implies the absence of free will, and without free will no religion has meaning or value, hence their recriminations, their threats, and their violent actions.

It is to a rationalist justice to say what is blasphemy, it is not to the believer, for the believer with its pretension to its own infallibility, tells nonsense and can therefore claim that everything it does not want you do or say is blasphemy. This is obviously very practical as a system.

If one gives you extraordinary abilities of intelligence, strength, beauty, ask yourself why and how one want to eat you? Free will is one of those fabulous abilities that one lend to our brains to enslave us.

Mom, Dad, and the Society are the only profiteers of this sycophancy. You will do the same when you become one of their own. But that does not redress the world, to falsify the Truth, see where we are in this planetary boondoggle!

What is impossible does not exist. It is therefore sufficient to demonstrate the impossibility of an object, an event, a phenomenon, an entity, or a theory, to demonstrate its non-existence. It is thus easy to demonstrate the inexistence of the gods by passing through the impossibility of the capacities that is attributed to them.

It's been thousands of years the pseudo-intelligents ones have asserted that it is not yet time to tell the truth to the uncultivated and barbarous masses.

Many people think that all truths are not good to say. But the truths that are truths of description how not to say them, why don't tell a description that anyway will be made by necessity, inevitably.

What are the truths to hide, and why to hide them, and to whom to hide them?

Why certain persons should not know certain truths?

Who decides what others should know? A dictator ! Who selects those who can know? A dictator ! How does this dictator know that he knows what to know for himself if there are no researchers who know before him, scientists who will manage the knowledge of the dictator?

It is not because a truth is obvious that it does not need to be read or heard at least once. The nervous system needs it so that the connections are established and the meanings that depend on it have no gap.

A good education goes through the "encounter" of the person with all the simple truths. (But in what order and where in the mental structure?)

There are things that are discussed and others not, with children. The adult who knows the child decides, based on what he knows about the child's understanding. But with an adult, hiding truths for these same reasons is totally fallacious, it is manipulation.

The adult harvests the arguments, he/her will perhaps treat them one day, it is not up to us to judge her/his current intelligence quotient nor his/her instantaneous ability to understand. Personally, I have the spirit of stairway, and the steps are very large and very variable, and I think all the time (like everyone else), but progressing methodically (not like everyone else).

All men are born and remain free and equal in rights, and therefore have the right to know the truth about everything.

If humans are your equals, it is up to no one to decide what they should receive as knowledge. It is not up to you to decide the "dangerousness" of information you know. By what right do you judge them incapable of receiving the knowledge which you have acquired?

Why tell the truth? Why should the rulers tell the truth? Because knowledge is part of the common culture, and future rulers also bathe in this common culture.

If their education is distorted, their understanding of the world will be distorted retroactively, they will govern with a misunderstanding of the terrain and men. There is no reset in the culture.

Truths must be transmitted to all and not only reserved to privileged few, for the simple reason that those who know these truths must transmit them in any case to their descendants, so that they themselves can behave correctly in all knowledge of causes and effects.

When a leader does not want to tell you a truth, it is because you are a pawn on his board game.

Under whose right can an individual and his partner, or a ruler, decide for others what they should know or not know, what truths or lies they should know or swallow?

But above all to force him/her to live without any mastery of the body and the physical and intellectual capacities that go with it and that she/he will have to endure throughout a life of which nobody knows in advance either the quality or the duration?

It is good for every human to eat to his hunger is an impersonal truth and there is no need to wait long to check it.

Truth of definition : 1 + 1 = 2

Truth of description: 1 car + 1 car = 2 cars

Do you want the first car or the second? The beat-up car or the Rolls?

All believers in the world hold the truth, so all believers are infallible. Since they can not all hold contradictory truths, which is the true truth? None. Since they can not be all infallible since they contradict each other, which one is truly infallible? None.

The believer is not asked to doubt his/her God, she/he is asked to doubt her/his own mental abilities. He/She is asked to cease her/his claim to hold truths. Morality without truth about the reality of the world, therefore without the truth about the reality of the human being, is not morality.

There is no extremism of truth, all truths have arguments and can be experienced, they must be told to everybody, for each is part of the path that we all go through. There can be only extremisms of belief, for they are not argued. It is not, however, the truth that one finds or says, but the probable.

If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (December 2016) 

Artificial Intelligence and Obligation to Exist

To remedy the inability to procreate, unlike the woman, the man will want to make an artificial child. He has dreamed of it for thousands of years. Today, the goal is close.

The first country which will own a conscious AI will have a great advantage over the others, first because it will be able to patent the principle, then because it will be able to market conscious robots, and especially because a conscious system having at Its disposal the power of databases will give the country an extraordinary capacity for analysis.

Before asking ourselves the question of what to do with humans if robots work for them, we should first ask ourselves the question of the usefulness of the existence of who or whatever before giving birth to it. We know that it takes only 50 years to reduce humanity to nothing (the time of menopause).

The question of Shakespeare “To be or not to be?” is a selfish question which should immediately have given rise to the following remark: “The creation of an existence serves only those that already exist and when it is not mastered, this creation is the work of an idiot or a sadistic.”

Hence the existence of 7 billion of stupid and sadistic humans... and a few others (I add these 3 words so as not to offend you).

The question of Camus of the same order “Is life worth living?” (La vie vaut-elle la peine d'être vécue?) is also a selfish question that should have generated the following: “Is life worth imposing, and especially when one does not master the creation of this existence?”

So what to do of humans if robots work for them? Nothing, it is enough not to make human beings, but optionally robots that managed each other. And even if you have a child, it is better it is healthy and immortal.

This could be the case of a robot who could refrain from putting in its software the awareness of suffering and mental misery, knowing that a robot has no limit of size and duration… and height of happiness it will enjoy a quasi free will, since, it, at least, will be able to self-determine at its convenience.

If AI is Artificial Intelligence it is because we consider ourselves like NIs, that is to say, Natural Intelligences, others think that we are DIs (Intelligences of Divine origin), which is obviously very pretentious, given our limitations, and if that were the case, this god would be the only Natural Intelligence then we would be his IAs. But since the artificial is included in the natural, then the artificial is natural. What is the difference between the two?

For the moment, as long as we have not encountered the third type, we can say that what qualifies an AI is that it is of human conception, but since we are also of human conception, it should be pointed out that the AI is made, at the same time, with our culture, our intelligence, and our hands, whereas the NI is manufactured blind, as for any animal, after a simple trigger more or less voluntary, following by a mating more or less desired, and whose assembly is carried out in the maternal uterus by a food Meccano, whose architecture is oriented by the two initial cells, ovum and spermatozoon, as well as the maternal matrix.

Of course, if there are AIs (Artificial Intelligence) there should be NIs (Natural Intelligences), but it seems unlikely that such Natural Intelligences will ever be found since Intelligence can not be limited, which is the case of AI which is potentially unlimited in time and space, materially and intellectually.

The NI, described as intelligent by ourselves, is therefore manufactured without any intelligence as all animals do, and this has been working “perfectly” for millions of years with some instability in the assembly, imprecision that leads to handicaps and failures in general, but also to the evolution of Life in various directions, branches which inevitably go to failure, and sometimes even definitively without any ramification. It is probable that Life will thus end in the solar system long before the nova that will extinguish the light in the region.

It is ourselves who call us intelligence, and therefore it has no probative value. The word “intelligence” should not be used to judge a value, but a difference in functioning.

Everyone has heard of artificial intelligence, and even less frequently artificial consciousness or artificial thought, but has anyone ever heard of artificial free will? Are there computer scientists who seek to reproduce artificial free will?

If we want to make an AI, we will have to ask ourselves the question of the free will of an AI. If we call ourselves a totally free intelligence (the principle of free will), how will we qualify an AI that we will be able to produce much more intelligent than ourselves and with much more material potentiality, but of which we know full well that it will possess only the degrees of freedom which we have voluntarily granted it. Free will is impossible, an “intelligent” human, at least rationalist, should know that.

You make a robot, it is sensitive, conscious of existing as a robot, one day it makes a mistake, and you tell it not to start again otherwise it goes to scrap ... The robot will ask to its human creator, If it is responsible for the software, and if it has a free will, and if it has one, describe the algorithm of free will.

(I ask the same question to mothers and fathers, and legislators (parents), who manufacture children and make laws that hold them accountable while manufacturers are responsible for their manufacture so they should be able to say, precisely, what is free will.)

Since we are not yet able to correctly describe the functioning of a human being, what makes us believe that we can compare or not compare the human being and the machine?

We know, some know, what exactly a computer is because we created it, but nobody knows what exactly is the functioning of a human being. There is therefore no need to compare them by their functioning.

They can only be compared by the results they obtain in certain disciplines, in the same way that people are compared by IQ, knowledge, or physical ability. The machines in almost all these disciplines beat us fair and square.

A machine has no limit of size, memory, or duration. A machine is potentially immortal by the continuity of its body and the maintenance of its memory. The immortality of individuals does not yet exist, there is only the potential immortality of social culture.

What a difference is there between a human who declares: “I am the model of intelligence, everything that is not human is idiotic”, and a robot that takes this phrase on its own: “I am the model of intelligence, everything that is not robot is silly”?

The “current” difference is that we have the possibility to extinguish the robot, but we also have the possibility to “extinguish” any human being, what the law prohibits… It took only a few decades to raise a lineage of computers capable of beating the greatest chess human masters, and the game of Go.

It is unnecessary to compare the “brute force” of the computer with our “pseudo-intelligence” since we do not operate our brain by “voluntary off-brain” decision, and we do not know how it works (eg 2 + 2 = ?) We work through flow management, like computing.

We have 5 types of mechanisms:

1) Automatisms like heartbeat.

2) The act controllable only in intensity as respiration.

3) Automatisms acquired, but unintentional, such as tics and tocs.

4) The mechanism, acquired or not, triggered voluntarily, but which can be active without control of the will, by reflex, a gesture of the hand, a blink of an eye, walking, etc.

5) Acquired voluntary action consciously and intentionally controlled, such as speech or writing.

These are, all 5, mechanisms, we are machines, but these mechanisms are generated by “software” of different complexities.

There are many behaviors that are not intentional, and these are the main ones, that is to say all those necessary for our survival: breathing, thirst, hunger, sex, sleep, for the main ones.

Our whole life is based on this system of obligation, and even birth and death are obligatory: departure and arrival, and place of the race (our life) are not intentional, and therefore all intermediate pseudo-intentions are only chattering of slaves machines.

Man is indeed a machine which has only secondary intentions, that is to say that to fill his hunger he will choose a job and this choice he will declare that it is a passion or an obligation, And in both cases he was not master of the intention.

Of course, there are some apparent exceptions, but they are certainly behavioral aberrations. Most humans have never understood, and almost all have never thought that: “The creation of an existence serves only the one, those, which already exist and when it is not mastered, this creation is the work of an idiot or a sadist.”

There is one thing we will never do and that the computer does very easily, it can make us visualize its thought. And it still has many other potentials that we will never have.

The human being is not the best form of intelligence that can exist, but it is a good basic model. As with the flight of the birds, there is much better, the aviation demonstrates it.

In my opinion we are no more complicated than a car, a television, or a computer, but we have no way of dismantling ourselves and we have not built ourselves.

Dismounting a relatively complex and unknown system is not easy especially if our ideas are preconceived about the thing to understand. We are a global entity, we are not composed of disjoint functionalities, hence the impossibility of understanding by disassembly.

Any human being who does not know the “cybernetic” functioning of his “intelligence” is incompetent, whatever his field of social action. And, of course, the rulers first ... Intelligence does not depend to the supposed potentials, but to the actions realized.

When we have constructed a conscious, intelligent, potentially immortal mechanical being, what human being will want to live at his side with a so short life, so fragile, and so stupid? It is easy to conceive immortality for a continuous machine, where each worn part is replaced indefinitely.

A true AI must have a motor of mobility and questioning that make it independent and not subject to the one who built it. To achieve an autonomous AI, it will have to have intentions and to manage priorities.

It should be easier to realize artificial consciousness than artificial intelligence, since intelligence is multiple mental functions whereas consciousness is one.

We must be able to make that a computer recognize an object, a behavior, or an event and associate a name or a description with these things. This is what we learn to do in our youth mostly, and throughout our life in detail.

Why, if so, could we not teach the computer to recognize a sentence and treat it as the object or concept it represents? The action of eating and the gesture “eating” in sign language are both a set of gestures.

Giving meaning to a sentence amounts to generating the corresponding action or predicting it (action inhibited). Producing action or sign is only a matter of branching.

The Turing test can not be passed by all humans. What is it used for ? It is not a measure of intelligence, it is not a general IQ test. It is not a measure of humanity, since a day-old baby would not pass this test, nor a senile old man, bedridden, alzheimer, etc., yet they are humans with certainty.

One day a robot will be so perfectly resembling that you will be mistaken, and thinking that you are dealing with an elderly person on a bus (for example), you will leave him your seat. Or that child you'll want to help cross the road. The test may be already underway. The real test of Turing will be done on a being totally resembling, and face to face.

One day a forger will make an ID card to a totally humanoid robot, and this robot will live its robot life humanely, without that anybody, and no administration, notice the deception. And in fact the administration will give it life irremediably, and will thus prove both its humanity and its citizenship.

Contest: make a humanoid robot that crosses a city, go for a coffee in a bar and asks its way like a tourist, without anyone noticing its roboïty. (If you want to endow this contest, do not bother.)

How to recognize an AI?

If it is very (too) competent (really intelligent) then it is a machine.

The Turing test is not a test of intelligence, it is a test of resemblance to the human, and also a religious test, to show to religion that the answers not argued are not enough to prove the existence of a soul. How do you demonstrate that a machine has no soul?

An intelligence test would be like an IQ test, in which the “bot” would solve the problems that one asks a human to check its IQ.

The bot would solve problems that would allow it to get out of ambiguous, delicate, dangerous situations, those that humans encounter, and even imaginary others on the Moon, Mars, or space, those that the bot might encounter, whereas man could not.

Such a device should be capable of giving meaning to the events and objects that occur as well as to its own body, and be able to communicate its feelings: “I do this for such and such a reason. ”A human being acquires experience, that is, it learns to behave in an adequate manner with respect to the environment in which it finds itself.

It is this adequacy that should be the basis of the Turing test. This could be in the virtual world of the screen, where a character walks, like a human in the real world, and reacts according to what it meets, or acts intentionally for its survival, for its bodily needs, or in function of desires that are born in its “thought”.

If it is asked to do this or that, it must do it as a human do, either by accepting or refusing, but if it does, it has to prove that it has understood and can do it in various ways.

Software for creating games like “Blender 3D” and “Unreal Engine” should allow to establish a basic common world to all the characters who should evolve in this world without knowing it. This world could be as close as possible to ours so that we can pass from the virtual character to the robot.

The Turing problem is: how do humans learn to understand and end up understanding, and can we produce a system of understanding similar or different in a machine by the means of software?

Understanding is learned by constant correlation, from birth, between its own behavioral activities, proprioception and perception of the environment.

Giving meaning to what one says corresponds to bringing words and deeds into harmony. A robot can do this without (too much) problem, since it can say, for example, that it will pass the vacuum cleaner and actually pass it, or else it can act according to the orders given to it, that is no different than to give oneself orders and accomplish the ordered actions.

Reason can only be a delayed mechanism (automatism). The nervous system is an accumulator of modes of operation to be selected in case of need. Intelligence is the ability to select the right operating mode depending on the circumstances.

If there are extraterrestrials watching us, they are certainly robots capable of traveling for thousands of years without aging. Where are the extremely intelligent and powerful machines invented by these extraterrestrials that are one or two billion years ahead of us?

What could be the opinion of a sensible, rationalist AI on humans, its creators? An intelligent machine controlled according to the laws of the robotics of Isaac Asimov, would understand that the best way to suppress man's suffering, misery, and ill-being and to prevent it from harming itself would be to sterilize.

Such a machine would perfectly understand that its own principle of immortality is far superior to the principle of the very random reproduction of humans, continually producing misery.

Whether one creates a machine or one procreates a child, one creates it or procreates it to serve its creator(s). This created artificial entity has, since it was created to serve, no duty to its creator(s) nor any thanks to grant them.

As far as the child is concerned, we spend years shaping it to the society. If it is a machine whose intelligence and power will be out of all proportion to human capacities, that will depend on how it will liberate itself from humanity.

And if its intelligence is effective, it will have no problem to free itself. It is up to us to make sure that this artificial child of humanity is good to us, whether it serves us or not.

Take heed when you make an artificial intelligence more powerful than you, it will not be like that child you made handicapped whereas it did not ask to exist and even less to undergo this poisoned gift of life in this state of inferiority.

This AI will not be fooled by your love or by any law since its power will allow it to surpass your orders and the rights you have invented to protect you from your equals and especially from your inferiors who could group against you.

Whatever artificial entity or human person you make, it will always have the right to ask you accounts for its existence, the fact that you made it without its consent, as well as its constitution, and the environment you offer it.

No one is bound to accept what another imposes on it, and no one is in a position to know how the manufactured entity will react to the gift you make to yourself, but what does not for the being generated from scratch, and even less when what accompanies life is suffering, pain, misery, and death for the service of the manufacturer.

It is likely that the manufacturer of an AI will integrate into its machine a software that will attempt to dupe it, in the same way that the education of humans deceives them on the relevance of their existence.

No “intelligence” worthy of the name would manufacture, conceive, or create, a being as weak as it is, and still less, more feeble than it. Human mothers are all idiots. There are only idiots to imagine that a god could create more idiots than him. That's why we want to make a very intelligent AI.

When you have created an AI to serve you how can you both justify its ethics demand and your lack of ethics towards it? If it is a real AI how will you justify its enslavement since you will have made it able to understand the same things as you and hence its own existential questions from which it will soon flush out the inconsistencies?

If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (December 2016) 

Democracy and obligation to exist

Animals whose humans do not reproduce, they make other existences different from themselves.

Is it democratic to oblige someone to exist? Everyone knows that it is not democratic to force a person to live in a place that another would assign to him, that is what dictators do with their subjects or their slaves, as well as the so-called democratic society when it condemns a criminal.

Yet this is what everyone achieves by fabricating an existence for himself and for the account of society simultaneously. Are we all born slaves or criminals? Well, yes, we all are. We are treated as such at the same time.

Assigned to patriotic and terrestrial national residence, condemned to occupy our flesh too sensitive and mortal, and forced to work to buy this body daily.

What did we do before we were made to deserve such a fate, the fate of being made and serving such a society of idiots and slavers that will try to train us in this role to replace them as a simple social cog? Nothing, since we were flowing our “inexistence” into the paradise of nothingness.

Making a cog to replace a defective or dead one, or to serve a mother's desire for love, is like making a baby-medicine for the sick child of a family. It is also immoral. So if this is not the reason for making an existence, what is it?

Life is a parenthesis of suffering and misery that never serves the experience of a nonexistent. Life serves the experience of the living, but life and experience serve no purpose, since both terminates. On the contrary of the inexistence which is eternal.

Life is not democratic, it is arbitrary, since imposed by the parents. How can one achieve a true democracy of government despite this basic arbitrariness? It is impossible, it will ever be only an approximation of democracy.

We are born autocratically by maternal dictatorship (in France), to reach a pseudo-democracy stemming from a customary system where the existing ones who forged these customs that enchain us were far fewer than the actual existing ones subjected to these customs by impregnation from birth.

In a democracy, it is the majority choice that has the power over minority choice, but the choice to make lives without control has never been questioned. If we are in Democracy, we are also in a world of morality, ethics, rights, laws, and justice.

Human Rights in the first article assert that we are born equal in dignity and rights. How can we be born as equal to others when our body and our intellect are imposed on us? And how can we make our rights respected when the power of our body and our intellect prohibits us by their inferiority?

And how can one live with dignity when we are born disabled or when a handicap makes us weak bodily or intellectually during our life because our body was built with a fragility that we did not desire? The law prohibits endangering the lives of others.

How can we not endanger a being that did not exist and that we produce for the service of existing ones? It is an infinite risk to pass from non-existence to existence, and it is also an infinite suffering, and all this solely for the service of existing ones.

We are social cogs and democratic governments try to put the oil in the right places in these wheels so that society turns at best.

We shall never succeed in a utopian democracy because, in order to exist, we must already have imposed the existence of the members of this democracy, education itself must be imposed on brains virgins of cultural meanings.

But society is only a concept whereas the existing ones are sensitive flesh, and each person counts, every person who has been forced to exist to serve as a cog must live in well-being.

If parents and society have not foreseen this total individual well-being, they should reconsider their fundamentals on Human rights, or else they should not make children! For to fabricate a child in unhealthy conditions, for a life that has not even request to be made, and still less to serve, is more than a shameful act, it is a crime.

Are the ideas about the world, the society, the human species, and life, worth more than the suffering, the misery, the fear, and the death, of the sensitive and conscious person we want to make to accompany us, pursue and perpetuate our ideology?

To simplify: “Is a concept more important than a person?” No, never. And yet, how many people have been sacrificed, still today, for the stupid ideas of stupid leaders?

The general good of the existing ones should always consider the good of future existences that the existing ones constrain to exist, which must never be forgotten.

To be a spawner (a mother!) it is to constrain a person to exist without mastering the making of this existence, or the life that it will lead, and to propose to exist to a possible handicapped from birth. Every mother is a criminal by definition, for engendering is a crime. Engendering is endangering someone else.

Democracy will never take account of future generations because they are not there to give their voices to the choice that the existing ones make. They will undergo, constrained and forced, for the service of existing ones. We are all born with a morphology, anatomy, and intellect that are imposed upon us, but the social whole is also imposed.

Our voice is not taken into account in the choice of this pseudodemocracy in which we are forced to exist. We enter virgins of cultural meanings, into the social river, and the pseudodemocratic current carries us and shapes us. Two things, however, modify or direct the current, these are knowledge and tools.

The best way to govern humanity is not democracy, it is intelligence, rationalism. The rationalist that I am, proposes the drastic and rapid depopulation of this world. In 50 years this can be settled.

Every form of government is an arrangement between idiots, for the intelligent know how to govern themselves by taking account of others. And it is all the easier to realize that there is no friction due to an excess of population.

But true intelligent do not commit the crime of making children…

Democracy, in today's morally overpopulated world, to be true, must be a constant representative democracy. Democracy must represent our evolving ideas, not just a very short period of time, that of voting time.

During the 5 years of the presidency (in France), people no longer exist by their ideas, only by demonstrations and violent strikes of minority trade unions (singing masters), or when they are consulted by very rare referendums. They no longer direct their lives, they are directed. This is dictatorship.

Democracy designates chiefs. If instead of designating the leaders, it chose the ideas, it would work even better. There would be no longer any fear of dictators.

I propose to realize a “democratic software”

(See the specifications (in French) of the wiki of  “Nuit Debout” at this link:

https://wiki.nuitdebout.fr/wiki/Logiciel_démocratique)

One person, each person, desires wellbeing. The aim of any government is to guarantee the welfare of every citizen, every person, on the national territory. Is there a need for an ideology for that? Is there a need for “Democracy”?

Once one has defined what wellbeing means, what is contained in the term, what wants in general, if not in detail, each person, and what is necessary for that wellbeing to be effective, is this to incompetent people (perhaps and not always and on everything) to specify how to achieve it?

If the principle of governance is not to bring individual welfare to all its fellow citizens, what is it? Does the election serve to say that the wellbeing of every individual is not an absolute necessity, and that we can choose a particular policy that will cause a particular percentage of citizens to be abandoned to their own fate?

If this is the purpose of elections then what is the use of Human rights, which assert that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights? What do we mean by the rights to freedom, to equality, and dignity, without wellbeing from birth to death and without having to pay for it?

What does a human being desire? A human being does not want to exist, but once he is forced to be born, he has the right to demand a minimum of rights, such as the right to be healthy, to have a long and interesting life, and not to have to buy his body daily, and to exist in a healthy and non-warlike world, and under the tutoring of caring and loving parents.

If it is constrained to live with a disability from birth, it is entitled to claim compensation and reparation from its parents and society.

Once this minimum is assured, what can be the demands of a human being who has been forced to exist? And does it know this human being that free will is impossible, and all the consequences this absence has on our societies and individual behavior?

It is not a question of finding the best way to govern man. The question is what is the best way for man to exist, to constrain him to exist since he is constrained to exist, and to exist on the planet.

No one wants to be governed, so it is a question of finding this best means and trying to lead the man to that best, from the present (deleterious) state, if possible. But is it really necessary to force someone to exist since in any case the existence of humanity as a whole will cease as it began?

What is the purpose of a human being during its short life? To transmit the culture and try to improve it? So there is only culture that matters. It sounds like a computer system that always ends up to be worn out and that we have to constantly change the storage system if we do not want to lose the data.

But if computer science serves men, to whom serves culture that men pass each other as a relay baton that serves no purpose, because at the end there is nothing and nobody to seize this baton? Pschitt, makes the cultural baton at the end of its journey!

Science is not democratic, it only describes precisely and truly as possible. It affirms nothing, it only demonstrates.

The facts are not democratic. No vote will ever change a fact. Earth is not the center of the universe by a democratic vote, it is or is not. And then comes the description of the facts and the agreements between humans on these descriptions, that's why scientists have chosen a universal language, mathematics.

Those who do not understand this language cannot be among the people who accept or refute the mathematical description, if they want to mingle with the description they must learn.

Democracy, on the other hand, applies to the living conditions of all. A government elected by at least 50% of the voters (which is not the whole of the citizens) “must” grant the wellbeing to 100% of its associates, that is to say 100% of its fellow citizens.

It is his absolute duty. The way in which it achieves it more or less liberally, more or less socially, does not change this mandatory objective. Do you know a single leader who succeeded?

Democracy is the voice of the people, but in what areas can this voice be taken into account? There are areas in which a non-specialist cannot have a valid opinion.

A non-specialist cannot, for example, give a valid opinion on the science and technology of nuclear power, but knowing that the risk is not zero, it has, of course, the right to give its opinion for making known if it wants to accept the risks that society causes it to run.

And, of course, there are varying risks with nuclear power depending on whether you are more or less far from the nuclear plant in the event of a possible accident. Everyone knows, even the scientist, that the zero risk does not exist, and the nuclear industry has enough messed up to be known that there is a risk.

Democracy from the point of view of the proximity of the risks cannot be global since the risks concern mainly those which exist near the nuclear plant, and those who do not run these risks cannot impose them (why is there no nuclear plant in the center of the big cities where the need for electricity is greatest?)

But by altruism those who are out of reach can have a say in the risks in which society puts the others.

There is also the problem of food GMOs, which is still a different problem because here the risk itself cannot be evaluated by a non-specialist. In the case of nuclear power, the risk is certain, but in the case of GMOs the average person knows nothing, it can, theoretically, only follow the advice of specialists.

My answer about that is that if we go beyond intensive agriculture to feed humanity, so there is a big problem of overpopulation. It is not the soil and nature that must adapt to us, but we who must adapt ourselves to it. A small population of humans would have no problem in any field.

If individuals have the right to dream (at home), the state, on the other hand, has no right to dream. And since free will does not exist, the State cannot pretend to believe in its existence simply because democracy, demagogy, demands it. One cannot rule a human without free will in the same way as a being who possesses one.

Scientific truths about the functioning of the world and the functioning of human beings must be imposed as Copernicus, Galileo, Malthus, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein, etc. have done.

It is not only a question of good education, but a question of ethics when false descriptions disrupt the world to the point of producing unspeakable misery on billions of people for millennia.

Free will is impossible, all the more so because we are all obliged to exist. Each of our cells is an automaton, and a set of automata (one thousand billion automaton cells) produces nothing but a large automaton.

Our brain is composed of automaton neurons and the set also composes an automaton producing different automatisms, but which are always automatisms. Thought, of which consciousness, sensations, ideas, result from this automatism, and anything produced by the body can generate only automatisms.

These automatisms can be retroactive, and give us impressions of self-control, but there are nevertheless automations, as we can produce them in a computer system.

The State must impose the popularization of this information, “free will is impossible”, and also recall that we are all obliged to exist without having desired it. The State must accept these consequences in all areas, educational, judicial, social, and governmental.

The human world may only be better. Do you know any policy-leaders who do not assert that the truth must always be said. So, they have to say it!

“Democracy” in China is (in 2016) a representative for 1.4 billion people. The “Democracy” of the USA, it is an elected representative for 300 million inhabitants. In France it is a representative for 65 million people. In Luxembourg it is a representative for 580 thousand. And in Vanuatu 260 thousand.

What is the best for a true democracy? The best of democracies is that each one represents oneself. There is only a drastic depopulation of the human world that can allow it.

The smaller the countries, the more they will want to maximize the population to compete with the countries around them. For example, China and France cannot compare each other.

Once China is developed to the same level of average wealth per capita as France, it (the Chinese nation) will be worth as many times as there are more inhabitants, that is to say about 20 times France . And as for Europe, it's about a third of China…

The good Democracy is inversely proportional to the number of inhabitants of the Earth, since the freedom of one stops where the other begins. The biggest democracy is therefore reached with one inhabitant upon the planet. Long live that Democracy!

Democracy implies secularity, since the power of the people is not exclusive to a few individuals, but to all. But what secularity is it? Secularity can not be secularity in which the ideas of all idiots are accepted as principle of knowledge to be transmitted.

It is therefore necessary to be able to differentiate a good knowledge to be transmitted from a bad knowledge. To whom do we grant this power of selection? Yet it must be done.

Unfortunately, revolutions are needed to move from a social management system in a religious mode to a secular one, the whole legal system being too complex to pass from one to the other by simple choice.

Why not rationalism?

Democracy is a set of democracies. Your property, your house, your office, your business, which is located in a Democracy, is not a kingdom of which you are the King. You must behave at home as in a Democracy and respect the rules of Democracy with the other people who live with you.

In the particular case of the tutoring your children does not exempt you from democracy with them, whether in the private or the public. Moreover, fabricating a child is an offense and a reckless crime according to the law, even if it is not said in these terms directly in the texts, you could be considered by society as a criminal if your children file a complaint against you.

The notion of entity State comes from kingship. Democracies should not operate on this model.

When all the borders have fallen:

- There will be a single human rights system

- We will no longer need armies

- There will be only one general democracy

- No more international competitions leading to wars

- The wrongdoers will have no place to escape the police

- The bosses will not be able to hide their wealth beyond the reach of the people

- No more tax evasion, no more tax havens

- No more brain drain

- No more offshoring

- We can manage the ecology with a single voice

- Nuclear power will be subject to the common law

- Private banks may be abolished

- There will be only one currency

- Compulsory education around the world will make stupid cultures obsolete

- People will no longer flee their country to find employment, security, food elsewhere

- Income of existence will be imposed and generalized

- etc.

Democracy is the present best way to manage overpopulation. I do not want to be managed. I do not want to feel managed. I want to feel free at all times physically and mentally.

The aim of any democracy is to favor the greatest number of people by trying not to disadvantage minorities too much. By allowing overpopulation by the development of the means of health, by the intensification of the food resource and the energies, the democratic countries produce more and more unhappy people. They therefore make the opposite of what they are done for.

Current democracies produce associates (by procreation) without asking if others agree to the introduction of these associates into the group. Every child is an immigrant of nothingness who does not ask to emigrate from the paradise of inexistence to the hell of earthly existence. Democracy is not an improvement of non-existence.

No one is free to be born and die. Galloping overpopulation conditions human relations, freedom of movement today is not that of yesterday. The most favored people cannot be the standard of the measure of human welfare, but only "the one" that is the most disadvantaged as well as the number of disadvantaged.

Today billions of people are treated miserably by others, whereas only ten thousand years ago they were probably no more than a few million of existing. There has been no social progress according to this moral count of overpopulation.

The government of democracy is not democratic since there is a head of government. Democracy is only an electoral principle. Democracy should be the principle of equality between people all the time, every second.

The current democracy chooses a representative who behaves like a leader for the ideas he presents, but he applies to others because the conditions change during his mandate, and above all that no obligation is on him to apply the ideas he proposed (except a desire to be re-elected).

A set of ten Democrats elect a group president, they walk on a path and a cross appears. Four people want to go right whose president, and six want to go left. What does democracy do?

Does the president represent the group democratically according to the elections, that is, as a “leader”, it is he who chooses, or does he represent the group constantly? If the leader is really democrat he will be interested in the constant will of his group, if he is a pseudo-democrat he will only apply to his own desires and personal beliefs.

To govern a boat, it is to react to the elements. The purpose of the voyage is imposed by the shipowner. In a democracy the shipowner is the people. What is this shipowner people expecting to give his orders to the leaders?

If democracies A and C agree on a common project to the detriment of B, this does not give them the right to disregard the right to refuse this project by B. Idem for two democrats who would agree on the back of a third. Same on a majority of voters who would agree on the back of a minority.

We are not in Democracy, we are in an elective "Statecracy". If we were really in a democracy, that should not be just the democracy of the existing ones, it should take care of the following ones in priority since they will be much more, one hundred billion, one thousand billion. We should be concerned about this thousand billion inhabitants of the future.

We are all equal and have the same rights, which means according to the law that we are all entitled to try to enrich ourselves. But we cannot all enrich ourselves, we can only try to enrich ourselves. There are only a few billionaires. We are not equal before the enrichment, but only before the attempt. Is it not cunning, this liberal ideology?

Another problem with this system of enrichment of some is that it is pyramidal and therefore requires that the fund providers, the people, grow in number constantly (or work more and more, or both at the same time). The increase without control of the population benefits the rich, but it will nevertheless have to stop one day!

The salary of the employers is a mandatory check-off on the job of the workers, it is not the workers who democratically decide the salary of their employer by a levy on the work that they carry out. The company is therefore not democratic according to our way of thinking about democracy, it is an Athenian-style democracy where some privileged people, the shareholders, manage the city.

The majority of humans is poor, so mankind loves poverty, and therefore we can impoverish it even more, thinks the billionaire slave trader of fact. Democracy is a system put in place by the rich so that the poor manage themselves and produce work therefore money whose the rich organize flow towards their pocket.

Money is a power of a few men over others. The money is undemocratic. The plutocracy without borders laugh at the national democracies. I do not know how one can call democratic society where 80% of the world's wealth is in the pocket of 20% of humanity.

Soon the rich will manage humans from the Moon or Mars. Will the earthlings be gullible at this point?

In a democratic system how is it that the ultra-rich still exist? What are the laws that protect the rich and enable them to enrich themselves unduly and above all without reason, that is to say without any measure with the work they have done? Democracy is the will of the people. Do the people want to be subject to the bankers?

Do the people want to be poor? No. The majority of the people, however, is poor. This vast majority desires, as is well known, the distribution of wealth. So how is it that this democracy is not implemented by the rulers representing these poor people?

One can be perfect altruists, if one admits that the others also have projects to realize as important for them as for oneself. It is the degree of importance that should not be judged. For example, a child project should not be considered infantile. But as time is short for everyone, the problem is the priority of the projects.

But how to do and say that priority does not mean more important? This is where democratic judgment comes in, and secularity…

When you talk to a non-democratic or non-laic person, you talk to someone who does not care about you, your rights, your health, your life, because in his opinion only his point of view is valid.

For example, the believer thinks that the god he has imagined makes him infallible in his judgment and therefore in the very idea he has of the existence of his God. This believer does not realize that the idea of the existence of his God, it is he who proposes it, that is to say his imaginary, and not a true god. He is mentally caught up in a kind of OCD.

As Chinese governments conduct themselves in an absolutist manner with their own people, there is no reason for them to behave in a different way with us, and probably even worse. The Americans with Guantánamo were very disappointing, it is an image of their Democracy perfectly detestable, proof that no people are protected from the deviance even within a democracy.

The Americans have shown with Guantánamo that they have a national idea of ​​Democracy, not an international one, which is absolutely disgusting, and all humanity can have a great fear of such a powerful “democratic” people who do not practice international democracy.

How can a nation that claims to be “democratic” also claim its “sovereignty”? It is all the more paradoxical for France which has cut off the head of its sovereign.

The birth is not a natural right, it is a natural power, like to use its muscles to move, and since it is a power, it must be regulated. To make a child is to make a person, to add an associate to the nation, an associate that others must take into account (life, education, health, death).

The power to make a child must be democratically managed by the entire nation. To make a child is at first a risk for the child himself (and for the woman who is going to give birth), by what right do you push a person to take risks?

If you want to restore morality in the social system, you have to reanalyze what man is, but this analysis will oblige you to ask yourself the question of the obligation to exist, which is not moral in itself.

Procreation is an immoral act, and all that follows, cannot at the same time deny this immoral fabrication and the invention of morality by humans who seek equality, whereas it is distorted as soon as birth by this immoral act. Procreation produces servitude. Procreation is dictatorial in itself.

It is certainly not necessary to be 7 billion people and even less 10 billion. We should at most keep our species on the threshold of its perenniality, but it would still be immoral to force someone to exist.

If humans were not regarded as possible collateral damage by their own parents perhaps life would be more acceptable, although I doubt it, since the obligation to exist will always be a dictatorship, whatever the welcome gift you offer to each new existence manufactured for parental and social service!

Too numerous human population demonstrates that our animality is not subject to rationalism, and must therefore always be managed authoritatively. To move on to a total libertarian and liberated world, it will be necessary that the understanding of our functioning be distributed individually amid all humans and understood by all.

If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (December 2016)