You sold a sandwich to person $p_1$, and another identical sandwich to person
$p_2$. With the current monetary system, you'd usually charge $p_1$ and $p_2$
by the goods that you gave them, not by who they are or what they did with it.
So you'd charge them, say, $10$ bucks each.
But, a question is: what if person $p_1$ used that sandwich to energize himself
to discover (or invent) good science that would save the lives of millions,
while $p_2$ simply used that sandwich to sit on ass and watch TV — is the
worth of both your efforts at giving them sandwiches equivalent?
The current monetary system assumes that yes, both of your sandwiches, are
equivalent regardless of the fact that they have lead into different outcomes:
sandwich eaten by $p_1$ resulted in science that saved lives, while sandwich
eaten by $p_2$ resulted in only increasing the net carbon emission.
Assumption 1.Today's monetary system ignores the results lead to by an effort or work.
There is no proof that shows that Assumption 1 is optimal. In fact, we can
easily see that it is wrong as soon as we start choosing a goal. E.g.:
If we choose our goal to be to maximize our GDP, then Assumption 1 is
obviously wrong, since sandwich given to $p_2$ did not result in anything
useful to the economy ($p_2$ just used it to sit on ass watch TV), while
sandwich given to $p_1$ resulted in a major progress that would most likely
boost the GDP.
If we choose our goal to be to advance our civilization so that it gets
closer immortality, then Assumption 1 is still wrong for the same obvious
reasons.
So, as you see, there are many reasons why Assumption 1 is totally wrong.
Assumption 1 also implies that the current monetary system assumes that the
worth of works in the past is frozen. E.g. what if it turned out after, say,
$5$ years that person $p_1$'s discovered science was actually harmful to the
progress of our civilization? The current monetary system will assume that
sandwich given to $p_1$ it is still worth $10$ bucks, which is not true (since
it turned out $p_1$ put the sandwich to harmful use).
Theorem 1.Amount of money $m$, given to work $w$ (e.g. selling sandwich) which
resulted in outcome $o$, is said to be perfect, if $m$ equals the total number
of seconds reduced in our journey towards becoming an immortal civilization
according to hypothesis $h'$, thanks $w$'s fair share contribution of allowing
$o$ to happen.
In other words, money $m$ is rather a value mapped to a function:
$$m = \text{t}(w, o, h')$$
where $t$ is a function that maps work $w$ that lead to outcome $o$ to the
total number of seconds reduced in our journey towards the nearest immortal
civilization, by using the hypothesis $h'$. $h'$ is our best estimation to
model reality and gets updated over time.
So, in other words, the unit of the perfect money is measured in metric
seconds. That is, International System of Unit (SI) unit of money must be
seconds. Isn't this fascinating?
Axiom 2.The superset of freedoms is better than its strict subset.
Axiom 3.The set of freedom's available while being alive is the superset of the
set of freedoms available when dead.
Axiom 4.When causality is unknown, assume the most accurate available statistical
correlation.
Then those axioms will lead to that our goal in life (in general) is to
maximize survival of life forms in general (not only humans). And the only
known way to maximize that is by achieving an immortal civilization.
Everything (including feelings) is therefore only a randomized approximation of
a solution to maximize the survival of life forms. Asymptotically our
happiness is defined after this. This also solves morality paradoxes.
The proof is easy, but a bit lengthy. So I'll omit it for now. Maybe I'll be
more explicit in another time (even tho I think it's easy for your to prove it
yourself).
Rule 1.Recipient must not waste any resources. I.e. recipient will only
spend it in things that help maximize life forms' survival.
Rule 2.A recipient that violates Rule 1 will be punished according to the
expected harm that he has caused against the survival of life forms, such
that —once punished— the expected harm would balance out to $0$.
Buying a first-hand car, when a second-hand car, or public transportation,
could do the job.
Buying needlessly complex clothing, or expensive clothing, simply because it
looks good, beyond achieving a practical utility that helps in maximizing
one's survival. E.g. why would you buy a crocodile leather jacket when a
cheaper material would offer you same, or better, warmth or protection
against rain?
Storing money for too long, without using it for a survival maximizing thing.
This is bad as it effectively bars people from utilizing the money for a good
cause. Remember, such frozen money is fundamentally frozen past energy that
is made unusable by society to advance.
Buying food that is not the cheapest source of required nutrition. E.g. cup
cakes, pizza, ice cream — all these foods are wasteful, because part of
their price tag is because of making the bread fluffy, or making the cream
cold, which is not helpful in a nutritional manner, hence necessarily
wasteful.
Alcohol — these are too expensive for their nutritions, while at the same
time increase the risk of addiction and alcoholism, which harms society a
lot.
Using public transportation, or a cheap second hand car, to get from point
$A$ to point $B$ in a journey to do a survival maximizing thing.
Eating healthy nutritious food, drinks.
Getting good education.
Starting new investments that offer non-wasteful services, such as cheap
healthy food, or funding research laboratories or projects to further
advance science.
2.5. examples of punishments and harm rectification
If a recipient decides to waste his money by, say, selling alcohol to
people, then the expected harm can be calculated statistically based on the
expected number of alcoholics that he would probably end up creating, which
is estimated by using statistics from previous years. The recipient will
also be asked to undo his wrong by promote an anti-alcohol culture to
potentially save as many people from alcoholism as the expected number of
alcoholics that he has created.
If a person is known to have died because of recipient's wasteful acts,
then the recipient will be charged fees associated with losses of his
murder based on statistics measured at the time. E.g. each person costs over
a million USD.
Synopsis—Basically, a food is perfect, if and only if, it is the cheapest
thing that offers you the nutritions that you require. Else, you are wasting
your money.
As a result, pizza, for example, is clearly not perfect, but rather a waste,
because think: do you really think the process of making a pizza slice is
the cheapest way to get 285 calories, 12g protein, 10g fat, and 36g carbs?
Think of the operation cost of pizza making, which requires running an oven and
baking. Imagine the energy bill, and time needed. Clearly pizza is a wasteful
way of creating nutritional values, as there are many ways we can optimize the
process.
On the other hand, you could get what a pizza slice would give you, by simply
frying some egg, with cheese, and potatoes, for example, at a cheaper price
point. I'm not saying that this is perfect either, but it suffices to show you
that pizza is clearly a waste as it is very easy to think of the same
(nutritional value-wise) at a cheaper price point.
But people buy pizza coz they think it's sounds crunchy when you eat it.
F*ck that nonsense. There is no nutrition in crunch. This makes pizza a
form of drug that creates artificial need (by the allure of its crunch and
smell) to cause people to make the irrational decision of buying it.
Say that $\mathcal{F} = \{f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_n\}$ is the set of all foods.
For example, $f_1$ could be fried chicken breast, $f_2$ could be orange, etc.
Also say that for any food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$, $c_i$ is the cost of $f_i$
(i.e. money and time needed to be spent in order to get $f_i$ into ur belly),
and $n_i$ is the nutritional values that your body obtains after eating $f_i$.
Then, if your body needs nutritional values in interval $[n_a, n_b]$ (for
whatever health goal you have), then:
Definition 1.Food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$ is said to be perfect, if and only if:
$$ n_a \le n_i \le n_b
$$
and, for all $f_j \in \{f_l \in \mathcal{F} : n_a \le n_l \le n_b\}$:
$$ c_i \le c_j
$$
Well, then it's a waste of money. Period. Could be a little waste to you,
depending on how spoiled you are, but it remains a waste nonetheless, and you
will be at a loss.
Today's food is mostly heavily a waste of money as they fail to meet
Definition 1. Sadly, the concept of food —today— is looked from the
view of taste and joy, very similar to how drugs are looked at.
Therefore, it's fair to say that today's food industry has morphed into a fork
of the drug industry, where unnecessary additives are added to lure people in
in order to take maximum money. It is no longer only nutritional. It is now
partly nutritional, and partly wasteful to fool idiots to get a slice of
their money (almost everyone on this planet).
We need to find a principled methodology to objectively guide us on the process
of creating perfect food. I will keep you updated when I nail this. Plz stay
tuned.
