Category Archives: Essays

Essays, Opinion, Pornography, Writing

Against Pornography (NSFW)

Leave a comment

Five years ago I wrote a piece called In Defense of Pornography which I still stand by and think was a decent piece, but I’ve been thinking again about porno in general and have an interesting angle that I want to share, which is, if you have a thing for a certain porn star and you jack off to her get jackhammered nine ways from Sunday, aren’t you technically a cuckhold?

So hear me out on this before you decide to stop reading, but I don’t think there is a big difference. One could argue that you’re a voyeur and just happened a long a hot chick getting fucked and since you’re nowhere in a position to fuck her by yourself, nor would you want to share a chick with another guy, so you watch and just have yourself a merry little wank. That is fair enough and maybe that was true back in the early days of men watching porn, but nowadays, when men are lining up at conventions to meet and greet their favorite onscreen fuck toy and buy replica cunts from Fleshlight, along with buying DVD after DVD of said chick getting fucked constantly by all different types of men, while you stroke your tiny dick, which seems very cuckholdy of “men.”

Now if you’re an adolescent, you can be forgiven for such behavior, because 1. You’re a teenager and not every girl in school is putting out. 2. Sometimes you just need to let one out. 3. You’re young with zero odds of fucking your favorite porn star until you’re 18 in this industry. Any man past their early 20’s, cushion room for you late bloomers, should be ashamed if you collect pornstar stuff like a scrawny Japanese kid collects anime. I’m not saying you have to get into porn to fuck your favorite porn star or even marry them, but I think at some point it is time to hang it up and say, enough is enough, I am going to get gash instead of porn. I watched porn online as a teen, clicking the yes button to being 18 when I wasn’t or typing shaved pussy into Google and looking that way. As I got to the age of 18, I pretty much stopped looking much outside of the occasional view when I am drunk as fuck and going out would be a bad idea, over staying in and having a wank and I don’t regret it one bit. I understand porn stars have to make money obviously, so I’m not saying you couldn’t buy the odd PPV showing of In Diana Jones or Shaving Ryan’s Privates, two classic comedy titles of cinema, but you have to admit there isn’t a big world of difference between being a cuckhold and being a major consumer of pornography. I mean, both are very passive acts, which isn’t masculine. Either one encourage reproductive success, even if you don’t want kids, the libido still wants to. Everything about too much porn seems to concur with my assessment.

When it comes to the real world, one could argue that an alpha male doesn’t exist and everyone is enjoying someone else’s sloppy seconds and I highly disagree for three major reasons. 1. Woman who have had more male partners without reproductive success, boost your male virility up if you’re the one to impregnate them. 2. Not being the one to bear the reproductive cost of another man’s reproductive success is the complete opposite of cuckoldry. So even if she has a boyfriend or husband, you’re not wife swapping or sharing in essence, you’re the cucker, because you’re the one going for reproductive success in the arena. 3. It’s not like you’re going in 10 seconds after another man was already there.

So at least from my perspective, I personally think, too much porn does indeed a cuckhold make and men should look towards toning down their annual consumption, because in my mind, this

cucktv

might as well be this.

cucktv2

Essays, Non-fiction, Opinion, Writing

Sweet Home Alabama

Leave a comment

Alabama is currently in the news this week for pushing a law that severely restricts abortions. Now, philosophically, we can argue all day about abortion and when it constitutes a life, which is has to at some point, given that fact it is born. That said, Alabama is setting a dangerous precedence for men, more so than woman. The whole argument on abortion is that woman have sovereignty over their bodies, which was laid down by the Supreme Court back in the 70’s with ROE v WADE. The concept of the supreme court saying “Yes, people have carte blanche” over their bodies is not frivolous and needs to be respected as case law and not being overturned by the states, especially in a decade when the drug war looks like it could start to end.

If woman don’t have control over their bodies, what about us men? It’s even more than just control over our bodies, it is the fact that the government is now, yet again, trying to gain access to what we do and don’t do inside our own homes with the miscarriage aspect of the law. If a woman is unaware of being pregnant and she lifted a television, resulting in said miscarriage, she is responsible for murder. The absurdity of being restricted in your own home by the government is not an idea worth considering, rather, it should be seen the bullshit overreach of inept human beings with more free time on their hands than brains. Most politicians aren’t exactly the most brilliant of people, I mean, just look at the groups that vote them into power for criss sakes! Why? Because idiots like people “like them” and human hubris makes uneducated yokels think they’re experts on subjects more than they actually are, or as it is scientifically referred to, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Now I want to make sure I am one record here as saying that I think an amendment needs to be added to the bill of rights, stating explicitly that humans have the right to their own bodies and congress shall pass no law restricting one to make personal choices over our own body. This would be great, as it would instantly nullify the drug war, give woman control over their bodies as well as men, allow for government to never be able to say, I can’t stick it in a chicks ass or even more importantly, just the right to be free in my own domain and make the choices I am allowed to make inside my own castle, because regardless of if you’re prochoice or not or pro woman or not, your property is ultimately yours and this law gives the government over reach in regards to everything, including our guns and what good is a castle doctrine if another “king” can have say over my throne?

Essays, Non-fiction, Writing

Shallow Thinking

Leave a comment

Shallow thinking versus deep thinking, what does it ultimately entail? Well, I did a Google search and decided that the best possible answer I could find was that shallow thinking is reflective of merely that which you can visually see or glib understanding of a topic, while a more complex angle or more original view point is deeper thinking. The world we live in thrives on shallow thinking, Youtube does not exist without it and its “hottakes”, which people love, because depth in this world is genuinely hated. Consider professional wrestling, Heel (Bad guy) who are intellectually inclined are almost always intelligent based, occasionally this pattern changes, but a babyface (good guy) is almost never intelligent. This isn’t the only place in our culture that ostracizes the intelligent. Take Superman or comics in general for instance, Kal-el is dumb as rocks and really has nothing going for him, Batman and Louis Lane essentially have to do his thinking for him and Lex Luthor, a scientist, classical music lover, thinker, strategist and all around badass is his arch enemy. Why must complexity be so demonized? Well, shallow thinkers have a hard time understanding the deeper aspects of the world and this causes them distress in some cases, like a reverse form of empathy, except it hinders the person in question as opposed to helping them make a decision that is worthwhile. For instance, my love of Professional Wrestling is often a button for scorn and ridicule, because “How could someone as smart as you like such filth?” which was a popular phrase said to me as a child or how now a days, the concept of me thinking deep in general earns me the ire of individuals with such phrases as “Why do you deserve to be so smart?” which clearly is steeped in envy of the fact I have higher general intelligence than that particular individual. Now you’re probably wondering why I am bringing this up as all and to be fair, I wasn’t quite sure myself, until I started writing, but I felt a need to let out some frustrations of life living in a town of shallow thinkers as my primary motivation, even though I know I am not alone with those of you plagued by the SJW and Alt-right and there shallow thinking that is still causing issues in our society at present. I currently don’t have a solution for the world’s ills but I do know that deeper, more complex thinking is a must and we need to change society to herald the intelligence and stop rejecting them.

P.S. If you’re wondering why this piece is dense, it’s because such a thicket of dense writing is normally considered complex, and I want you to feel how these people do when they’re engaging those of use with the ability to see pass the superficial, while, in and of itself, being shallow thinking on such.

Essays, Non-fiction

In favor of the Universal Basic Income

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION
     Social programs are all the rage with the leftist. They say these things are for people, because life is what happens and you cannot account for most things that come up, like injury for instance. While their argument there is sound, they don’t factor human nature into it and these programs actually hurt those with the greatest needs for them, whilst allowing for parasitic waste of flesh and oxygen to suck from the system and to breed their maleficent genetics into the world destroying the American Ecosystem.

WHAT IS AN ECOSYSTEM?
     An ecosystem is a system filled with many different species, all of which should, ideally, live in a harmonious environment among one another, where everything adds, rather than detracts from the system. The ocean is one such ecosystem, where species cohabitate among one another, with a hierarchical structure of predator, prey, producers, consumers and decomposers. These complex systems are dependent on producers to create the vertebrae that keeps the system afloat. Humans also follow these patterns as well and we can break down how each establishes itself into our country. Producers are the job creators, movers and shakers of this world. A producer need not be a businessman, since the arts are also producers, but primarily, businessmen and woman will be the glue that holds the economy together. Consumers are exactly what one would expect, they consume. In biology, consumers are organisms that create no food of their own, much like the general populace, they’re entire being is dependent on being able to get food from the producers.

     Now, we should, in capitalistic society, be based on mutualism, in which relationships are formed with benefit. The role between job provider and employee for example, is one such form of mutualism. Commensalism is where one organism benefits and the other isn’t harmed, exhibited by the roles of parents with their children. The other is parasitic, where the parasite benefits at the expense of the host, but doesn’t kill it, since a non-living organism wouldn’t be beneficial to the parasite, exhibited by government dependents and government themselves, ironically, forming an exclusive form of mutualism, the benefits both, but no one else within the ecosystem.

HUMAN NATURE
     Human beings are considered a complex system, albeit, we’re not really that complex to understand. Humans fall into all different sets of people, but one look to our brethren in the wild and we’re not really that different from the animals we claim to have dominion over. Like an ecosystem, we’re filled with producers and consumers ourselves that fall into other subcategories as well, such as altruist acting, cheats, reciprocators and other types of beings you can read about in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

     What we’re going to look at here just those that would come about in regards to social programs as they currently are. Cheats from a selfish gene point of view are animals that benefit in a commensalism nature. To borrow directly, but not verbatim, from the book, some apes groom each other to remove parasitic animals that would otherwise harm the host, even if it doesn’t kill it. Cheats will benefit from this by getting themselves groomed, but not returning the favor, thus the commensalism aspect of the relationship, where one organism benefits, but the other isn’t harm, maybe just it just hurt feelings. When someone doesn’t pay their taxes, they’re referred to as a cheat, because this is the exact type of relationship I am discussing. One of the arguments against welfare is steeped in exactly this type of reasoning and it isn’t erroneous. Welfare leaves rooms for cheats to benefit. The social programs we currently have, almost never actually benefit those who need them most and while welfare fraud is at a very low frequency, that hasn’t stopped some people from being cheats, even if it is rarity in regards to welfare benefits, let’s take a closer look at human nature and that is the perception department.

     The golden ratio deals with humans forms of attractiveness, the higher you are in this ratio, the more symmetrical you are and the more beautiful you are perceived as. You are also viewed as having good genetics and there is a lot of privilege that comes with such beauty. To borrow from Michio Kaku, if you go to the doctors and they ask you what’s wrong, you’re registering good genetics. Humans gauge people on these looks every day and it is partially how we interact with one another for everything from sex to work and beyond. More attractive people are often deemed smarter than their less attractive counterparts, which can negatively impact intelligence quotient scores and perhaps erroneously inflate them as well.

     Currently we don’t have a database that deals with the number of highly attractive people there are in the world, just studies showcasing beautiful privilege, regardless of skin color, this will hold concurrent across races. In other words, subjectivity in regards to race would have little bearing in such. I bring this up because I want to discuss one welfare program, called disability, which is where this will be a huge hurdle for people to clear, when they’re high up on the golden ratio. Just because you’re born attractive, does not mean you cannot have something bad happen to you and this factor comes into play when they go to approve you for disability, seeing attractive people as abled bodies. Often times these people that need it the most will be turned away, while inferior genetics easily get on and for very easy things, such as depression or gender dysmorphia, because them being less attractive makes their plight seem more believable, even when others, with innumerable amount of evidence proving their disability, cannot. Whilst anecdotal, I’ve had friends who were rejected for this very reason, while living in a town where lazy people are ushered into the program and then working the second they get their lavish back pay. A video in regards to this has cropped up on Youtube some years ago and can be found very easy.

FIXING THE SYSTEM
     While we can never know the true extent of fraud that goes on in regards to these programs, we can prove that faulty human nature will err by way of sheer incompetence making the decisions, time and time again. So how can we fix the system and make the world a better place, while seeing both sides of the coin? We need to look at the Universal Basic Income. I know it is a very un-libertarian idea, but it makes sense from all angles, including fiscally conservative. First, studies have shown that when a populace is giving a UBI, more people become entrepreneurs, which creates more producers, making the backbone of our ecosystem stronger. Why is this? Well, some people are trepid and unable to take risk without a safety net. While I cannot have sympathy for these types, I can understand they’re different from me in that regard. The other factor in this, is it is fair to those born with good genetics, who may land on times of hardships and not just subsides genetics that wouldn’t otherwise breed in a Darwinian society. If we look to the number of government programs we spend on each year, the amount is quite costly, without factoring in the lack of yearly revenue from companies missing out on employable people. A UBI would almost certainly be cheaper in the long run and give a bigger boost to the economy than anything that has come before it. Furthermore, a UBI can be given to everyone, including the affluent, without discrimination. It levels the playing field between all types of Americans, reduces the stigma for those who truly need the help and even alleviates the strain on neurotic types that need stability to produce, like with Lazlo’s hierarchy of needs. The benefits, both macro and micro are too many to count and ultimately lead to a more productive society.

RECAPITULATION OR TL;DR
     The economy is an ecosystem, as with any ecosystem, is has it rules and all different types of organism, each with their own set of rules. The rules that govern humans do not work for social programs of most types, as they might be in direct violation of an individual’s personality or a person genetics might impede them form gaining such. The only way to fix this is to look at the Universal Basic Income as a way to impede human nature from harming innocents and causing a rift between leftist and conservatives alike.

Essays, Non-fiction

Generational Gaps in Thought

Leave a comment

INTRODUCTION
     What can be said about generations that hasn’t already been made up, through random samples, by people who lack a degree in any science, never mind sociology? That is what we’re going to attempt to explore in this essay by doing some real analysis and sorting the chaff from the wheat from someone who has actually attended college and knows how sociology works.

WHAT IS A GENERATION
     A generation is defined as a period of twenty years of child births that result in some level of alleged similarity between human beings belonging to this arbitrary system that makes little more sense than the bullshit astrogeology or religion that morons tend to buy into. The idea behind a generation, besides time of birth, is apparently the way of the world at the time someone is born. You know, much like how mars in retrograde impacts gullible people and lunatics use the full moon to blame for their actions or even how some idiots think your magical body energy feels like another generation entirely, unlike Rainman, these people are not idiot savants, they’re just dull. These are the two major things that we’re going to look at and put into perspective in regards to those born into these generations and also what is and isn’t nature vs nurture.


FUCK YEAH, SCIENCE BITCH
     It is important to remember that no one cared about generations prior to the baby boomers and that was important to keep track of in regards to social security, whilst Gen X was only slightly monitored by the government, but with little to care about. Mostly this bullshit comes from marketers looking to make sales and helplessly inept people who don’t understand individual people’s psychology, so they hop on the internet and read the first douchenozzle that created a post, confirming their bias and accepted it as fact. If you don’t match their mold, they suffer sever cognitive dissonance and cannot reason why you are the exception, so it is important to note that most idiots giving a fuck about this shit are predominately sensing types in the MBTI, except they don’t accept the MBTI as a fact, since it is theory and a lot of Sensing types despise theory. Instead, they like to go on personal experience, which one does not inviolate. Sadly for them, we’re what you call intellects and that means personal anecdotal evidence doesn’t count as fact. Now, if there was a way to quantify these things as truths, we could start to consider them as potentially having merit. One should not consider anecdotal the same as observational. Observational is that which is discernible by anyone within the world, it isn’t limited to just one person’s experience. The thing with these sensors is that, their precious experience they’re drawing upon, besides being the hallmark of a giant cuckholded racist prick, is that it lacks falsifiability. Science looks for falsifiability in regards to that which it considers in regards to hypothi. An example of falsifiability is all apples are green. Even if all observable apples are indeed green, it cannot be 100% true that there isn’t red apples.

GENERATIONS II-ELECTRIC BOOGALOU
     We’re going to be discussing three primary generations, whilst temporarily leaving Gen Z out of this, as we will get to them by the end of the article. Right now, we’re dealing with Baby Boomer, Generation X and Millennials, the three generations with the most “adults” within the workforce.

     What years are these generations born into? Good fucking question, because no one has any real data that makes sense in order for it to be a valid truth hood. Let us look at the book, generations, that claimed to have started it all and then extrapolate to that, with the common and more accepted answers that are mindlessly floating all over the internet.

     Generations defined Boomers as 1943-1960, Gen X as 1961-1981 and Millennials as 1982-2004. This may seem different from the years you’re used to, since, much like religion, any asshole with an internet connection and an opinion can hop on, write an article at a 4th grade level, back it up with no real data and have it become easily accepted by the masses who eat this claptrap up. In other words, every idiot thinks they’re an expert, much to the chagrin of those of us who have actually put effort into studying. More common versions of the age ranges put Boomers up to 1964, Gen X from 1966-1982 and Millennials from 1983 until about 1996 or so. These age ranges are easier to work with then the book generations, which is a fantastic work of fiction, with its only equal being L.Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.

     Here is a venn diagram of generations with overlaps between them and the same tropes they used over and over again, in regards to the generations:

Venn Diagram

     As you can see, a lot of these are easily due to personality types as opposed to rearing. How does independent thinking come about through rearing alone? How about herd mentality? What type of parent would force their child to be a sheep? While some attribute the school system for attempting to force herd think on the child, clearly from one look on the internet, there are plenty of millennials thinking independently. This is falsifiability in action and because we cannot be sure of any one individual’s upbringing, the only conclusion we can draw from the “evidence” is that either the person was born this way or learned the behavior. If they’re born this way, it is most likely from personality type. For instance, the Gen X personality type is made of four different intuitive on the Myers-Brigg’s with the remainder of Millennials being akin to sensing types. Raring would have very little to do with these traits as they would, without a doubt, have been innate in the individual from birth. Albeit, the MBTI is really more of a system, then a collection of traits, but I do think, the system impacts some traits, but can be altered of course. Sensors do not tend to be comfortable with theory, but some can understand it well. This isn’t really a paradox, since a sensors system, combined with say, a higher intelligence, may confer such ability on the personality. No one really bothered to factor in the personality types in regards to generational discrepancy and I think that plays a major problem in regards to how and why people seem to have overlap and confliction in regards to discussion on the individuals that are sampled.

THE GIST OF IT
     Now that we have that out of the way, we need to get into the crux of my article, which is, the MBTI is ultimately responsible for the generational discrepancies and the generations should be turned into personality types and dispense with the rearing bullshit, since very little is discernible from the untrained person, in regards to a person’s background.

     Hitherto, we’ve had only someone’s personal testimony to relay on from a second hand source. In other words, no one has bother to check the veracity of the claims in regards to the sampling of people that took part in nonexistent studies. These have never been the backbone of science, nor have they ever contributed to anything outside of the odd whack job article, riddled with typos, written at a 4th grade level and slapped onto the internet with little thought put into the implications of such. Now we have a deeper understanding of how science should work in regards to these types of hypothi, but not a single one on the internet hold ups to snuff. Much like fake news is now abhorrent, we should also look at pseudo-science the same way and extirpate that from our lives as well. If you choose to indulge yourself in such piffle, that is up to you, but do not expect everyone to be peachy keen on your ignorance, nor should it be accepted enmass. Just because you’re unable to think critically, doesn’t mean everyone is like yourself. Solipsism plays a small factor in such atrocities against the thinking mindset and colleges really need to do back to teaching critical thinking, but I digress.

     Furthermore, we should demand more from studies if they’re going to claim to be such and ask for and demand more of these people evidence. I was able to, in less than 10 pages, showcase everything wrong with generational bullshit, but these people cannot even add real data to supplement their experience? The generational gaps being reworked to become personality types as opposed to years of birth, as it would make a lot more sense and even help within the workforce. Not everyone needs to be told what to do and some people work better in groups, these are traits that we can observe, but cannot really have much to do with upbringing and while we cannot always appreciate the nuance in the differences between us, we need to learn to accept them as parts of a system and genetic as opposed to things that can be changed. A tiger cannot change his stripes, nor can the thinker repress their thoughts.

     Now, I turn my sights to Gen Z, whom are just really getting into adulthood, I don’t know shit from shinola about how they were raised and minus the few dullards on the internet eating tide pods, they are all different individuals and should be seen as such. They are a group of people, made up of different backgrounds, different personality types. Some match the core experience, some are outliers who don’t fit the mold. Some of them are young right now and some are mentally old. Regardless of the pattern, let us learn from our past mistakes and correct course while we can, because our future depends on these kids being heard and given an opportunity to shine and the only way to do that is give them a hand up, because they seem to have quite a hand on what is going on and an ability to bring that message to the world, let us give them the chance no one was willing to give the other generations and hear them out whilst wishing them luck, so they won’t be stuck betwixt a rock and a hard place in their adulthood!

Essays, Opinion

Quid Pro Quo: College and Cost

Leave a comment

     College is worthless to a certain segment of people. Whom are these rouge few that do not need to be encumbered by college debt? People who have higher intelligence that is who!

     Why would I say people with higher intellects do not need to peruse college when they are the ones who will benefit the most? The answer lies in supply and demand. Intelligent people do not need college when they are all Mensa level of intelligence. You, the country, the employers, the private sector need the higher intelligence, they do no need your frivolity, your debt or your rules.

     Supply and demand is the core tenet of entrepreneurship. In the case of college, Demand for intelligence is at an all-time high and the supply is really low. So, what is a country to do? They attempt to circumvent the rigors of attaining a college education with an egalitarian ideal that college is for everyone, but the reality is that college is not for everyone. College is, has and always will be for the highest echelon of our humanity, the highly intelligent. These are the ones that create the computers we type on, they cure the diseases that God cannot, they do the arithmetic that gets us to Mars and they fill our lives with interest by expressing interesting theoretical concepts.

     If these people are so necessary to our lives, why do we charge them for the privilege our bettering our country? Surely, we should be offering them something, should we not?

     Well, some old people think the youth owes them a free ride, we call these entitle waste of flesh and oxygen, baby boomers. Are all of them this communistic and entitled? No, just the majority. They attempt to propagandize the youth with appeals to emotion, jingoistic slogans and attempted mandates through the first 12 years of education and fail miserably to entice the right people, because a higher intelligent person is a thinker and a thinker will not be swayed by fallacies.

     What is the country to do about this? Well, we could go back to when the college degree meant something, by making it harder to obtain, but due to baby boomer entitlement and the idea that everyone is equal, we have destroyed the traditional four year degree. It no longer has scarcity principal, thus it is no longer of massive value, nor does it give the higher intelligence among us and edge anymore.

     How do we solve this issue? We can either cancel all degrees, allowing us to start anew, which, even if the recipient of the degree is not an Einstein, he or she still earned the degree, thus, is not a fair way to go about fixing the system.

     The other solution is to restructure the school system. Given that our culture likes to keep the youth in a perpetual state of childhood for far longer, which is partially a byproduct of the ever expanding life of the average human, we should look to turning the four year, into a new version of high school, and make it “free”.

     Wouldn’t that just cause the same dilemma? No, because graduate school would become the new college. A masters and Ph.D. cannot just be had by any tom, dick or harry. They have higher scruples for obtaining those, like the four year used to have. Fewer people will have them, thus those people will have greater value and be able to get more out of life.

     Your next question is probably, but wouldn’t that smarter people have to pay for it and you said they shouldn’t have to. Yes, I did say smarter people shouldn’t have to pay for college, because they have a higher I.Q. and supply and demand makes them the commodity, ergo, they should be able to sell what they have, to those that need it. That said, by bringing back scarcity principal, those with higher intelligence would be able to invest in themselves or find a way to pay for a Ph.D. through have greater offers of money thrown at them, since very few people would be able to obtain such a high level of intellectual achievement. If there is one thing we can all agree on, it that a MD, Masters or Ph.D. is not for everyone, especially because you don’t want the person who can barely spell pickle at McDonald’s, to operate on you.

     I do think that M.D. degrees should not be paid for by those who are able to do that job, because they will pass the cost of such onto the consumer, in typical business fashion and is one of the many reasons that medical cost are so high. Not everyone working in that field is making a lot of money. The price commanded by surgeons only comes through specialization, like oncology, proctology or the like, which has, you guessed it, scarcity principal attached to it and by the excessive amount of experience attached to them, in order to even get the degree in the first place. Your average registered nurse, in some municipals, will pay less than a couple grand for his or her training.

     This brings me to my next point, how it will bring down cost in terms of medical for all. Medical is obviously very expensive, otherwise we wouldn’t have public intellectuals opining about how we should make it free. I’ve already pointed out that extirpating the cost of the M.D. would add one less burden onto the load that is the medical debacle. The next step would be medical technology and producing more and better products, working towards reducing cost. One of the axioms that governs technological advances is that it doubles every two years. If you’re about my age, you will remember the bit wars of the late 80’s and early 90’s, where each company was being braggadocious about their hardware being 16, 32 and 64 bits of pure gaming bliss. If you notice, 32 is 16 doubled and 64 is 32 doubled. At present, an Xbox One and a PlayStation 4 would be considered 256 bits, if the gaming industry still used the terminology.

     Now, I could get an Atari, made in 1972, before it gained in value due to nostalgia, scarcity and being retro cool, for about 10 bucks, only twenty years after its release. Yet, we’re over 100 years since the creation of the X-ray and it still cost thousands of dollars. The reason for this is partially because, unlike normal technology, there is not enough people in the world to produce this technology, causing it to double the power and which would help to alleviate the price of your mundane medical test, like an X-ray.

     Allow me to encapsulate as follows, intelligence in our society is a commodity. Making intelligent people pay for college is only going to cost us in the long run. The four year has run its course and now worthless and must be replaced with a higher tier in order to make college worthwhile again. Medical, being a necessity, cannot force debt on the few who can do such a task, as that will inflate cost for routine test. Turning the four year into the new high school diploma, will result in focusing on important degrees and getting the right people placed into these fields, which will cause trickle intellecualnomics, resulting in a net benefit for humanity.

     The future is in restructuring the system.