The science of death

"A simple example of a relationship in econometrics from the field of labor economics is:

ln
wage
β
0
β
1
years of education
ε
\ln({\text{wage}})=\beta _{0}+\beta _{1}({\text{years of education}})+\varepsilon .
This example assumes that the natural logarithm of a person's wage is a linear function of the number of years of education that person has acquired. The parameter
β
1
\beta _{1} measures the increase in the natural log of the wage attributable to one more year of education. The term
ε\varepsilon is a random variable representing all other factors that may have direct influence on wage. The econometric goal is to estimate the parameters,
β
0
and
β
1
\beta _{0}{\mbox{ and }}\beta _{1} under specific assumptions about the random variable
ε\varepsilon . For example, if
ε\varepsilon is uncorrelated with years of education, then the equation can be estimated with ordinary least squares."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics

I thought you were going to talk about death. Surprised me!

Death is nothing less than a new beginning.

Sisyphus wrote:

I thought you were going to talk about death.  Surprised me!

Death is nothing less than a new beginning.

What does that mean, and how do you know?

Science of death, 2.0: "universal basic income"

"By guaranteeing everyone has at the very least, the minimum amount of voice with which to speak in the marketplace for basic goods and services, we can make sure that the basics needs of life — those specific and universally important to all goods and services like food and shelter — are being created and distributed more efficiently. It makes no sense to make sure 100% of the population gets exactly the same amount of bread. Some may want more than others, and some may want less. It also doesn’t make sense to only make bread for 70% of the population, thinking that is the true demand for bread, when actually 80% of the population wants it, but 10% have zero means to voice their demand in the market. Bread makers would happily sell more bread and bread eaters would happily buy more bread. It’s a win-win to more accurately determine just the right amount."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7630162

30,000,000 (people in poverty) x $1000 x 12 months = 360 billion dollars a year

Sure, let's turn everyone into a dependent on the government for "free" handouts, at the cost of $360 billion every single year, and that's just the very poor. To be "fair" you have to also give free universal income to the lower middle class and middle class too, so increase that to over a trillion dollars.

Why not address the causes of poverty, fix your economy so less people are poor because more possibilities exist to self-value? If someone pays you that means you are creating value. If no one is paying you then either you're not creating any value or the value you're creating isn't being monetized by you. Either way, the solution isn't to steal more trillions from people who actually make monetizable value and give that to people who aren't.

Fix the fucking economy already, and accept that some humans are not going to care or want to work to produce value in the world, or for themselves, therefore let them fade away as is proper for them to do, which is what they want anyway. If you give them free money they're not suddenly going to change their nature and outlook on life, they're just going to spread their misery and atrophy around even more.

Hey that gave me a good idea, we should start up free heroin assisted suicide clinics, anyone who wants to can go for free and get a large shot of heroin, and then a gradual shot of chemicals that stop the heart painlessly. This is what many people actually want.

Regarding all the no-value creators out there, don't pretend they are valyers in waiting by giving them free money every month, just accept them at face value and offer them a pleasurable death. This would have a profound psychological effect on people, allow them to see and confront their own death-desire and no-valuing face to face; if anything would help solve poverty, would stimulate real self-valuing, which means stimulate the economy, it would be this.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

I thought you were going to talk about death.  Surprised me!

Death is nothing less than a new beginning.

What does that mean, and how do you know?

Well, it means that life will go on but without you. A new beginning for all life that was ever somehow connected to you. It means that what was once you will become a part of something else and that would be a new beginning for everything that you become a part of.

Upon death we recycle back to the universe. No, the "I" that once existed no longer exists. Even the Buddhist's concept of reincarnation states as much. I do not hold to the Buddhist concept. But scientifically speaking, no new energy is ever created nor does any existing energy ever become non-existent. But it does change form. Same with what was once the "I".