Chapter 54: The Determination Orgene, Selecting the ‘Best’ and a General Solution to ‘Struggle Street’ and the World’s Overpopulation.
Abstract: ‘Determination’ is an organisational necessity for there to be life, and is the driving force behind evolution and is the key requirement for business and life success and thus to limit population and improve quality of life for children. Social security and/or tax benefits should be paid to people without children, and this reversal of the current practice is a general solution to promote the ‘Best’ and reduce poverty by negative feedback.
I have said previously that ‘we evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’, but ‘we’ is a little imprecise, and it occurred to me that as the ‘death gene’ was an organizational ‘something’, we might be able to clarify the ‘we’ as an organizational ‘something’ as well. The first step might be to replace the word ‘gene’ with something that is more apt and perhaps ‘orgene’ suggests organization and genetics, which is in line with what I am seeking.
‘Determination’ is an organisational necessity for there to be life, and I can say that because we are here and we are only here because we were determined to live and procreate, so perhaps we should say that ‘determination evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence’. As determination is organisational as well as genetically based, then determination must be an orgene and it is a fact that everyone alive today has an unbroken continuous line of ancestors, each of which had at least one offspring that successfully bred over 3,000 million years. That’s a lot of determination that has evolved!
The first Law of Life is iteration, conponentization and time passing (remembering that all three laws are inter-related) and the ‘death orgene’ is part of componentization, and the ‘determination orgene’ is part of iteration. It has been stated previously that iteration, componentization and time passing were the main attractors and it appears that the ‘death orgene’ and ‘determination orgene’ are also attractors and we should keep this in mind.
This ‘determination orgene’ might be considered a triviality, but as proverbs are simple general solutions of the Mathematics of the Mind, mathematicians say that the ‘more fundamental that something is, the more far reaching the effects’. So, I am using the Mathematics of the Mind to move from first principles, that is the statement of existence, to a logical outcome to see how that solution relates to our current handling of the situation that eventuates.
A digression might be helpful in that attractors in the three Laws of Life define our world and the life within it. However the Mathematics of the Mind says there are an infinite number of attractors of diminishing relativity applicable to a solution. In the previous chapter, we looked at the death orgene and found that we could turn it around for our benefit (and not evolution’s) and greatly extend our useful life, if we want to.
The determination orgene’s derivation below shows how stupid and wrong that we have been in trusting our judgement in setting up the framework of society and we have created a world-wide Extinction Event because of our compassion and lack of analysis. Contrast this with the government/judiciary/police that we found previously satisfied reality. The next chapter will explore the compassion orgene and its surprising and far-reaching effects through its association with the placeb/nocebo effect.
Just as the ‘death orgene’ was necessary for evolution to work efficiently, the ‘determination gene’ was/is essential for evolution to occur and the effect is all around us in every organism including bacteria that move when the acidity, temperature etc. changes. In other words, determination is provided by our body by inflicting pain on us, both to avoid injuring ourselves and to avoid being killed.
This is quite extraordinary! It was mentioned previously that reality needed to be established before Survival of the Fittest could exert its effects on evolution, and here is the driving force behind Survival of the Fittest. It appears that people that lack a pain response inadvertently cause themselves damage, but having evolved this device to teach us care, Survival of the Fittest uses pain to produce evolution and it did this to force us to perform at our best to measure our best performance by trying to survive. The death orgene is involved to make sure that we do do our best, but not as well as the younger! Survival of the Fittest and Survival of the Best are the same conceptually, and whilst both are measurement, there is a vast difference between the two in speed of implementation. If we wish to take control and speed up evolution, determination is the ‘key driver’ that we should use.
At this point a small digression might be in order to try to understand the above. There is the mathematics/logic of the logic machine (componentization) of the probability ‘something’ that we call matter/energy that makes up indeterminacy/chaos and that is ‘the probability of existence’. We ‘evolved reality’ as the first sense evolved and that was touch, pH, light, dryness etc. and that concept of measurement/comparison is only possible with a probability space because that space contains entanglement/measurement between all points so that they sum to 1 across the universe. I find ‘measurement’ a strange ‘dimension’, but what else, other than ‘measurement’ can be the relationship be between two points in a (general) probability field?
But, for a bacterium to split to make another bacterium was to produce a competitor for food, space etc., which is insane, logically. I have often found breeding to be illogical and now I realize that there must be an organisational necessity to do this illogical thing and there MUST be a physical ‘cause/gene’ because it occurs, but it MUST also be an organization with no physical ‘gene’ and it is, this, that I am calling an ‘orgene’.
The orgene is an organisational/non-logic that must be part of the system for the system to work and the Rule of Life says that it will be logically simple, but may be organisationally complex. For example, in a one-celled organism, an abundance of food raises the level of componentization and this forces a budding or splitting off of a new organism. In multi-celled organisms a more complex breeding takes place, again through componentization, and this forces the same illogical competition.
If we are to take over management of our evolution as we have done recently with the advent of world-wide communication, we have to look at Survival of the Best. The Mathematics of the Mind is a ‘tool’ that can be used to set-up the relevant attractors and then someone/something has to make a decision and we don’t want to make mistakes because the world is at the ‘tipping point’, especially through global warming. So, basically, what is ‘Selection of the Best’? We can answer this now because the body is composed of components with logic/chemistry that was laid down hundreds of millions of years ago and does not change, except for the mind/brain. Certain changes, such as height, skin colour, hair colour etc. change rapidly with the generations, whilst the mind/brain changes by the second.
So, evolution requires determination ALWAYS, and genetic changes can be handled through preference/choice by the parents because the components of the body are set and have been for hundreds of millions of years. This basis allows us to look at how to solve the extinction crisis, but whilst the Mathematics of the Mind presents the data, a measurement has to be made to bring about a reality. As mentioned before, the world has problems because the world did not measure, make a decision and act on it and allowed indiscriminate mating with the expectation that this was acceptable. It was acceptable, but resources are limited and as populations increased, it is no longer tolerable to allow unrestrained breeding to continue into an extinction event. .
We need to measure people so that we can choose properly those that should breed and the herd system measures the male, but not the female. The male holds the property/feeding-area/roosting-spot and what these assets all have in common is security for the future and for the family. Security is very important because it leads to stable personalities because, as the brain is a component, it is influenced, in the main, by its upbringing and family life, as has been mentioned previously.
I am reminded of a science fiction story that I read long ago where scientists created a superior person, presumably by genetic manipulation, that did not want children, and we were told that this problem would be ‘fixed’ in the next generation. We have seen that determination is an orgene and we have to ask how fixing the problem could be done. The answer is that it must be done organisationally as well as genetically. We already do this by giving government support by the way of pensions to families with children, but unfortunately, this can be an inducement for the ‘wrong’ people to breed.
It has been mentioned before that the ‘best’/successful males need to be selected by showing determination and they can afford children because they are successful and determined. So, it is more logical that government money not be given to families with children, but to families that do not have children. In other words, pensions should go to people without children as an incentive not to have children unless they are successful and have the money and determination to pay for them themselves. This statement seems so logical, and yet we do the opposite. The answer to this inversion probably lies within politics and compassion etc.
This also means that the elderly and disadvantaged still receive full pensions providing that they don’t have more children and facilities for abortion should be available, if necessary. I don’t know much about this subject, but fathers of single mothers’ children could have their taxes increased as a disincentive to getting involved, unless they wish to father a child, in which case there is no problem. This is a general solution to the problems of ‘Struggle Street’ because, as we saw, they want money and the more children that they have, the more money from social security, so the sensible thing is to give them money for NOT having children. Huge savings will eventuate, I believe, as suggested before, in policing, jails, social security, schools etc. because stable, sensible home-lives produce stable sensible adults.
At this point, I need to reaffirm that the purpose of the Mathematics of the Mind is to show the concepts or attractors in such a way that everyone can honestly say that that course of action is sensible and the ‘best’ choice. Dissenters can move the attractors around any way they please but should not be able to find a ‘better’ solution, and if they find a better solution, that ‘better’ solution is one that everyone agrees with and is implemented. Notice that a decision has to be made and we are trying to lay the facts out so that no one will dare dispute the proposed method because it would be obvious that they are self-serving.
It was also previously pointed out that those receiving pensions should lose a proportion of their vote, simply because every one will agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote for your own benefit (chapter 22: Magic, Proverbs, Politics and the Voting System). This takes the vote (somewhat) back to the successful people, as it should. There are always a number of vocal people looking to benefit themselves, but do we want to share a planet with the animals that evolved with us, or, do we want to see humans over-run the planet. Surely 100 million, or, 1,000 million people should be enough, NOT 7,000 million!
I have made the point on numerous occasions that I believe the mind/brain is a component that increases in creativity with stimulation and if the initial conditions of each brain are the same why do we want seven billion of them? We are not looking for a genius because we know how to grow geniuses! The converse is true that poor people with little stimulation do not develop their mind/brain and one has to wonder what use they are to themselves and the world. The kindest way is to select breeders with the desired characteristics and reward those who don’t have the determination to be successful to not have children.
Some time ago, China reduced their population with the ‘one child policy’, and I believe that it was not well received, but nevertheless it was successful. Would the method that I have outlined above, have been a better choice? Furthermore, I have heard it said that families in poor countries tend to have large families to safeguard the parents’ wellbeing in their later years. The idea of paying a pension to childless families that can be used by the elderly sends a better message than having a large number of children. A decreasing scale of payments means fewer children, a higher standard of living and some support in old age. This seems to add control to the breeding process and I’m sure that there are more qualified people that might take this further.
darrylpenney 