Frases Jocaxianas
Frases Jocaxianas

108-"O Sofrimento,em geral,tem um peso maior, no computo da felicidade, que o prazer, por isso votar na esquerda é colaborar para uma sociedade mais feliz."(jocax)

107-"Se os caras acreditam até que a mulher veio de uma costela que ouviu uma cobra-falante, entao enganar que o corrupto é honesto, e o honesto é ladrão, é a coisa mais fácil do mundo."(jocax)

106-"Nenhuma guerra deveria ser declarada sem um referendo popular.(jocax)"

105-"Privatizar é um auto-atestado de incompetência administrativa. (Jocax)".

103-"Deus é uma forma de tornar os 'escravos' (vulgo operários) mais passivos e tolerantes diante da opressão e exploração que o sistema e a classe dominante impõe sobre eles (jocax)"

102-"A Remuneração deveria ser proporcional à felicidade produzida.(jocax)"

101-"Parte de mim vive em ti" (jocax) (Lápide)

100-"Porque o crente teme tanto a morte (e a de seus familiares) se Deus e o paraíso lhes aguardam?" (Jocax?)

099-"O Nada Jocaxiano é mais poderoso que Deus, caso existisse, pois não estaria limitado pela bondade."(jocax)

098-"O Nada Jocaxiano é a liberdade em seu máximo potencial." (jocax)

097-"Dízimo: Deus precisa de dinheiro?"(jocax)

096-"Não é porque a ciência pode estar (ou esteja) errada que isso implica que as religiões estão certas. Muito pelo contrario: Todas são incompatíveis entre si, o que prova sim que , no mínimo, todas menos uma estão necessariamente  erradas.(jocax) "

095-"A Religião é a MATRIX do Sistema Opressor" (Jocax)

094-"O papel da divindade, e das religiões, é amansar  o povo, de dar-lhe falsas esperanças para que não lute por seus direitos em vida.(jocax)"

093-"A Religião só é tolerável dentro da hipocrisia (Jocax)"

092-"Se Deus exitisse eu O odiaria.(jocax)"

091-"A Religião é um perigo que pode e deve ser evitado (jocax)"

090-"A direita pensa mais em manter ou aumentar seus privilégios, a esquerda em amenizar o sofrimento dos mais necessitados (jocax)"

089-"Se a religião e suas crendices fossem contestadas desde o início dos tempos não existiria essa turba de crentes e fanáticos no mundo inteiro que mataram e matam tantos em nome de Deus.(jocax)"

088-"Crendice é o que se rotula quando a religião não é a SUA.(Jocax)"

087-"Nao existe prova de que deus existe por uma simples razao: Qualquer 'prova' que deus exista essa mesma 'prova' também serviria para provar a existência do "Diabinho Azul Jocaxiano". Portanto, é impossível provar a existência de deus. (jocax)"

086-"A Felicidade passada faz parte da história do Universo e não pode ser mudada. (jocax)"

085-"Impedir uma ação não é impedir o Livre-Arbítrio. Quando a polícia impede um crime não está tirando o livre arbítrio de ninguém, apenas impedindo a consequência do Livre Arbítrio do criminoso.De outro modo, porque o livre arbítrio do criminoso deveria ser respeitada e não o de sua vítima?(jocax)"

084-"As dinastias egípcias duraram mais de cinco mil anos e sucumbiram, o capitalismo não tem 500 anos e mostra claros sinais de que não resistirá muito tempo(jocax)"

083-"Em uma sociedade justa nao pode haver milionários enquanto houver uma única criança passando fome." (Jocax/2012)

082-"Deus é a maior hipocrisia coletiva da história da humanidade.(jocax)"

081-"Se todas as leis fossem sempre seguidas não haveriam revoluções. (jocax)”.

080-"O Pior da religião ocorre quando realmente se acredita nela. (jocax")

079-"O Nada não contém a regra 'Nada pode acontecer'.” (jocax)

078-"As leis não estão acima da ética.(jocax)".

077-"A Razão deve servir à Felicidade.(Jocax)"

076-"O Liberalismo econômico é uma doutrina que pretende entregar o galinheiro aos cuidados das raposas (jocax)".

075-"Nossos genes são nosso bem mais precioso" (jocax)

074-"A Religião é a 'Matrix' do sistema Capitalista. (Jocax)"

073-"Colocar a consciência numa entidade imaterial é o mesmo que colocar a origem da vida num cometa: Não resolve o problema, apenas empurra-o para um local ainda mais misterioso.(Jocax/2012)"

072-"Se formos omissos, presenciaremos nossos netos tendo criacionismo nas aulas de ciência. (jocax)"

071-"As leis não necessariamente foram feitas por pessoas melhores ou mais justas do que você." (jocax)

070-"O Ônus da prova é de quem contraria a 'Navalha de Ocam'." (jocax)

069-"A Religião é o pior lixo produzido pela cultura humana. (Jocax/2012)"

068-"Se a Filosofia não se preocupasse com a Verdade, os irmãos GRIMM seriam os maiores filósofos do planeta.” (jocax)

067-"A reza é a mais sutil forma de manter um povo Alienado e Passivo. (jocax)"

066-"Se alguém provar que estou errado, só tenho que agradecer.” (Jocax)

065-“'Fanático Religioso' é como os Hipócritas Religiosos denominam aqueles que realmente têm fé e acreditam em sua religião.(Jocax)"

064-"A loucura, muitas vezes, é uma forma dos genes tentarem se libertar da servidão imposta pelos memes.” (jocax)

063-"A Fé religiosa é a crença irracional no absurdo. (jocax)"

062-"A felicidade é trilhar o caminho da perpetuação genética" (jocax)

061-"Aceitar sem questionar é o caminho certo da estupidificação. (Jocax)"

060-"O Capitalismo é o sistema que mais gera insegurança no planeta. (jocax)"

059-"O Nada é instável, posto que não há leis" (jocax)

058-"Toda ciência está baseada em indução.(Jocax)"

057-"A Verdadeira Justiça deve ser o conjunto de leis e ações que visem à maximização da felicidade (jocax)"

056-"O Amor é um instinto, programado em nós pelos genes, para fazer o Controle de Qualidade da pessoa que poderá ser o pai /mãe de nosso(s) filho(s).(Jocax)"

055-"O futuro sistema econômico que substituirá o capitalismo deverá ser baseado não no lucro, mas na solidariedade e no dever. (Jocax)"

054-"Um sistema político-econômico baseado no crescimento não é sustentável e deve ser substituído pois, sendo os recursos finitos, não se pode crescer para sempre.(Jocax/2012)"

053-"O Sofrimento, em geral, tem um papel mais forte no computo da felicidade do que o Prazer. (Jocax)"

052-"A Base das religiões é a ignorância. (jocax?)"

051-"A Remuneração do indivíduo deveria ser proporcional à quantidade de felicidade que ele gera ou potencializa a coletividade. (jocax)"

050-"O Orgulho é um instinto que visa te proteger de quem você gosta cuja qual não gosta de você.(jocax)"

049-"O Tempo é a quantidade de eventos que ocorreram no Universo." (jocax)

048-"Rezar é uma forma covarde de fingir uma ajuda sem ficar com remorsos. (jocax)"

047-"O Problema da morte é a felicidade que deixará de ser sentida.(jocax)"

046-"A Justiça foi moldada pelas elites para protegerem a si próprias. (jocax)"

045-"É mais fácil mover uma montanha do que alterar uma crença" (jocax)

044-"A religião, de um lado, se nutre do medo e, de outro, da ilusão da imortalidade. (jocax)"

043-"O Capitalismo é um sistema que prepara as pessoas e toda a sociedade para servirem às elites detentoras do capital e não para aumentar a felicidade do sistema. (jocax)"

042-"O Poder político não existe sem que exista a obediência. (jocax)"

041-"A ilusão religiosa, por vezes é tão sedutora, que muitos a fazem realidade dentro de suas mentes seduzidas. (jocax/2012)"

040-"O Grande Perigo da religião ocorre quando a pessoa realmente passa a crer com toda certeza que ela é verdadeira. (Jocax/2012)"

039-"As Elites, as classes dominantes, abominam os impostos, pois são eles que fazem um pouco da riqueza chegar às camadas mais necessitadas.(jocax)"

038-"Idade não é Grade.(jocax)"

037-"Sem os impostos governamentais voltaremos à época dos senhores feudais - as elites adorariam. (jocax)"

036-"Muitos preferem o conforto covarde do conformismo aos riscos corajosos da mudança. (jocax)"

035-"Se inteligência não dependesse dos genes jacarés criados com humanos também poderiam aprender física. (jocax)"

034-"A Fé é uma crença, que não precisa estar alicerçada em nenhuma evidência ou razão e, portanto, é no mínimo muito perigosa. (jocax)"

033-"Os genes não determinam exatamente o Q.I. mas o limite máximo para ele. (jocax)"

032-"Busque a verdade duvidando primeiro antes de acreditar. (jocax?)"

031-"A Dúvida é o oposto da Fé e o motor do conhecimento moderno. (jocax)"

030-"A ação consciente vem do 'acaso', isto é, de ações inconscientes da física cerebral” (jocax)

029-"Qualquer coisa diferente do Nada precisa de uma origem mais simples para existir” (jocax)

028-"Nós somos nossos genes" (?)

027-"O Capitalismo visa o lucro, o genismo a felicidade.” (Jocax)

026-"Quem declara a guerra deveria encabeçar a linha de frente dos combatentes. (jocax)"

025-"Uma imprensa verdadeiramente livre é aquela onde qualquer pessoa pode veicular suas opiniões, e não apenas seus bem pagos jornalistas. (jocax)"

024-"Se deus eh todo poderoso e quer que o amemos ele poderia utilizar esse poder para nos fazer acreditar que ele existe. Se ele não consegue isso ele não eh todo poderoso ou não quer que o amemos e, portanto, deus todo poderoso não existe ou gosta dos ateus." (Jocax)

023-"A ação mais justa e ética é aquela que nos leva mais rapidamente à DeuX" (jocax)

022-"O 'porque' pode ser explicado pelo 'como' se o 'como' for suficientemente detalhado". (jocax)

021-"Livre-arbítrio x Onisciência: 'Você pode fazer algo diferente do que Deus sabe que você vai fazer?(Jocax)"

020-"A 'Justiça', no sistema capitalista, foi construída pelas elites que se utilizaram da injustiça para beneficiarem a si própria.(Jocax)"

019-"A religião escraviza a mente e deturpa a forma de pensar. (jocax)"

018-"A forma de o crente lidar com as contradições religiosas é adotar dois pesos e duas medidas, única forma de conviver em seu mundo contraditório. (jocax)"

017-"A Onisciência é como um filme de rolo: as coisas já estão gravadas na película e nada poderá mudar a historia do filme" (Jocax)

016-"Enquanto a maioria sonha com um paraíso irreal, outros poucos vivem no paraíso real, gerado e mantido pelo suor e ilusão daqueles que sonham." (Jocax)

015-"Confundir o marxismo com as atrocidades cometidas por tiranos que dizem segui-lo é equivalente a afirmar que o catolicismo que engendrou os genocídios hitlerianos.(jocax)"

014-"As Privatizações generalizadas são um Auto Atestado de incompetência administrativa (ou uma forma de roubar o patrimônio público). (jocax)"

013-"O Nada Jocaxiano é a mais racional explicação para a origem do universo. (jocax)"

012-"Não é a crença em Deus que faz o caráter de uma pessoa mas, principalmente, seus genes. (jocax)"

011-"Um dia descobrirão que a justiça se faz através da maximização da felicidade global, como propõe a meta-ética-cientifica. Até que isso aconteça toda ética, direito, e justiça serão baseados em valores relativos, sujeito a todo tipo de manipulação e subjetividade. (jocax)”

010-"Viver com medo de perder o emprego, donde se depende a sobrevivência da própria família, faz o trabalhador refém de seu empregador, em um estado de insegurança constante.(Jocax)"

009-"Se deus existisse e fosse perfeito, não precisaria que o amassem. (jocax)"

008-"Não se deve ser egoísta fechando os olhos para as injustiças sociais, deve-se, ao menos, mostrar alguma indignação abrindo os olhos de outros que se fecham em seus 'umbigos'." (jocax)

007-"jocax não precisa ler os filósofos. Os filósofos que precisam ler Jocax.(jocax)"

006-"O Papel da religião num sistema político-explorador é manter o povo passivo e alienado frente às injustiças que lhes são impostas pelas classes dominantes (jocax/2012)"

005-"Deve haver algo de podre na psique humana quando o prazer surge pela derrota do competidor.(jocax/2014)"

004-"O Capitalismo, visando o lucro, induz a busca pela riqueza, à ostentação, e ao luxo em detrimento de valores mais humanos e solidários.(jocax)"

003-"Darwin descobriu a origem das espécies. Jocax, a do Universo.(jocax)"

002-"Não entendo como a maioria das pessoas acreditam numa aberração tão descomunal à lógica e ao bom senso. (jocax)"

001-"O Mundo não mudará pela força das armas, mas pelo poder das ideias. (jocax?)"

Por que o Capitalismo vai terminar?

Por que o Capitalismo vai terminar?

João Carlos Holland de Barcellos ( 2/jan/2012)

"É um absurdo que o ‘mercado’ (particulares) possa dispensar um funcionário a seu ‘bel-prazer’. O seu emprego pode lhe ser vital, muitas vezes seria como permitir que o empregador metralhasse a ele e à sua família" (jocax)

Resumo: Mostraremos neste artigo como o Capitalismo consegue prosperar até determinado limite, e as razões de suas crises. Mostraremos também uma prova matemática do porque o sistema capitalista não é estável e que, para sobreviver, precisará sempre conquistar novos mercados ou manter a sociedade cada vez mais endividada. Em ambos os casos o sistema não poderá se estabilizar e isso implica em seu fim.

Introdução

No capitalismo o objetivo é o lucro:

“Lucro na sociedade capitalista: O que caracteriza a sociedade capitalista, o seu princípio básico, é a busca do lucro. Não que em outras sociedades não existissem atividades que dessem lucro. Porém, na sociedade capitalista esse aspecto é exacerbado e, por isso, vai determinar as outras facetas do sistema. A busca do lucro máximo é o objetivo de todo capitalista. As suas consequências vão se fazer sentir nas relações entre os homens, na ideologia da sociedade e, até, no comportamento de todos nós. O lucro não tem a finalidade de dar meios para a subsistência do capitalista. Este é apenas um aspecto secundário. O lucro é um fim em si mesmo.” [04]

Ou ainda:

“O capitalismo é um sistema econômico em que os meios de produção e distribuição são de propriedade privada e com fins lucrativos; decisões sobre oferta, demanda, preço, distribuição e investimentos não são feitos pelo governo, os lucros são distribuídos para os proprietários que investem em empresas e os salários são pagos aos trabalhadores pelas empresas.” [03]

Desta forma o fim do lucro - o fim da capacidade das empresas de lucrarem - implicará também o fim do capitalismo.

Prova

Vamos agora demonstrar que o capitalismo não é um sistema estável, isto é, não pode continuar existindo indefinidamente no tempo e, portanto, precisará ter um fim.

Consideraremos um conjunto de empresas (“pool”) capitalistas que serão identificadas por um índice “i”. Este índice marca qual das empresas do “pool” estaremos trabalhando. O índice “i” pode variar de 1 até o número total de empresas de nosso “pool”, que pode ser as empresas de uma região, de uma cidade , de um país ou do mundo todo.

Mostraremos depois que quando não houver mais mercados externos, ou não se puder mais comprar através do acúmulo de dívida, o lucro total do “pool” será sempre negativo, o que quebrará a principal pilastra do capitalismo – o lucro- inviabilizando-o. Isso ocorre porque sempre haverá/ão alguma(s) empresas do “pool” em déficit que fecharão as portas diminuindo o número total de empresas do “pool”. E o ciclo se repetirá, agora com um número menor de empresas no “pool”.

Começaremos emprestando alguns conceitos e fórmulas econômicas simples encontradas em muitos livros e sites de economia:

“... A princípio devemos considerar que o lucro de uma empresa é dado pela diferença entre receitas e despesas. As despesas são gastos que são incorridos justamente para que a empresa possa gerar as receitas...” [01] Portanto:

Lucro = Receitas – Despesas (F01)
ou
L_i = R_i - D_i

Na fórmula acima “i” indica a “i-ésima” empresa.

De uma maneira simples a fórmula F01 acima diz que o lucro de uma empresa, que é a base do sistema capitalista, nada mais é do que a diferença entre o que se arrecada daquilo que se gasta.

Receita: “Nas empresas privadas a receita corresponde normalmente ao produto de venda de bens ou serviços [02] (chamado no Brasil de faturamento).”[02]

Receita = SOMA[ Vendas ] (F02)
ou
R_i = SOMA(j)[ Vendas_i,j ]

A Fórmula F02 acima representa o conceito de que o que se arrecada é proveniente das vendas de bens ou de serviços da empresa.
(O índice “j” da SOMA(j) significa que a soma é feita percorrendo o índice “j” cobrindo todas as vendas da i-ésima empresa do “pool”.)

A receita (como a soma de todas as vendas) pode também- para efeito de análise e sem perda de generalidade - ser decomposta em três parcelas:

Receita = Vendas aos Trabalhadores (comércio) + Vendas às Empresas (como Fornecedores) + Vendas Externas (F03)
ou
R_i = VT_i + VF_i + EXT_i

“Vendas aos trabalhadores” (VT) seriam as vendas feitas aos trabalhadores (em geral no comércio) onde os produtos ou serviços são comprados com o salário recebido das empresas do pool.
“Vendas às empresas” (VF) seriam as vendas feitas às outras empresas do “pool”– como fornecedora - onde estes produtos/serviços seriam debitadas do custeio das empresas do próprio “pool”.

“Vendas Externas” (EXT) seriam todas as demais vendas efetuadas cujo dinheiro utilizado para a sua compra não provenham do salários pagos pelo “pool”, nem no custeio das empresas do “pool”. (por ex. via exportação ou através de empréstimos bancários etc..). Isto é, seriam todas as vendas cujo dinheiro usado na compra não viriam das empresas do “pool”..

Despesa: “Para a Contabilidade, é o gasto necessário para a obtenção de receita”. [05]

Despesa = Salários + Outros_Custos (F04)
ou
D_i = S_i + C_i

Nesta fórmula de Despesa (F04), destacamos a “despesa Salário” das demais despesas da empresa (Impostos, gastos com Matéria Prima etc.).

Da equação F01, F03 e F04 podemos derivar:

L_i = (VT_i + VF_i + EXT_i ) – ( S_i + C_i ) (F05)
[Fórmula do Lucro da i-ésima empresa do “pool”]

A equação F05 diz que o Lucro da empresa “i” é composta pelas vendas da empresa “i” subtraído dos salários pagos e seus outros custos.

Pool de Empresas

Em nossa demonstração consideraremos um conjunto (“pool”) de empresas capitalistas baseadas no lucro e iremos numerá-las (indexá-las) por um índice numérico “i”. Desta forma para um “pool” de uma única empresa o índice “i” é sempre 1; para duas empresas “i” varia de 1 até 2, e assim por diante de modo que “i” pode indexar todas as empresas do nosso “pool” que pode abranger todas as empresas do mundo capitalista como um todo.

Dentro do nosso “pool” de empresas podemos ainda somar, na variável “S”, todos os salários pagos pelas empresas de nosso “pool”:

S = SOMA(i)( S_i ) (F06)
[Soma dos Salários pagos]

E podemos também somar na variável “C” todas as despesas e custos (“fora salário”) que as empresas do pool gastam:

C = SOMA(i)( C_i ) (F07)
[Soma dos custos exceto salários]

Da mesma forma podemos somar as parcelas de F03 ( VT_i, VF_i e EXT_i ):

VT = SOMA(i)( VT_i ) (F08)
[Soma das vendas compradas com salários]

VF = SOMA(i)( VF_i ) (F09)
[Soma das vendas como fornecedora para outras empresas do “pool”]

EXT = SOMA(i)( EXT_i ) (F10)
[Soma das vendas com dinheiro proveniente de fora do “pool”]

Sabemos que a parcela paga por todos os trabalhadores do “pool” para, eventualmente, comprarem os produtos da empresa “i” é uma fração “f_i“ ( f_i<=1) da soma de todos os salários pagos ( variável “S” da fórmula F06), assim, matematicamente, podemos escrever:

VT_i = f_i * S (F11)
[Total das Vendas da i-ésima empresa pagas com salários, f_i<=1]

Como a soma de todas as compras feitas com o salário dos empregados do “pool” ( VT ) não pode ser superior ao total dos salários ( S ), escrevemos:

VT <= S (F12)
[A soma das vendas compradas com salários do pool é inferior ou igual ao total de salários do pool]

De F08 e F11 derivamos:

SOMA(i)( f_i * S) <= S (F13)

De onde concluímos:

SOMA(i)( f_i ) <= 1 (F14)

O Lucro total das nossas empresas do “pool” também pode ser acumulada na variável “L” (como sendo a soma do lucro de cada empresa do pool):

L = SOMA(i)( L_i ) (F15)
[Lucro total do “pool” de empresas é a soma do Lucro de cada empresa do “pool”]

Sabemos também que a soma das vendas das empresas como fornecedoras (VF, da fórmula F09) não pode ser superior ao total das despesas ( C, da fórmula F07 ) de custeio das empresas do “pool”, pois as compras feitas pelas empresas do “pool” são tidas como custos das mesmas:

VF < C (F16)
[ O Total de vendas feitas como fornecedoras deve ser inferior a soma das despesas (fora o salário) ]

Vamos agora decompor as vendas da i-ésima empresa como Fornecedora de outras empresas do nosso “pool” (VF_i, da fórmula F03), onde as compras são pagas como custeio e não como salários. Assim teremos:

VF_i = g_i,1 * C+ g_i,2 * C + g_i,3 * C .... + g_i,n * C (F17),
ou
VFi = SOMA(j)( gi,j ) * C

[onde g_i,j é a fração do custeio total do “pool” da j-ésima empresa para pagar a i-ésima empresa que é sua fornecedora. (g_i,j <=1) ]

De F09 e F16 podemos derivar:

SOMA(i)( VF_i ) <= C (F18)
[ A soma de todas as vendas como fornecedora do pool não pode superar o total das despesas de Custeio das empresas do pool ]

De F17 e F18 podemos computar:

SOMA(i)( SOMA(j) ( g_i,j * C ) ) < C (F19)

O que nos permite concluir que:

SOMA(i)( SOMA(j)( g_i,j) ) <1 F(20)

Podemos substituir em F15 a fórmula F05 e teremos:

L = SOMA(i)( (VT_i + VF_i + EXT_i ) – ( S_i + C_i ) ) F21

Substituindo VTi da fórmula F11 e VFi da fórmula F17 obteremos:

L = SOMA(i)( f_i * S + SOMA(j)( g_i,j * C ) + EXT_i – (S_i + C_i ) ) (F22)

Podemos reordenar as parcelas:

L = SOMA(i)( f_i * S - S_i ) + SOMA(i)( Soma(j)(g_i,j * C) - C_i ) + SOMA(i)( EXT_i ) (F23)

e depois decompor este Lucro em 3 parcelas:

P1 = SOMA(i)( f_i * S - S_i ) (F24)

P2 = SOMA(i)( Soma(j)(g_i,j * C) - C_i ) (F25 )

P3 = SOMA(i)( EXT_i ) (F26)

L = P1 + P2 +P3 (F27)

Entretanto:

P1<=0 , pois P1 = SOMA(i)( f_i * S ) - SOMA(i)( Si ) = S * ( SOMA(i)( fi ) - 1 )

Como (de F14) : SOMA(i)( fi ) <=1

segue que

P1<=0 (F28)

Mas P2 também não pode ser positivo pois:

P2 = C * ( SOMA(i)( SOMA(j)( g_i,j )) – 1 )

Mas de F20 temos que SOMA(i)( SOMA(j)(g_i,j ) ) <1 o que implica que

P2<0 (F29)

Portanto, concluímos que a parte positiva do lucro do nosso “pool” de empresas só pode prover da parcela P3 (ver F26 )

Isso implica que o lucro deve ser proveniente de vendas para pessoas e empresas que não estão no “pool” das empresas, isto é com dinheiro proveniente de fontes diferentes das empresas do “pool” e isso implica a necessidade de uma sempre crescente conquista de novos mercados consumidores (que não pertençam ao pool de empresas), ou então através de empréstimos bancários (ou seja, a partir do endividamento crescente).

Podemos concluir também que, sem o endividamento, as empresas capitalistas como um todo, só podem prosperar se houver alguma economia não capitalista das quais ela possa sorver recursos e pagar seus lucros. E este foi precisamente o caso quando surgiu o capitalismo. Ele pode prosperar na globalização como fogo sobre palha, pois haviam relativamente poucas empresas capitalistas e o mercado era global. Mas, como fogo sobre palha, o incêndio não pode perdurar por muito tempo, e o que está restando são apenas cinzas de uma época de prosperidade.

Mas tanto a continua expansão de novos mercados como o crescente endividamento não são economicamente estáveis, pois o mercado não é infinito, e os empréstimos terão que ser pagos um dia. Por esta razão o capitalismo não pode permanecer indefinidamente e, como veremos abaixo, já agoniza, dando sinais de que seu ciclo de vida esteja no fim.

Não é por outra razão que os países industrializados propuseram o chamado “Consenso de Washington” [06]:

“é um conjunto de medidas - que se compõe de dez regras básicas - formulado em novembro de 1989 por economistas de instituições financeiras situadas em Washington D.C., como o FMI, o Banco Mundial e o Departamento do Tesouro dos Estados Unidos, fundamentadas num texto do economista John Williamson, do International Institute for Economy, e que se tornou a política oficial do Fundo Monetário Internacional em 1990, quando passou a ser "receitado" para promover o "ajustamento macroeconômico" dos países em desenvolvimento que passavam por dificuldades.”

• Disciplina fiscal
• Redução dos gastos públicos
• Reforma tributária
• Juros de mercado
• Câmbio de mercado
• Abertura comercial
• Investimento estrangeiro direto, com eliminação de restrições
• Privatização das estatais
• Desregulamentação (afrouxamento das leis econômicas e trabalhistas)
• Direito à propriedade intelectual

Que foi o precursor do atual Neoliberalismo econômico:

“a partir da década de 1960, passou a significar a doutrina econômica que defende a absoluta liberdade de mercado e uma restrição à intervenção estatal sobre a economia, só devendo esta ocorrer em setores imprescindíveis e ainda assim num grau mínimo (minarquia). É nesse segundo sentido que o termo é mais usado hoje em dia.^[2]”[07]

Tanto o “Consenso de Washington” quanto o famigerado “neoliberalismo” são formas de abrirem o mercado de países que tem economia protegida para que as empresas fortes dos países industrializados consigam novos mercados para prosperarem e aumentarem seus lucros, pois como vimos, fora do endividamento, a única forma do “pool” de empresas de seus países sobreviverem é através da conquista de novos mercados.

Atualmente, com a China entrando nos mercados antes tomados, com produtos baratos e competitivos, é previsível que as grandes empresas abreviem ainda mais rapidamente seu fim, com crises intermináveis, principalmente na Europa e EUA que vemos todos os dias nos jornais.

Sem expansão e sem endividamento

Concluímos que nosso “pool” de empresas não pode ter a soma de seus lucros positiva se não houver uma crescente expansão do mercado consumidor ou um contínuo endividamento.

Vamos supor que todos os mercados já foram globalizados e existam apenas empresas capitalistas no mundo. Nosso “pool” agora é o mundo todo.

A fórmula permanece e, como vimos, sem endividamento, o lucro total delas vai ser continuamente negativo, indicando déficit, mas isso não significa que todas as empresas do pool estejam no vermelho!
Mas sim que pelo menos alguma(s) delas deverão estar. Neste caso, estas empresas fecharão as portas e seu mercado consumidor será tomado pelas empresas que ainda restarem.

Este novo mercado -deixado vago pelas empresas que fecharam - funcionaria como uma espécie de ‘novo mercado’ consumidor a ser explorado, e que uma vez retomado, o ciclo se repetirá e novamente haverá redução nos lucros e novas empresas no vermelho terão que fechar suas portas. É como uma canibalização constante e inexorável do regime.

Antes de “morrerem” por falta de lucros, muitas empresas preferem ser “canibalizadas” por outras, processo que é conhecido no meio empresarial por “fusão”, “incorporação” ou ainda “absorção”. Então, um dos indícios claros que o mercado está tomado, e que o capitalismo está no seu fim, seria a diminuição da taxa de abertura de novas empresas e também uma sucessão de “incorporações” e “fusões” de empresas, apontando uma falta de mercado para todas elas.

Crise estrutural

Robert Kurz dizia que o problema do capitalismo era a competição entre as empresas e mostrou como sua espiral kurziana funcionava [08]:

A lógica que demonstra a “ espiral autofágica suicida ”, proposta por Kurz, é deveras simples e elegante:

• Por visar o lucro o capitalismo procura a reduzir todos os custos possíveis.

• A mão de obra é um dos principais itens dos custos de uma organização.

• Para reduzir custos, a mão de obra deve ser minimizada: seja através da automação/mecanização da mão de obra, seja através de técnicas modernas de gerenciamento e gestão que objetivam a redução do quadro de funcionários.

• A redução da folha de pagamentos patrocina um aumento do desemprego.

• O aumento do desemprego faz diminuir a renda média e o próprio mercado consumidor.

• Como o lucro das empresas dependem do poder de compra do mercado (consumidores), com a retração do mercado a concorrência entre as empresas fica ainda mais acirrado.

• Com o aumento da concorrência as organizações são pressionadas a reduzir ainda mais os custos e, entre estes, o custo de mão de obra.

Esta espiral antropofágica, no seu limite, culminaria com as organizações totalmente automatizadas onde um único funcionário, o presidente da empresa, apertaria o botão e toda a produção seria executada.

Só restaria uma pergunta : Quem consumiria? Nesta situação hipotética e bizarra, os únicos compradores seriam os que ainda tem emprego: O presidente da VW compraria uma única geladeira, do Dono da GE, que, por sua vez, compraria um carro da VW.

Nas palavras de Robert Kurz:

“Uma economia global limitada a uma minoria sempre mais restrita é incapaz de sobreviver. Se a concorrência globalizada diminui cada vez mais o rendimento da produção industrial e assola numa proporção ascendente a economia das regiões, segue-se logicamente que o capital mundial minimize seu próprio raio de ação. A longo prazo, o capital não poderá insistir na acumulação sobre uma base tão restrita, disperse por todo o mundo, do mesmo modo como não é possível dançar sobre uma tampinha de cerveja.” [09]

Mas, como vimos, a espiral kurziana não é a verdadeira raiz do problema. Ela pode, claro, agravar bastante o quadro, acelerando o processo de perda de lucros. Entretanto, devemos perceber, pela nossa fórmula F23, que a falta de lucros do “pool” das empresas não depende da administração da empresa, não depende de sua competitividade, não depende de lançamento de produtos bons, não depende do salário dos empregados, não depende do preço das mercadorias ou serviços, não depende do custo dos impostos. Não depende de nada disso! É uma falha estrutural do próprio sistema capitalista que sempre irá fazer empresas fecharem suas portas, por falta de lucros, e, antes de fecharem as portas, vão mandar muita gente embora e causar muito sofrimento. As boas medidas administrativas de eficiência e produtividade poderão apenas adiar um pouco mais a morte das empresas, mas não poderá impedi-las para sempre.

Uma única empresa

O leitor pode pensar que no fim último dos processos de absorção, fusão e fechamento das empresas só restaria uma única empresa, sem competidores, e que por tanto poderia sobreviver e lucrar. Mas, mesmo neste caso limite, podemos ver que ela não poderá ter lucros e, portanto, não poderá existir como uma empresa capitalista.

Para vermos isso, vamos colocar nossa F23 e depois reduzi-la para uma única empresa:

L = SOMA(i)( f_i * S - Si ) + SOMA(i)( Soma(j)(gi,j * C) - Ci ) + SOMA(i)( EXTi )

No caso de uma única empresa (i=1), toda população empregada trabalharia para esta única empresa que venderia todos os bens e serviços para essa população. Poderemos simplificar algumas parcelas da fórmula:

L = (f1 -1) * S - C1 + EXT1

P1 = (f1-1) * S <= 0

P2= -C1 < 0

P3 = EXT1

A única parcela que pode ser positiva seria EXT1, mas como não há novos mercados, o lucro só poderia vir através do endividamento, o que também seria insustentável.

Referências

[01]Riscos, Rentabilidade e Liquidez

http://www.projetoe.org.br/vteams/teles/tele_02/leitura_01_3.html

Lucro
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucro#Lucro_econ.C3.B4mico

Lucro
“lucro econômico é, pelo menos na teoria neoclássica, que domina a economia moderna, a diferença entre a receita total da empresa e todos os custos”
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucro

[02]Receita (economia)

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receita_%28economia%29

[03] Capitalismo

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalismo

[04] Lucro na sociedade capitalista
http://danilogs.sites.uol.com.br/dtlucro.htm

[05] Despesa

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despesa

[06] Consenso de Washington

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consenso_de_Washington

[07] Neoliberalismo

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalismo

[08] Economia Virtual

http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto21.htm

[09] O Fim da Economia Nacional

http://obeco.planetaclix.pt/rkurz39.htm

The Origin of the Universe, by Jocax

The Origin of the Universe, by Jocax
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
Translated by : Debora Policastro


The problem of the origin of the Universe is old, perhaps the oldest philosophical problem mankind has ever faced.

If we define the universe as a set of all existing things and if we assume that the physical elements contained in it follow rules or laws – such as the laws that Physics supposes to exist – we can conclude that the theories proposed so far are not completely satisfactory. In order to compensate this shortfall, I herein propose a new hypothesis that, although not testable and therefore not scientific (to Popper), it is a legitimate philosophic theory, since it satisfies the “Occam’s Razor”; it is self-consistent and does not go against the observed facts.

Criterion of Evaluation
Before we explore the analysis of these theories, I want to propose some criterion that should be satisfied by the proposed solutions. The best theories should satisfy, as much as possible, the following requirements:
1- Not be contradictory.
2- Not be inconsistent with the observable reality.
3- Be compatible with the “Occam’s Razor” in relation to the concurrent theories.
4- Be capable of explaining the observable universe.

We can also classify the theories about the origin of the universe in two large groups:
Religious and natural theories.
1- Religious theories
Religious-based solutions about the origin of the universe evoke a metaphysical entity called “God”. God would be something like a “Great Ghost” that created the Universe with his power and endless wisdom.

Religious theories, although widely accepted by the majority of people, do not pass the majority of evaluation criterion proposed above:
- Criterion flaw one: the theory of the “Great Ghost” is not logically consistent since according to the definition of universe, if God existed it should be also a part of the Universe, since it is defined as a set of all existing things. Thus, God would only be useful to explain the generation of the physical elements of the universe, but not the generation of the universe itself. If the theory needs to explain the origin of the universe, then it needs to explain the origin of God.
- Criterion flaw two: the “Great Ghost” usually comes with other attributes such as consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence and kindness, that generates incompatibility with the observable reality (see “Jocaxian Little Blue Devil”, chapter I.2)
- Criterion flaw three: the “Great Ghost” is also incompatible with the “Occam’s Razor” because, since it is hypothetically gifted with endless wisdom and power, it does not follow the criterion of simplicity demanded by the “Occam’s Razor” in relation to the physical theories about the origin of the universe. That is, when we talk about explanations on origins, it is nonsense to evoke a more complex entity that explains a simpler one if there is no explanation about the more complex entity itself.

2- Natural theories (or non-religious)

Natural theories are preferable to religious ones since they do not assume the pre-existence of a highly complex being. Natural theories can be divided into two groups:
Physics-based natural theories and philosophy-based natural theories.

2.1- Physics-based Natural theories
Physics-based natural theories are not satisfactory due to the following flaws:

- Criterion flaw one: if the physical laws exist and are used to explain the universe, then they should also be explained, since they are part of the universe we wish to explain. That is, the majority of them, as we will see, attempt to explain the origin of the universe by adopting some principles of Physics such as the “ Principle of Conservation of Energy” and laws of “Quantum Mechanics” or even “general Theory of Relativity”, without however explaining the origin of these laws.
The majority of these modern natural theories based on quantum mechanics come from “Almost Absolute Nothingness”, something like a “Quantum Vacuum” with no matter or energy but they can explain the appearance of physical elements that would have originated the Big-Bang, without violating the physical laws of conservation.
The explanation for the appearance of matter without violating the law of conservation of energy is that the gravity produced by particles would have a negative potential energy that would counterbalance the positive energy of the particles created, therefore creating a universe with total energy equal to zero.
Let us see some examples:
- Quotation [4] extracted from “Creation Ex Nihilo – Without God” by Mark I. Vuletic [1]
“There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129”

- From “Mark Zero” by Jomar Morais [2], we highlight:
“Where does the universe come from? Guth’s answer is: from nothing, from zero. The first particles would have come from a simple “vacuum fluctuation”, an alteration process of an electric field that classical Physics did not know about, but quantum mechanics, which came up last century, ended up revealing to scholars in subatomic intimacy. According to this conjecture – known as inflationary universe theory -, primordial particles emerged from the emptiness… Guth’s theory claims that… At first sight it seems that the phenomenon conflicts with the principle of conservation of energy, which presupposes a balance of the total energy in all transformations in the physical world, but that did not happened. In the inflationary process, the positive energy of the matter was counterbalanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field, in a way that the total energy has always been zero. When, at last, the negative gravity matter started to decay, diminishing the pace of the expansion, the “primordial soup” was formed (gas at very high temperatures), presented as the initial condition in the Big-bang theory”.

- From “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe (1988)” by Quentin Smith [3]:

“ A disadvantage of Tryon's theory, and of other theories that postulate a background space from which the universe fluctuates, is that they explain the existence of the universe but only at the price of introducing another unexplained given, namely, the background space. This problem is absent from Vilenkin's theory, which represents the universe as emerging without a cause "from literally nothing" (1982, p. 26). The universe appears in a quantum tunneling from nothing at all to de Sitter space.”

We can notice that the appearance of the matter from “nothing” is not new; science knows it for a while. Besides that, non-caused phenomena (that happen without a cause) are not privilege of exotic entities: consider an excited atom in a high energy orbit. There is no formula – or physical explanation – that can foresee when this electron will go from its high energy orbit to a low energy one. This event is considered as totally random (without causes). When the electron decays from an orbital, a photon (a light particle that did not exist) is created. That is, even in a simple atom we have an example of the existence of phenomena with no cause and the creation of a physical entity that did not exist before (photon). Formerly, some scientists claimed that the cause existed but was not known. This theory was named as “Hidden Variable Theory”. Later, it was demonstrated that if there was a ‘hidden’ cause for those events it would violate a mathematical theorem known as Bell’s Inequality. Nowadays QM understands that there are events without causes in the universe.
In order to complete our list, we should also include the two main theories about the origin of the universe with no initial creation, the Big Bang Crunch and the Stationary State.

Stationary State Theory [5]

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Geoffrey Burbidge (1925-) and Jayant Vishnu Narlikar (1938-) suggested in 1993 the ‘Almost Stationary State Theory’ in an eternal and infinite universe alternating expansions of approximately 40 billion years with contractions. The mass is eternally created in white holes with Planck mass Ö[ch/G] = 1019 baryons. The mini creation triggers a universe expansion that reduces the average value of the creation field, deposit of negative energy. After the expansion, the field value is reduced, making it hard for a new mini-creation to happen. Gravity then overcomes the expansion and the Universe is contracted, enhancing the field until a new creation occurs.
I think the “Big-Bang-Big-Crunch Theory” is quite elegant; however, it is not compatible with the last cosmological observations that show that the universe is in process of accelerated expansion, that is, far away from a possible contraction. Another inconveniency of this model is that it seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics that says that the entropy must not be reduced. It seems then that the “Big-Bang-Big-Crunch Theory” is unfortunately defeated.

Another problem with the physics-based natural theories is their difficulties to explain the observable universe in relation to some physical parameters – constants that physical laws use – what would turn our physical laws into a set of highly improbable rules. For instance, it is claimed that a little alteration in the electron charge, in the neutrino mass, etc, would make our universe quickly collapse. Let us see some texts about that:
“...The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms.” (Stenger, 1996) ” [6]

“...That suggests a new answer to another intriguing question: how where the laws of physics so perfectly tuned in a way that they permitted the existence of stars, planets and living beings? The classic answer was: fantastic chance or divine miracle. But now there is a third alternative: if each universe has different physical laws, perhaps we live in one of the rarest whose laws allow the emergence of intelligent life.” [7]

We notice that the answer usually given by those theories about the claim of improbability of physical laws is that there must be infinite or multiple universes parallel to ours and yet somehow, disconnected. Thus, our universe would be only one, amongst infinite existing universes, each one with its own physical laws. But this is not consistent because:
- If physical laws – as theory M, for instance, or multiple bubbles from Guth – were evoked to explain the appearance of the universe, either ours or the infinite other ones, how can one say that physical laws would be different in those other universes? If all universes came from the same initial physical laws, we should expect those laws to be preserved in all universes generated by them!
- The models that appeal to infinite rolls of the dice so they can explain the appearing of the number “six” in one of the dice, although can solve the question, they are really strong and seem to contradict the Occam’s Razor, since we do not have evidence of any other Universe besides our own cosmos. A continuous sequence of Universes or a finite number of them would be more reasonable, but not totally satisfactory.

- The explanation that says the bubbles that generate parallel universes have GAPS that disconnect them from each other is also unsatisfactory. For what reason would not matter be continuously created in the same bubble? What would make those gaps disconnected? Why would those universes be unable to communicate?

Nevertheless, the main flaw of the theories that try to explain the origin of the universe by means of a physical base is that they do not explain the origin of the physical laws used for their own generation. We could ask: “Why must the principle of conservation of energy be obeyed?” or yet “Why does quantum mechanics need to be real?” Those theories come from something (physical laws) that already existed. Physical explanations, however, are preferable to religious ones, since a set of laws is simpler than the existence of a supposed being of infinite complexity.

2.2- Philosophy-based natural Theories


Philosophy-based natural theories about the origin of the universe are the ones not based on physical laws to explain their appearing, but they can explain the appearing of the laws capable of governing it. From that point, if necessary, the universe could be a consequence of physical laws, as it was proposed by physical theories, or some other way.


The Origin of the Universe according to Jocax

In order to solve the problem of the origin of the universe, I created a theory that uses the “Occam’s razor” to its full potential. Thus, I start from the simplest state possible, the one that does not need an explanation to exist: the “Nothingness”.

But the “Nothingness” which people think of is not the same “nothingness” I start from, not even the “nothingness” physicists base on. For that reason, I will call my nothingness the “Jocaxian Nothingness”, or simply JN. The JN is defined as the state of nature in which the following conditions are satisfied:

1- There are no physical elements of any kind (neither matter, nor energy, nor space).
2- There are no laws whatsoever.

The "Jocaxian Nothingness" is different from the "Nothingness" we usually think of because when we think about "Nothingness" we think of a real "Nothingness” plus the following rule: “Nothing can happen from this Nothingness ". Thus, the Nothingness people often think about is not the purest possible; it is a Nothingness with a rule!

Another way people often think of “Nothingness” is by making it a synonym of inexistence. This "Nothingness" as a synonym of inexistence is far from being the "Jocaxian Nothingness" since the JN is something that exists and has properties; it would be something similar to an empty set which has no elements, but is still a set.

The "Jocaxian Nothingness" is a "Nothingness” that exists, it is a pure nothingness, an Absolute Nothingness, and therefore, has no rules to be followed, not even the rule "Nothing can happen”, and much less the laws of conservation of energy or the principles of Quantum Mechanics in Physics.

The reader could say that "having no rules" is also a rule to be followed, and therefore the definition of the "Jocaxian Nothingness" would be inconsistent. The answer is - Not having rules is the initial state of the "Nothingness”, not a rule it has to follow, just like having no matter or energy. Let us explain:

When a system has no rules (or laws) of any kind, it means there are no restrictions laws, and therefore "anything" could happen ... As much as nothing could happen as well! That is, the inexistence of laws implies that "something may happen", as its negation, "something may not happen" which includes "nothing can happen" and that represents all the possibilities that a system can have. It is therefore a tautology, an absolute truth. Not a rule. We consider the sentence "anything can happen" in its broad sense, which also comprehends "nothing can happen" so that a system that has no laws is a system in which "anything can happen" (including nothing happening at all).

Therefore, we conclude that the simplest system possible - the "Jocaxian Nothingness" - is actually a Toti-Potent system where "Anything can happen."

If "anything" can happen, then this nothingness can generate, at random, anything. But if nothingness can randomly generate anything, it can generate the universe or the physical laws that would allow the appearing of the material universe. On the other hand, the "JN" could also generate the law "Nothing can happen" and in this case there would be an everlasting nothingness with no possibilities for anything else to happen. This is the idea we normally have in mind when we think of the "Nothingness". But this is only one of the endless possibilities the "JN" can generate.

Thus, I propose that the origin of all was the "Jocaxian Nothingness" that because it does not have laws or rules of any kind, "Everything" - in the broad sense of the word - could happen. As there were no rules for what could happen or not, we conclude that RANDOMNESS must be an intrinsic feature of this system, since it can be defined as the unpredictability of what might happen.

If you're reading this and the hypothesis of the JN is true, we conclude that, fortunately, the JN did not "randomize" (generated randomly) the rule "nothing can happen". If the JN had generated this rule we would not be here reading this text. On the other hand, if we suppose as true the claim that it is highly unlikely that a set of physical laws randomly generated can generate life, then we would have a problem: it would be extremely unlikely (yet not impossible) that the JN would have "randomized" our universe, and thus it is convenient that we seek an answer to this improbability.

Our JN has a "card up its sleeve": as it does not have to obey physical laws or other rules of any kind; anything could happen, even the JN having "randomized" our universe in the way we have it today, everything created at this very moment, where our memories would have been created consistently. Of course, although this is theoretically possible, it would yet be very unlikely. One of the ways of solving the problem would be plagiarizing the theorists of the pre-Big-Bang and say that the JN would have randomly created infinity of bubble universes, each one with its own physical laws, also random. Thus, our universe would be the only one of many "bubble universes" whose physical laws, fortunately, led to life.

Another possibility, even simpler and more interesting, is the creation of the universe with expiration date: the JN would randomly generate a universe with physical laws also randomly generated but with a term or condition of validity, also random. At the end of that period or condition of validity, it would die out and we would come back to the original "Jocaxian Nothingness", which again could "randomize" a new different universe, and so on. This mechanism could explain the "physical laws" of our universe without the need to create infinite parallel universes. There would be a problem if, by chance, the JN generated a universe that was the "Trivial Nothingness": the Nothingness with the following law "Nothing else can happen." In this case, the JN would create the end of everything, forever.

Some questions may come to the reader’s mind:

1-Would not the JN feature of not having rules or laws be a rule itself?

No. One rule establishes some form of restriction that must be obeyed. If I say, for example, that "my car is red", this is not a rule but a STATE of the car, a condition in which the car is today. Eventually, the car could be painted blue (or not). Establishing the state of nature, in the conditions defined by the “JN”, is not a rule to be followed, but an initial state of the system. A rule would be "my car should be red" or yet "my car cannot be red"; in these cases the color of the car would be somehow restricted by a rule.

2- Would saying that anything could happen be a rule? An imposition to the JN?

No, because this is a logical consequence of its initial state, not an imposition to the system. Moreover, it would be a rule if we forced the JN to generate something and this is not what we are saying. As we saw in the text, I emphasize that from the JN anything MAY OR MAY NOT happen. And this is not a rule, it is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY- an absolute truth in any circumstances - This implies that the JN, just like everything else, follows a tautology (an absolute truth) and not a rule.

3- The JN has no physical elements or laws, but does it have any POWER?

If we call "power" the possibility of transforming itself, then the answer is yes. But we must remember that possibility is not certainty, and it could never become or generate anything. It is impossible to say that the JN will necessarily generate something. Thus, "power" is nothing more than a possibility, not pre-defined a priori, but derived from the initial conditions that define the JN.

4-Would the "Trivial Nothingness", where nothing can happen, be more likely to have always existed than the JN?

No, the nothingness that people think of (the Trivial Nothingness) is infinitely more unlikely to happen as the origin of the universe than the "JN". That is because the "trivial nothingness" has actually ENDLESS rules to be followed: it cannot generate a chair, it cannot generate physical laws, it cannot generate god, it cannot generate a Big Bang, it cannot generate life, it cannot generate particles etc...

We should also note that if the JN is an existing physical system, then we conclude that the universe has always existed, although time does not exist in the JN, we can say that the JN was the universe itself in its minimal state.

--//--
Portuguese Version: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciafilosofia/weblog/67134.html

Genismo

Genismo
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos

Translated by Débora Policastro

Genetic Philosophy

The roots of Genismo date back about 20 years ago, around the 80’s. By that time, I had created what I call “Genetic Philosophy” [1]. It was a simple doctrine, based on the finding that we are not able to change our instincts since they are genetically codified; however, it would be possible to do so through our culture and beliefs, which are cultural products and therefore can be substituted. It was clear to me at that time that much of our suffering was due to the dichotomy between our values like religiosity, ethics and moral on one side, and on the other to our instincts, wills and wishes. Then the best thing we could do would be to adequate our culture to our biology as much as possible, not the opposite. The opposite would be biologically impossible. Putting our beliefs and culture against our biological imperative could only produce more suffering and unhappiness.

Let us note in passing that the Freudian theory of sexuality can be seen as one of the facets of my old “genetic philosophy” since sexuality plays an important instinctive role and, therefore, we could expect that a violent repression to those instincts would cause suffering or various disorders.

Later, around 1990, still intrigued by man’s biological nature, I read the fantastic book The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. The book shows clearly that all living beings evolved through natural selection “in order to” perpetuate their genes. “In order to” is between inverted commas because it is a metaphoric notation: organisms do not really have a conscious objective of perpetuating their genes. They act in this way instinctively, through impulses or reactions that are pre-coded in their nervous system. These reactions can be pretty complex, since only organisms (herein understood as a set of genes) that can transmit their genes to future generations remain in the gene pool of the population. The ones that are not able to do so for some reason do not have their genes preserved; therefore, their characteristics are eliminated. That way, it is like the living organisms had an intention to act in compliance with their genetic perpetuation.

We must notice that the instinctive value of life, that is, survival itself, is nothing more than one of the many features of genetic preservation. Before the reader thinks that Genismo is all about offspring, as many do when in contact with the doctrine for the first time, I must say that that would be a crude simplification. It will make all the difference to remember that our genes are not only in our bodies, as we will see.

“Genes created us and we must serve them”

Well, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene showed clearly through innumerous examples from the natural world that living beings were programmed by natural selection to perpetuate their genes. To perpetuate genes means making them survive for as long as possible through generations. Actually, organisms could be seen as carcasses, biological devices or “Survival machines”, as it was addressed by the evolutionary biologists at the time, that were “made to” survive and pass their genes on to the next generation.

In the book, maybe for prudence, Dawkins did not use human examples to demonstrate this point of view and, for my own luck, he stated we should go against our genes! In his words:

“Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

So that the reader can start to understand this gene-perpetuative paradigm, it is important to notice that animals supposedly irrational do not undertake battles and bloodthirsty mortal wars against their own species and, in a surprisingly way, it is rare that one of them dies in individual fights, like territorial disputes or because of females in heat. Even in the search for food ad hunger situations, very rarely species will eat another member of its own species. Why is that so? Is not survival the biggest biological imperative of all?

That happens because the biological nature of living beings is centered in perpetuation of genes of shared organisms, not individual ones. If the biological paradigm was only sheer survival, no female would risk its life to save its descendants from danger. The animals would hunt and eat their own species and offspring when hungry. But that rarely happens. What happens is that the supposedly “wild” animals follow their genes closely, more closely than humans. Humans have consciousness and a mighty brain unfortunately capable of betraying our genes. That happens not only through wars against our fellow creatures, using famous “mass destruction weapons”, but also against ourselves and as a consequence, endangering our own happiness.

“Happiness is to walk the path of genetic perpetuation”

Thus, my old genetic philosophy evolved to Genismo sometime after I read “The Selfish Gene” and realized we should avoid acting against our genes and start acting for them. Obviously, we should be restricted to some ethical dominion, but yet we would have an ample playing field that would minimize our suffering, give us a meaning to life and a new kind of immortality, not anymore based on illusions, but on real entities: the genes.

Genismo, during a phase that lasted from 1990 until April 2003, established that we should assume culturally our biological condition of “Gene-Perpetuator Machine” and act to perpetuate them. As a result of such actions, which I called gene-perpetuative actions, we would maximize our happiness, since we would reduce culture x instinct conflicts and integrate our culture to our deepest biological essence.

“Our genes are our most precious assets”

Of course the acceptance of our “gene perpetuator machines” intrinsic condition is not trivial: it imposes changes to our old values, some perhaps based on religion, and changing inveterate beliefs and values is undoubtedly the most difficult task in the world. But the doctrine establishes clearly that our most valuable asset is our genes and if we want to maximize happiness without corrupting truth, we must accept it.

It is important to highlight that our genes are not only in our individual bodies, but spread all over humanity, as well as other species. We share the largest part of our genes with our descendants and relatives, but the difference with other members of the same species is not that big. We share about 86% of identical genes (not chromosomes) with our children and about 68% of identical genes with any other person.

This genetic sharing should provide us, in a cultural value level, acknowledgement and acceptance of other beings as part of us. That way, acceptance of Genismo could (and would) sponsor a bigger altruism in relation to our choices and actions. Thinking that our consciousness is us, our essence, causes an increase in human selfishness. This selfishness occurs because usually consciousness is understood and accepted as something individual and, differently from genes, something that cannot be shared. We must remember that selfishness of genes does not necessarily imply selfishness in behavior. Most of the times, the opposite happens: consider, as an example a mother, not necessarily human, that risks her own life in order to save her offspring’s. This altruistic behavior in relation to her offspring was produced by “selfishness” of her genes that “want” to survive and perpetuate, and led to an altruistic behavior. There are many other types of genetic altruism (instinctive) with members of the same species but not directly related.

“God does not exist and the only way to transcend death is through genes.”

Genismo is a branch of atheism and is committed to science and truth. For that reason, generally, beliefs not linked to reality such as religion, mysticism, esoterism and other types of religion or pseudo-science lacking factual evidence are not considered beneficial. Especially deistic religions are seen by Genismo as alienating and dangerous memes, since their followers usually have a distorted way of seeing the world that sometimes may lead to contradictions, unfairness and unhappiness.

The genists – Genismo followers — must be tolerant with the infected by religious memes (believers), since they know these believers had generally had their brains infected when young by powerful and sometimes irresistible memetic genes. As these memes, through faith, lead the individual to a continuous and persistent acceptance of contradictions (implicit in those religions), it is extremely difficult to make them notice that those contradictions should imply the falsehood of their set of premises (beliefs).

Immortality through genes reinforces our gene-perpetuative actions and is also a form of happiness Genismo offers. However, as genes are real entities and souls are not, the feeling of immortality through genes is a belief with factual support. Thus we see Genismo as a generator of two distinct sources of happiness: the first, the most pragmatic one, brings happiness by reducing cultural conflicts (memes x genes) and breaking the dichotomy between culture and biology, therefore leading the individual to greater body-mind integration. The second genist source of happiness is of a more “elevated’ level, perhaps ideological: it comes from the feeling of immortality through genes and gives life a transcendental sense without appealing to false illusions.

“Genist Ethics is Scientific Meta-Ethics (SME)”

Genismo leads individuals to value their genes and make them act in a way they will consciously want to perpetuate them. That is the “reason” why we evolved, and Genismo reinforces that that is also the reason we should live for. This way Genismo transforms a biological goal into a cultural one. It unifies culture and biology. This new way to see ourselves helps us integrate with our unchangeable essence that is our genetic programming.

Nevertheless, there may be gene-perpetuative possibilities that, although can bring happiness or pleasure to their executor, may provoke more suffering and unhappiness to other individuals, decreasing total happiness in the group, something that goes against the principles of SME. In that case, those possible actions must be avoided, since Genismo is restricted to SME dominion. We must therefore be always alert and not lose sight of the genist goal: happiness. Although Genismo does not yet have a detailed and explicit ethics code, ethical restrictions to our actions must necessarily be based on “scientific meta-ethics”: each individual’s happiness is limited to the happiness of the group. That is, an individual in the group must not enhance its own happiness at the expense of overall happiness of the group. Total happiness prevails over individual happiness.

“We are our genes”

In April 2003, Genismo evolved again: it was becoming each time clearer to me that our consciousness was not our essence, but our genes. Genismo used to treat “us” and “our genes” differently. We treated our genes as “them”. We should serve them and live for them. Implicitly we were privileging our consciousness as our “true self”. From that date on, not anymore. Our consciousness, as our arms, stomach, eyes and nails must be seen as appendages of our true self: our genes.

Although our consciousness apparently [2] has control of our actions, it is a result of a small part of our brain processing; maybe even of a minute area of our brains. Thus, it is more reasonable even physically to think that we are our genes, since differently from our consciousness they permeate virtually all cells of our body: from the toes to the nucleus of each of our neurons.

However, the dictatorship of consciousness has made its roots very deep. There will still be time until this new paradigm reflects on our colloquial language, and because of that we must be comprehensive while we still treat genes as “them” and our consciousness as “us”, even because we would not be understood by the ones that do not know Genismo. But a genist would know that when we say we are struggling to perpetuate our genes, we must understand we are struggling for our own immortality.

There is more than one way to reach Genismo. One of them is through Scientific Meta-Ethics (SME): happiness is maximized in the pleasure centers in the brain that produce it when the organism acts according to is evolutionary programming, that is, in a way to perpetuate its genes. Another way is through study of life evolution. The following text, one of the firsts I wrote concerning this new paradigm, shows how Genismo can be understood through neodarwinian study of life evolution.

Hierarchized Genismo

Genismo is a meme that has happiness as a goal. Happiness is not only pleasure, but the addition of pleasure (and suffering) proportional to its duration on time. Suffering decreases the value of happiness while pleasure increases it [1].

By the theory of evolution and natural selection process, we know that living beings evolved *as* if they had the unconscious and instinctive goal of perpetuating their genes, that is: maximizing their “gene-perpetuation”.

There is no transcendental reason for living beings to act this way. That happens because the genes that are present today are exactly those that were able to adapt their bearers to preserve them until the present moment.

The genes that did not make their bearers perpetuate them, that is, were not able to make the organisms (phenotypes) that carried them pass them on to the next generations, perished. Those genes are not among us any longer. Therefore we are all living descendents of the first replicant (“the primordial gene”), which originated life about four billion years ago and was successful to survive through times [2].

For that reason, the base of evolutionary psychology, the science that studies the behavior and social structure of living beings is based on the “gene-perpetuative” paradigm.

But how do genes make their bearers (us) act “in a way to” perpetuate them?”

Evolution and Consciousness

Genes instigate their organisms to act in a “gene-perpetuative” way, as:

Rigid and biologically codified mechanisms.

That way, for instance, a plant does not need to think or feel it has to turn its leaves towards the sun in order to receive light: internal mechanisms turn the leaves in the direction of sunlight captivation. They execute this task automatically. Fructification or seed launching are also automatically done by the genetic regulation of the plant, with no help of any nervous system.

Hyper primitive instincts

In beings that own nervous system there are mechanisms codified by genes through mental algorithms (instincts) that instigate the organism to behave and act almost mechanically, without the need to think about its actions. Those algorithms are in general placed on the base of the brain, in the reptilian system. For example: breathing control, pupil dilatation in the dark, bristle of hair when cold, etc. The increase in the ability to survive and reproduce is a feature that helps genetic survival.

Instincts that generate wishes or wills.

Other instincts (=mental algorithms genetically codified to solve specific problems) do not produce directly an action in the organism, but impulses, wishes and wills, in a way that the organism itself, through other instincts or use of reason and logics, will decide the best way to satisfy them. In general, those mental algorithms that generate wishes and feelings are situated in the brain limbic system. Examples: anger, love, jealousy, etc.

Reward mechanisms.

Reward mechanisms are studied by a science area known as “behaviorism”. Those internal mechanisms make the organism learn (through usage of memory) through pain (or pleasure) that an action is harmful to the genes (or beneficial to them). For instance: putting a hand on fire causes pain and pain is a sign and a way to learn that this act is harmful to the genes. Eating sweet substances is pleasant because, in general, they offer energy to the body and that is beneficial to the genes.

Epigenetic Rules

“Epigenetic rules” are improved forms of instinct. They are basically mental algorithms that are not used while not necessary. But when triggered and put to action they may activate a lot of internal mechanisms. Such instincts are not triggered without a previous evaluation of their necessity in relation to the environment. For example: being slapped on the face may trigger anger, or may be caress display in some culture. The same sensorial stimulus may activate others like anger and affection or not, depending on the context.

Those instinctive mechanisms developed through natural selection since thousands, even millions of years ago. However, the environment changes more rapidly than the genes adapt to it. That can make them lag behind environmental changes, what causes risk of death or extinction of species. For that reason, the genes made the epigenetic rules flexible through natural selection, what led to the appearance of the neocortex: the thirst for reason.

With this new human brain layer, almost every stimuli that before would trigger instincts that make the body act immediately do not do that anymore. The instinctive actions are blocked and, before being triggered, they go through a rational/environmental evaluation: consciousness.

One of the functions of consciousness is therefore blocking instinctive actions and evaluating the best answer. With a more efficient response to environmental stimuli, reason naturally took place of instinct in control of actions. For that reason we (sometimes) are able not to hit a person in case he/she annoys us.

Obviously, the genes that created this brain layer only survived because this strategy was more efficient to perpetuate the genes of the organism. Why? Because we are here!

If the genes that created reason and consciousness had been less efficient to perpetuate we would not be here with all this conscious and rational apparatus in the head.

With this new neurological apparatus in the brain, a new level of gene-perpetuation appears:

Absorption of memes.

As a consequence of the speed of environmental changes and genetic inability to create mental algorithms specific to each different environmental situation, the genes created a more flexible structure – the neocortex- which can block instincts and analyze the best solution through reason instead of responding immediately. The ability to store memes in brain memory allowed knowledge to be used without having to be reinvented.

Since then, the culture and the brain have advanced and evolved a lot. That allowed us to land on the moon, create medicines and become one of the species with the biggest evolutionary success on the planet.

Ideological Pleasure

The ability to absorb memes made the ideological pleasure possible.

The ideological Pleasure is what we feel when we act in accordance to the ideology (memes) we believe is true. It has probably originated from the necessity of cohesion in territorial disputes and tribal wars in our evolutionary past. For instance, if we belong to a soccer team, religion, club, city, country, etc, we should feel pleasure when we act in benefit of the group or the institution we belong to. This pleasure is based on the fact that people that are close to us and share the same interests should probably share more similar genes; thus, helping them is also a way to help our genes, since we probably share more genes with them than with strangers.

Genes and Happiness

It is important to notice that the usage of instincts, epigenetic rules and reason itself had a “purpose” [4]: those mechanisms evolved while benefiting gene-perpetuation. But these organisms are not really interested in gene-perpetuation (actually, not even the genes are)! These organisms want more and more pleasure and less suffering and pain. So, all usage of internal brain mechanisms to solve problems means only more sophisticated ways of solving problems to increase pleasure and decrease pain for the longest period of time possible, that is: they are ways of trying to maximize happiness!

What happens is that organisms that own nervous system are ALWAYS running from suffering and seeking pleasure. All the time. As pleasure multiplied by time is happiness, to put it simple, organisms are always seeking pleasure. And the genes, on the other hand, always “want” to survive, to perpetuate. In our evolutionary past, at least, the ways to seek happiness should be the same that led to gene-perpetuation. That is: the more happiness we got, the more genetic perpetuation would be done. Therefore we have a logical-evolutionary correlation between seek for happiness and genetic perpetuation.

Betrayal

Nevertheless, the genes “did not know” that such rational power and ability to control from something flexible as the consciousness they had created and its associated neuronal subsystems could also turn against themselves. Although consciousness can solve technical problems masterfully in a way to avoid pain and get pleasure, has also allowed harmful memes to perpetuate genetically (for instance consumerism and VM2F) and also happiness (Buddhism, celibacism, etc) to appear.

Obviously, we are still in an evolutionary process. Natural selection continues to act in a way that, in a long or short term, those memes will face barriers, if not memetic, at least genetic against their proliferation. One of the ways for the genes to get rid of the VM2F is to instigate an organism to reproduce before a meme is installed in its mind. That should explain the increase in numbers of teenage pregnancies [3].

Priorities Hierarchization

One of the things Genismo suggests is that we must follow our genes. But what does that mean?

It basically means that we must act according to what “our genes want”.

One of the ways the genes signalize what they want is through wills and wishes. For instance, if an organism feels the need for water, genetic mechanisms signalize with thirst. If the organism satiates the thirst it will be acting according to the wills of the genes that created the mechanism of thirst. However, there could also be conflicting wills. For instance, I may feel like eating candy and, at the same time, I may want to lose weight and be healthy. How can I prioritize that? What if a gene-perpetuative action is anti-ethical?

The best way to solve those conflicts is through a priorities hierarchy. See below what I propose:

Scientific Meta Ethics should be the greatest hierarchical valued rule.

This way, not even gene-perpetuative actions are allowed if they infringe SME.

The gene-perpetuative path must be prioritized in relation to satisfaction of wills and wishes.

Satisfaction of wills and wishes is a way of following the genes.

Through this hierarchy, “pragmatic-Genismo”, which used to be based on hedonism as a way of maximizing pleasure without necessarily a counterpart in perpetuation of genes, now is not genistically compatible anymore in case the action is against gene-perpetuation.

Maximization of Happiness

It is easy now to notice, through priorities hierarchization, that the goal of Genismo, by definition, is the maximization of happiness in the first place, since SME has maximization of happiness as a basic postulate:

“Scientific Meta Ethics postulates that an action is better or fairer than another one when the level of general happiness created from it, computed in the longest period of time possible, is superior to the level of happiness created in the same period.” [5]

Happiness among Genists and non-Genists

Genismo makes cultural goal compatible with the “biological goal”. This way, Genists have an extra ideological pleasure for knowing that they are acting in a gene-perpetuative way, even if this action also causes pleasure naturally, which is in general sponsored by genes when one follows the gene-perpetuative path.

On the other hand non-genists, especially the ones who are not interested in gene-perpetuation, will not always follow a gene-perpetuative path, and most regularly a diversion from this path will make one suffer or at least prevent one from being as happy as one could be when following it.

In natural conditions, a non-genist has two options:

The individual does not follow any ideology, religion or life philosophy.

In that case the person must follow what gives him/her more pleasure, that is, the person will follow his/her instincts aiming happiness, what would be more or less like the genist pillar that says we must follow our genes. It is like returning to our primitive origins but within a modern environment. That could probably lead to a gene-perpetuative path, but not necessarily!

The individual follows some ideology, religion or philosophy of life.

In case those philosophies are not Genismo, the person will have to restrict or act in a way that does not favors genes and, for that reason, he/she will at some moment repress genes, what should cause loss of happiness. For example: some religions promote physical sacrifices like whipping and boring prayers to please God. But those sacrifices decrease physical pleasure and therefore happiness, though they can cause ideological pleasure.

However, a genist has ideological pleasure without having to stray from the gene-perpetuative rout. That way he/she would have a greater happiness than a non-genist with no ideology or a non-genist with ideology. This way we demonstrate that following Genismo produces more happiness than not following it.

The Matrix Case

The matrixian case is an extremely artificial chance of maximization of individual happiness at the expense of maximum alienation of the world and the universe. As follows:

Suppose a person wants to maximize his/her personal happiness and enters a matrixian cocoon where electrodes are implanted in his/her brain and he/she will receive intravenous feeding, in a way that he/she will spend the rest of his/her life in this machine that maximizes happiness.

By definition, the machine will maximize happiness to the highest level his/her brain can handle. Happiness will be maximized as it would never be in the real world. This person will not perpetuate any genes and will consume many planet resources in order to stay in that machine for years.

Now I ask the reader a difficult question: would you enter this matrixian machine if it was offered to you cost-free? And if not, why not?

If your answer is yes it is because there is already gene-perpetuative spark acting in you! 

References

[1] A Fórmula da Felicidade [Happiness Formula]
http://www.Genismoo.com/metatexto37.htm

[2] Genismoo: Uma introdução [Genismo: na introduction]
http://www.Genismoo.com/Genismootexto1.htm

[3] Gravidez na adolescência [Teenage pregnancy]
http://www.brasilescola.com/biologia/gravidez-adolescencia.htm

[4] A Teleonomia: o “para” não significa propósito. [Teleonomy: “for” does not mean purpose.]
http://www.Genismoo.com/Genismootexto3.htm#4

[5] Introdução à MEC [Introduction to Scientific Meta Ethics]
http://www.Genismoo.com/filosofia2.htm