Elementary forces from the prime numbers

Gravity is unary, electroweak force i binary: there is plus and minus charge. The strong force ternary. There is a clear pattern here: There is an increase in "polarity" and the larger the number, the shorter the interaction distance.

So, a prediction; there is an infinite number of interaction forces in the Universe. The larger the polarity, the shorter the interaction distance. The next force can be expected to be quaternary (yes, lets expect the polarity to follow "prime" numbers).

The answer to the Fermi paradox is that a civilizational advanced enough discovers this fundamental property of nature and it opens up the capability to migrate from one type of interaction to a higher one. So, we should move our consciousness to be quark mediated, then to the quaternary force and so on.

Since each force operate at an ever shorted distance, it also operates at an ever shorter time scale. So, this will effectively slow down time. Our mission now, is to lure the end of the universe by ever slowing down of time by moving into an ever higher force interaction pattern.

Thus, we should no to out in space - there is nothing there for us to discover. We should to into the atom. Life can only occur on the second level - the electroweak level. But it must not stay there. It is not that we are early in developing intelligent life - we are late. Everyone else already left. It is the bloody dinosaurs fault. Had they not been, mammals had evolved much sooner and we would already be living in an atom.

The problem now is that we all look in the wrong direction - out in space - when we should be looking into the atom for refugee.

This all also gives an indication why gravity is special. 1 is not a real prime number. It cannot be used to build a group with any interesting structure. So it must be treated differently.

The most important thing of our time

Is to become sustainable in general, and to resolve the climate crisis in particular. Integrating sustainability in business is one such key action that we need to take. However, it is commonly stated that sustainable businesses are also more profitable. Implying that if you become sustainable, you will become more profitable. But to be honest, this is far from likely to be true. Looking at this in depth, I am convinced, it is rather the opposite implication that holds. If you are very profitable, you can afford to be sustainable.

With this, I am not trying to say that we should not be sustainable. Absolutely not. It is the task of our time. But it must also be allowed to cost money. Because it will.

Did you do your best today?

I, and most people I know are extremely privileged. We live in history's most prosperous time and in the most wealthy part of the world in that time.

So, what are our obligations given this? I would say: Did you do your very best today?

I'm not gonna pretent that I don't have any opinion on what that means. One can argue, as is very common in western, post-existansialism society, that it is up to me to define and that we are domed to freedom. That might well be. But I think our extreme wealth come with a price. We have to be prepared to contribute to making this a better place. The number of people suffering is still today enormous. So, did you do your best today to remedy that?

This does not mean that you don't have any right to your life. But we share resources here. Was your share today proportional? Will it be tomorrow?

One should also not try to discard this line of reasoning with "well what did you do then". It is not easy to judge what is the best. If I give away all my money to charity today, it will have some very good conveniences in that absolute near-term. But it is not at all clear that it is the best thing to do in the long term. But surely, keeping all of them is also not optimal.

So, did you do your best today balancing this?

Högerns förslag blir allt mer absurda

Det ena mer absurda förslaget efter det andra på säkerhetsområdet kommer från högerkanten. KD vill att vi ska använda vårt bistånd till att bygga fängelser utomlands och M vill att man ska börja omhänderta kriminellas barn. Deras populism är pinsam. Är man så rädd för SD att man bara måste rikta in sej på dem och hur man ska bli mer lik dem?

Denna bilden är tagen från en BRÅ-rapport om riskfaktorer för ungdomsbrott:

För den som sett denna figur kan det tyckas löjligt enkelt att avgöra hur vi ska angripa ungdomsbrottsligheten. Börja med de ungdomar som har flera riskfaktorer och jobba med riskfaktorerna. Vinsten är en välanpassad vuxen och bidrar och drar in pengar till statskassan, istället för en brottsling som kostar pengar.

En viktigt riskfaktor är enligt rapporten dåliga relationer till sina föräldrar och andra typer av anti-sociala beteenden. Att då separera barn och föräldrar låter fullkomligt absurt.

De finns naturligtvis de som jonglerar med argumenten här också och försöker lägga fram att allt bara handlar om gener, men BRÅ lyfter ju i sin rapport fram att ärftliga faktorer är jätteviktiga. Men vi kan inte ändra en persons genetik. Och generna hos Danskar och Svenskar skiljer sig extremt lite åt. Ändå ha vi olika brottsstatistik. Så, är det inte lika bra att konstatera detta och jobba med det vi kan? Utan att ha något underlag tycka det mej också som att det borde vara väldigt svårt att skilja ut psykosociala faktorer från genetiska. Det är väl uppenbart att det inte går att ändra detta på ett år, eller kanske inte ens på en generation? Vad måste väl ändå ha en lite längre tidahorrisont än så?

En till intressant referens för den som vill läsa.

Polisen själva vill ha förebyggande åtgärder

Vi lägger ökade resurser på poliser och skärper straff, men Polisen själva lyfter vikten av förebyggande åtgärder. Och naturligtvis borde vi istället ha bättre välfärd och minskade klyftor. Då kommer våldet minska automatiskt. Det är både billigare, humanare och bättre för att skapa ett jämlikt samhälle.

build that wall, build that wall

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=7468325

Idealistic but not realistic

There are many people now propagating that governments should not support CO2 emitting and other environmentally in unfriendly businesses. While I fully agree, it does not sound like a very realistic proposal. Perhaps it puts the focus on wrong things or makes the other side just view this as madness, so how well thought through is it?