Behave: the biology of humans

Conclusions of Behave: the biology of humans at our best and worst by Robert M. Sapolsky.


· It’s great if your frontal cortex lets you avoid temptation, allowing you to do the harder, better thing. But it’s usually more effective if doing that better thing has become so automatic that it isn’t hard. And it’s often easiest to avoid temptation with distraction and reappraisal rather than willpower.

· While it’s cool that there’s so much plasticity in the brain, it’s no surprise—it has to work that way.

· Childhood adversity can scar everything from our DNA to our cultures, and effects can be lifelong, even multigenerational. However, more adverse consequences can be reversed than used to be thought. But the longer you wait to intervene, the harder it will be.

· Brains and cultures coevolve.

· Things that seem morally obvious and intuitive now weren’t necessarily so in the past; many started with nonconforming reasoning.

· Repeatedly, biological factors (e.g., hormones) don’t so much cause a behavior as modulate and sensitize, lowering thresholds for environmental stimuli to cause it.

· Cognition and affect always interact. What’s interesting is when one dominates.

· Genes have different effects in different environments; a hormone can make you nicer or crummier, depending on your values; we haven’t evolved to be “selfish” or “altruistic” or anything else—we’ve evolved to be particular ways in particular settings. Context, context, context.

· Biologically, intense love and intense hate aren’t opposites. The opposite of each is indifference.

· Adolescence shows us that the most interesting part of the brain evolved to be shaped minimally by genes and maximally by experience; that’s how we learn—context, context, context.

· Arbitrary boundaries on continua can be helpful. But never forget that they are arbitrary.

· Often we’re more about the anticipation and pursuit of pleasure than about the experience of it.

· You can’t understand aggression without understanding fear (and what the amygdala has to do with both).

· Genes aren’t about inevitabilities; they’re about potentials and vulnerabilities. And they don’t determine anything on their own. Gene/environment interactions are everywhere. Evolution is most consequential when altering regulation of genes, rather than genes themselves.

· We implicitly divide the world into Us and Them, and prefer the former. We are easily manipulated, even subliminally and within seconds, as to who counts as each.

· We aren’t chimps, and we aren’t bonobos. We’re not a classic pair-bonding species or a tournament species. We’ve evolved to be somewhere in between in these and other categories that are clear-cut in other animals. It makes us a much more malleable and resilient species. It also makes our social lives much more confusing and messy, filled with imperfection and wrong turns.

· The homunculus has no clothes.

· While traditional nomadic hunter-gatherer life over hundreds of thousands of years might have been a little on the boring side, it certainly wasn’t ceaselessly bloody. In the years since most humans abandoned a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, we’ve obviously invented many things. One of the most interesting and challenging is social systems where we can be surrounded by strangers and can act anonymously.

· Saying a biological system works “well” is a value-free assessment; it can take discipline, hard work, and willpower to accomplish either something wondrous or something appalling. “Doing the right thing” is always context dependent.

· Many of our best moments of morality and compassion have roots far deeper and older than being mere products of human civilization.

· Be dubious about someone who suggests that other types of people are like little crawly, infectious things.

· When humans invented socioeconomic status, they invented a way to subordinate like nothing that hierarchical primates had ever seen before.

· “Me” versus “us” (being prosocial within your group) is easier than “us” versus “them” (prosociality between groups).

· It’s not great if someone believes it’s okay for people to do some horrible, damaging act. But more of the world’s misery arises from people who, of course, oppose that horrible act . . . but cite some particular circumstances that should make them exceptions. The road to hell is paved with rationalization.

· The certainty with which we act now might seem ghastly not only to future generations but to our future selves as well.

· Neither the capacity for fancy, rarefied moral reasoning nor for feeling great empathy necessarily translates into actually doing something difficult, brave, and compassionate.

· People kill and are willing to be killed for symbolic sacred values. Negotiations can make peace with Them; understanding and respecting the intensity of their sacred values can make lasting peace.

· We are constantly being shaped by seemingly irrelevant stimuli, subliminal information, and internal forces we don’t know a thing about.

· Our worst behaviors, ones we condemn and punish, are the products of our biology. But don’t forget that the same applies to our best behaviors.

· Individuals no more exceptional than the rest of us provide stunning examples of our finest moments as humans.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment


Quote from Behave: the biology of humans at our best and worst by Robert M. Sapolsky (my bullets and highlights)

Evolution rests on three steps: (a) certain biological traits are inherited by genetic means; (b) mutations and gene recombination produce variation in those traits; (c) some of those variants confer more “fitness” than others. Given those conditions, over time the frequency of more “fit” gene variants increases in a population.

We start by trashing some common misconceptions.

First, that evolution favors survival of the fittest. Instead evolution is about reproduction, passing on copies of genes. An organism living centuries but not reproducing is evolutionarily invisible.* The difference between survival and reproduction is shown with “antagonistic pleiotropy,” referring to traits that increase reproductive fitness early in life yet decrease life span. For example, primates’ prostates have high metabolic rates, enhancing sperm motility. Upside: enhanced fertility; downside: increased risk of prostate cancer. Antagonistic pleiotropy occurs dramatically in salmon, who epically journey to their spawning grounds to reproduce and then die. If evolution were about survival rather than passing on copies of genes, there’d be no antagonistic pleiotropy.

Another misconception is that evolution can select for preadaptations—neutral traits that prove useful in the future. This doesn’t happen; selection is for traits pertinent to the present. Related to this is the misconception that living species are somehow better adapted than extinct species. Instead, the latter were just as well adapted, until environmental conditions changed sufficiently to do them in; the same awaits us. Finally, there’s the misconception that evolution directionally selects for greater complexity. Yes, if once there were only single-celled organisms and there are multicellular ones now, average complexity has increased. Nonetheless, evolution doesn’t necessarily select for greater complexity—just consider bacteria decimating humans with some plague.

The final misconception is that evolution is “just a theory.” I will boldly assume that readers who have gotten this far believe in evolution. Opponents inevitably bring up that irritating canard that evolution is unproven, because (following an unuseful convention in the field) it is a “theory” (like, say, germ theory). Evidence for the reality of evolution includes:

· Numerous examples where changing selective pressures have changed gene frequencies in populations within generations (e.g., bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance). Moreover, there are also examples (mostly insects, given their short generation times) of a species in the process of splitting into two.

· Voluminous fossil evidence of intermediate forms in numerous taxonomic lineages.

· Molecular evidence. We share ~98 percent of our genes with the other apes, ~96 percent with monkeys, ~75 percent with dogs, ~20 percent with fruit flies. This indicates that our last common ancestor with other apes lived more recently than our last common ancestor with monkeys, and so on.

· Geographic evidence. To use Richard Dawkins’s suggestion for dealing with a fundamentalist insisting that all species emerged in their current forms from Noah’s ark—how come all thirty-seven species of lemurs that made landfall on Mt. Ararat in the Armenian highlands hiked over to Madagascar, none dying and leaving fossils in transit?

· Unintelligent design—oddities explained only by evolution. Why do whales and dolphins have vestigial leg bones? Because they descend from a four-legged terrestrial mammal. Why should we have arrector pili muscles in our skin that produce thoroughly useless gooseflesh? Because of our recent speciation from other apes whose arrector pili muscles were attached to hair, and whose hair stands up during emotional arousal.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Constituția Sexului în România

(Publicat inițial pe Strada Democrației pe 26 iunie 2017)

Pe 25 iunie 2017 s-a încheiat Pride Month în Toronto, ce a culminat cu anualul Pride March. Este pentru a doua oară în istoria Canadei când un șef de guvern participă la un astfel de marș, după ce anul trecut prim-ministrul Justin Trudeau a fost primul șef de guvern canadian care a participat la Pride March. Alături de el a participat și premierul provinciei Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, care e declarat lesbiană.

Atitudinea mea față de acest eveniment? Aprob, încurajez, suport. Nu m-am amestecat niciodată în astfel de mulțimi, nu pentru că nu m-ar fi mânat un soi de curiozitate ludică, ci pentru că le simt ca pe niște manifestări normale, democratice și nu le disting de Caribana, carnavalul caraib ce atrage un milion de turiști anual, sau de Festivalul de Film din Toronto (TIFF). Toate aceste înfăptuiri de evenimente sînt, într-un fel sau altul, manifestări de cultură.

Context istoric: activitățile între persoane de același sex sînt legale în Canada din 1969, persoanele LGBTQ+ pot presta serviciu militar din 1992, căsătoria între persoanele LGBTQ+ a fost legalizată în 2005. Drepturile persoanelor LGBTQ+ în Canada sînt printre cele mai avansate din lume. Pierre Trudeau (prim-ministru între 1980-1984), tatăl lui Justin Trudeau, a declarat în 1967 că “Statul nu are ce căuta în dormitoarele poporului“.

Să punem apoi în balanță Coaliția pentru Familie. Ce vrea Coaliția? Coaliția vrea refuz, izolare, discriminare, limitare de drepturi, excludere și întoarcerea la valori tradiționale. Valorile tradiționale sînt definite, desigur, pe criterii religioase. E mai mult decât regretabil că aceste valori nu se revendică de la tradiția iluminismului, tradiție care la rândul ei ne-a dat statele moderne și încetățenirea metodei științifice de investigare a cunoașterii. Din tradiția iluminismului se revendică și revoluțiile moderne ale drepturilor civice.

Coaliția persistă să se hrănească cu o tocăniță de meme foarte fragile. În paragrafele de mai jos voi oferi niște metode de deconstrucție a acestor meme. Mică paranteză: conceptul de memă a fost inventat de Richard Dawkins în Gena Egoistă (1976). Pe scurt idea lui Dawkins e că mema imită strategia genei. Gena e unitatea fundamentală de reproducere în contextul evoluției prin selecție naturală. Organismul biologic e doar un vehicul folosit de genă pentru a-și executa misiunea ei programată în ADN. Pe de altă parte, mema e un fel de genă alcătuită din idei, iar organismul e alcătuit din societate și cultură.

Memele Coaliției pentru Familie sînt:

  • Actele sexuale non-hetero sînt abominabile și constituie un mare păcat
  • Familia e alcătuită din bărbat și femeie
  • Cupluri LGBTQ+ nu pot avea copii, deci contrazic dictatul divin de procreare a speciei
  • Persoanele LGBTQ+ sînt de o moralitate inferioară și prin urmare nu pot fi considere egale cu societatea heterosexuală
  • Societatea fără valori creștine e o societate în derivă și sortită pierzaniei
  • Preceptele de mai sus au atribute de lege organică și moralitate absolută deci trebuie introduse în constituție

Bill Nye, în episodul 9 al serialului Bill Nye Saves the World, deconstruiește dualitatea sexuală de bărbat versus femeie și prezintă în schimb un spectru de gen non-binar de la bărbat la femeie, pe patru criterii: sex, gen, atracție și expresie. SEXUL e biologic și e determinat de organele genitale, de cromozomi și de hormoni. GENUL e cum individul se identifică pe sine și cum se auto-percepe din punct de vedere sexual. Sînt oameni a căror SEX și GEN nu se află de aceeași parte a spectrului. De exemplu: persoanele transgender pot avea un creier de bărbat într-un corp de femeie, sau vice-versa. Alte persoane se identifică ca ambele genuri, sau niciunul sau o combinație de amândouă. ATRACȚIA se referă la obiectul atracției fizice. Persoanele homosexuale sînt atrase de sexul opus, persoanele bisexuale sînt atrase de ambele sexe, persoanele asexuale de nici un sex. Atracția e la rândul ei așezată pe un spectru. EXPRESIA e cum se prezintă individul societății. Aici se includ: cine poartă machiaj, cine se îmbracă în fuste, când și unde, cine se rade pe picioare, cine se rade între picioare, cine e drag queen și cine nu.

Memele Coaliției sînt fragile tocmai pentru că sînt binare și extrem de rigide argumentativ. O campanie media puternică de educare a societății pornind de la instrumentarul de mai sus ar demonta rapid elanul militant al Coaliției. Cazul împotriva memelor Coaliției trebuie făcut metodic, puternic, perseverent, folosind:

  • Instrumentarul de mai sus cu multe exemple din țările progresiste (vezi Canada)
  • Puterea juridică a drepturilor omului
  • Demontarea argumentului religios folosind tehnici de relativizare post-modernă. Narațiunile ortodoxe, prin faptul că fac apel la un vocabular arhaic pot fi demontate printr-un contra-vocabular modern dar simplu și ușor de digerat de votanții petiției Coaliției.

Desigur, progresul moral al societății nu este inevitabil. După Imperiul Roman am avut Evul Mediu întunecat. După iluminism, am avut războaie mondiale, gulag-uri și genocid. Deși în măsura în care unele grupări încearcă să înmlăștinească conceptul de familie, uitând de pildă că grecii antici practicau homosexualitatea fără să aibă conceptul de sex și gen, iar unii preoți creștini întrec starurile porno în perversiuni, există totuși cale de speranță și progres când spiritul civic al progresiștilor se lansează în proiecte sociale și politice.

Posted in Blog | 1 Comment

The price of everything

"Every day we commit to buying goods and services without paying careful attention to their cost. In 2009, the HP DeskJet D2530 printer might have seemed a steal at $39.99. But the price, displayed prominently on the HP Web site, was almost irrelevant. The more relevant numbers were $14.99 for a black ink cartridge, which prints about 200 pages, and $19.99 for the color cartridge, which prints 165. For those printing photos at home, the crucial number was $21.99 for the HP 60 Photo Value Pack, a set of cartridges and 50 standard sheets of photo paper. At the Rite-Aid drugstore, 50 same-day prints cost $9.50. The worldwide printing business depends on selling cheap printers and expensive ink. According to a study by PC World, printers will issue out-of-ink warnings when the cartridge is still up to 40 percent full. HP, Epson, Canon, and others have sued providers of cheap ink refills, charging them with false advertising and patent infringement to make them stop. But the best ally of the printer business is consumer ignorance about what they are really paying to print. Just setting the printer default to “draft” quality would save consumers hundreds of dollars a year. Yet few consumers do. Though many companies still sell cheaper ink refills, refills account for only 10 to 15 percent of the market. That means that 90 percent of printing is still done using ink that, according to the PC World analysis, costs $4,731 per gallon. You might as well fill your ink cartridges with 1985 vintage Krug champagne."

(from The price of everything : solving the mystery of why we pay what we do / Eduardo Porter)

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Happy 200 Birthday Karl Marx!

As I write this our building has been without electricity for 14 hours. We have a generator that powers one elevator and basic security systems. At the same time, across the street, the corporate buildings have had the lights on continuously throughout the night, while the rest of the surrounding area was plunged in darkness. I suppose the corporatists needed electricity for “business continuity” as opposed to what, “decent living continuity” for the rest of us the off-work-breathing-humans? While our frozen chicken is slowly melting, and some medicine is transferred to the party-room fridges (operational just for this purpose, as per building management, for our convenience), the corporate offices can safely thrive even during the weekend.

Somebody said Marx was right in everything he said about capitalism, and was wrong in everything he said about communism.

Candle power!


A libertarian Marxist

PS: Further reading:

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Imperial chief executives

From The evolution of everything – how new ideas emerge (2015) by Matt Ridley:

>> The Great Man theory lives on as strongly as ever in one field of human endeavour: big business. Even in the age of the internet, most modern companies are set up like feudal fiefs, with a king in charge; or a god invested with a near supernatural reputation, a very large shareholding and a reverberantly hard name like Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Schmidt, Zuckerberg. Surely it is the height of irony that the most iconic, powerful and imperial chief executives are found today in companies that float in the fluid, egalitarian, dynamic world of the digital economy. Their firms provide cobwebs of horizontal interaction among billions of customers, their employees wear jeans, eat vegan salads and work flexible hours. Yet the pronouncements of their bosses are treated as scripture. Jeff Bezos’s favourite saying is ‘Start with the customer and work backwards,’ but it is repeated as a mantra so frequently by his staff that you cannot help thinking they start with the boss and work forwards. At the death of Steve Jobs in 2011 it was widely assumed that the survival of Apple itself was at risk, and the share price plunged. Did even Genghis Khan have this sort of effect when he died? Why has the autocratic ethos of Henry Ford and Attila the Hun survived unchanged into the twenty-first century in this way? Why are companies still such top–down things? <<

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

What Money Can’t Buy

What Money Can’t Buy is a six part series exploring the role of money and morals in today’s world.

Everybody must watch this, especially lovers of unbridled capitalism.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

On Modern Anxiety

As quoted by Steven Pinker in Enlightenment Now:

>> Here is our modern avatar of anxiety, Woody Allen, playing out the 20th-century generational divide in a conversation with his parents in Hannah and Her Sisters (1986):

MICKEY: Look, you’re getting on in years, right? Aren’t you afraid of dying?

FATHER: Why should I be afraid?

MICKEY: Oh! ’Cause you won’t exist!


MICKEY: That thought doesn’t terrify you?

FATHER: Who thinks about such nonsense? Now I’m alive. When I’m dead, I’ll be dead.

MICKEY: I don’t understand. Aren’t you frightened?

FATHER: Of what? I’ll be unconscious.

MICKEY: Yeah, I know. But never to exist again!

FATHER: How do you know?

MICKEY: Well, it certainly doesn’t look promising.

FATHER: Who knows what’ll be? I’ll either be unconscious or I won’t. If not, I’ll deal with it then. I’m not gonna worry now about what’s gonna be when I’m unconscious.

MOTHER [OFFSCREEN]: Of course there’s a God, you idiot! You don’t believe in God?

MICKEY: But if there’s a God, then wh-why is there so much evil in the world? Just on a simplistic level. Why-why were there Nazis?

MOTHER: Tell him, Max.

FATHER: How the hell do I know why there were Nazis? I don’t know how the can opener works. <<

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

THE GREAT AMERICAN THEFT and How to Transform the Retirement Security in the US


Photo by: Ian Sane

Journalist Megan McArdle published an article in January 2017 titled The 401(k) Problem We Refuse to Solve. Link:  If the link happens to be broken, you can find it after this article.

 Takeaway ideas from McArdle’s text:

  • The major problem with all three pillars of a retirement system is the underfunding.
  • She proposes a flat 10-15% so-called surcharge on the workers’ wage income, and divert the money into the ”system” for future use.

What is this so-called ”surcharge”? If go by the dictionary a surcharge is to be considered additional sum added to the usual cost or amount paid ( McArdle’s proposal is nothing less than a flat mandatory savings rate imposed on top of the usual tax obligations.

Generally speaking a retirement system is comprised of there main pillars:

  • Pillar 1 are the state-funded streams such as Social Security and Medicare
  • Pillar 2 are employer-sponsored plans such as 401ks
  • Pillar 3 are private personal savings that are used for retirement

McArdle’s proposal is fundamentally NOT feasible for the following reasons:

  • Low income earners have little disposable income left to be saved. Imposing a savings surchage forces them closer to poverty. According to economist Robert Reich:

”Beginning in the late 1970s, the real median household income stagnated. The vast American middle class employed several techniques to maintain its purchasing power notwithstanding. The first was for mothers to move into paid work; the second, for everyone to work longer hours; the third, to use rising home values to extract money through home equity loans or refinancing. By late 2007, debt reached 135 percent of disposable income.” (Robert Reich, Saving Capitalism) With little or negative income left, a vast majority of workers have no ability to save 10-15%, regardless if it’s imposed or not.

  • The proposal superficially addresses only the symptom for the underfunding of the three pillars. It only tries to answer the question: how do we put more money into the pillars? The real question that needs to be answered is: WHY are the pillars underfunded? Why is the system leaking? With all the new wealth that has been created, why is the retirement system so severely underfunded? The author has the wrong question in mind.
  • The proposal is an attempt to control the disposable income of the population, to control spending behavior, to control consumption behavior. All these limit the economic freedom of workers. Surely, it is vital to have savings for retirement, and to manage consumerism, but the right method is not to force people to save, especially people who cannot afford it.
  • The proposal does not make any connection between savings and capital. There cannot be any net savings when a worker has no net capital that generates positive returns. If average household debt is significantly higher than average income, 10-15% savings may not be enough to cover the compounded interest on debts. Disposable income has to allow not only for an increase of the household net capital, but also has to account for the standard of living. A 10-15% mandatory savings rate may actually decrease the standard of living.
  • The author proposes a failed philosophy of savings, that is you have to save no matter what. This philosophy was proven wrong by the past 25 years that have shown decreased household incomes, decreased social mobility, increased income and wealth inequality. People cannot save when they have mounting amounts of debts, little to zero disposable income. A more viable philosophy of savings would be to increase wages, increase labor security, decrease income inequality, allow people to have more disposable income, allow them to save voluntarily and control consumption by regulating production rather than regulating savings.

Demographic and economic trends that are contributing to the underfunding of the retirement system

The surge of neoliberal Reaganomics that followed the fall of the Bretton Woods agreement (on August 15, 1971) has started an age in American economy where income and wealth inequality have reached historical peaks. Within this context, the demographic and economic trends that are contributing to the underfunding of the retirement system are, but are not limited to:

  • Baby boomers approaching retirement.

They comprise of 75+ million Americans, approx. 23% of US population. This is the largest segment of the population. Richard Heinberg writes in The End of Growth:

“Few baby boomers have substantial savings; many had hoped to fund their golden years with house equity — and to realize that, they must sell. This will add more houses to an already glutted market, driving prices down even further.”

When boomers will exit labor market, they will put even greater pressure on the contribution mechanisms of the pillars, driving the underfunding to lower layers. Boomers will also drive down consumption, and may have a sizeable impact on the GDP.

  • Massive increase of productivity coupled with the concentration of the new wealth at the top 1%, and 0.01%.

Below there is a chart that follows the increases of productivity compared to increased in wages from 1948 onward.


Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of unpublished total economy productivity data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Labor Productivity and Costs program, BLS Current Employment Statistics, and Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts. This chart originally appeared at Quoted in Robert Reich, Saving Capitalism.

Lo and behold, when Reaganomics kicks in after Bretton Woods is buried, productivity goes through the roof and wages modestly go up. The enormous gap translates in staggering amounts of new wealth created by the economy that did not “trickle-down” to the general population. The wealth created billionaires and moved overseas in fiscal paradises, but did not go to retirement pillars or wealth for the many. This institutionalized Great American Theft of the 20th century have left people with largely no retirement security.

  • The financialization of the American economy.

The 1970s were the beginning of a frenzy in the financial industry to create complex products through securitization. Since the dollar became fiat money, enormous amounts of currency and financial products were created to stimulate nominal growth. Deregulation from 1970s through 2000s and sheer greed from the Wall Street banks and their acolytes have created trillions of dollars in ABS (asset-backed securities) that were not actually backed by any real assets, which lead to the crash of 2008. Billions of dollars of 401k accounts have vanished, leaving millions without their life-time savings.

  • High health care costs.

 The US is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee some version of universal health care. In the 21th century, health care in the US continues to be viewed as a business that must followed the precepts of the market economy. This deeply flawed philosophy is costing the lives of millions of Americans and keeps millions more at poverty levels. The main reason for personal bankruptcy in the US are health care costs. Not only that health care is not considered a natural fundamental human right, but even Obamacare fell short of creating a universal health care system, that according to many economists is cheaper, is more financially sustainable, is more socially sustainable, prevents corporate abuses from HMOs, Big Pharma and lobbyists. The high health care costs have a direct impact on the retirement pillars, since they eat away heavily from savings that are supposed to sustain the retirement years.

  • High education costs.

As with health care, education in the US is mostly considered a business. Education is no longer viewed as the foundation for raising the minds of future generations. Both public and private schools have the mandate to be financially viable, not to create knowledge. Students start life after graduation heavily indebted, and their disposable income is shrunk by the student debt, leaving them little opportunities to save for retirement.

  • Enormous amounts of public, private and personal debt.


US Household Debt. Financial obligations ratio and total outstanding nominal debt of US households. A household’s financial obligations ratio (FOR) is the ratio of its financial obligations (mortgage, consumer debt, automobile lease payments, rental payments on tenant-occupied property, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax payments) to its disposable income. Just before the financial crisis, households were spending almost 19 percent of their disposable income on servicing their debt. Total outstanding household debt also peaked in 2008 just before the financial crisis at almost $14 trillion. To put this amount in perspective, the entire US economy was worth $14.3 trillion that same year. Source: The Federal Reserve, quoted in Richard Heinberg The End of Growth.

“The expansion of expenditures like 401(k) retirement plans and mortgage interest deductibility has led to a decrease in effective rates at the top as more and more wealthy families take advantage of various tax breaks. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, more than half of the $900 billion paid in individual income tax expenditures and 80 percent of the tax deductions in 2013 accrued to households in the top 20 percent, with 17 percent accruing to the top 1 percent, while those in the middle income quintile received just 13 percent and those in the lowest 20 percent of income received just 8 percent. At the same time, transfer payments, the direct and in-kind payments that the government makes to individuals, receded. According to the CBO, in 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. (Joseph Stiglitz, Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy)

And more from Richard Heinberg, The End of Growth:

“These figures and many more other sources show how debt has eroded the functionality of the US economy. While credit and debt are natural tools of a market economy, the staggering amounts that have accumulated have diminished the PPP of the general population. Millennials can no longer hope, like their parents, to start in life from a zero-proposition (no debt), can no longer hope to buy a house, to form a family, under the same encouraging auspices.”

  • The 2008 recession, the housing bubble, the depreciation of personal assets

“With the crash in the US real estate market starting in 2007, household net worth also crashed (falling by a total of $17.5 trillion or 25.5 percent from 2007 to 2009 — equivalent to the loss of one year of GDP); and as unemployment rose from 4.6 percent in 2007 to almost ten percent (as officially measured) in 2010, average household income declined.“ (Richard Heinberg, The End of Growth.)

There is little hope for retirement planning for many who lost their homes, savings and employment mobility after the 2008 crisis. People are working longer hours for lower wages, pay equity for women has not been accomplished, paid sick and family leave is not mandated by law and is not universal. All these have increased the pressure on retirement planning.

Potential adult support ratio

McArdle writes: “The more workers there are relative to retirees, the smaller the fraction of their income each worker has to give up to support each retiree, and the easier it will be to get them to do so”. This is called the potential adult support ratio.

Would an increasing or decreasing trend in this ratio provide better support for a retirement system? Why?

To answer these questions we need to consider the following:

  • “Personal retirement plans are sold as a means of empowering the individual investor to get in on the game, but in practice they more frequently exploit a person’s ignorance and lack of negotiating power. For a middle-class worker’s 401(k) to perform well enough to retire on, he must not only invest like a pro but also never get seriously ill, never get divorced, and never get laid off. In other words, it doesn’t work in real life.” (Douglas Rushkoff, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus – How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity) People do not have the knowledge to manage their retirement investments.
  • the demographic trends – population growth may soon reach a plateau of unsustainable level for the resources of the planet

 Of course, raising the ratio indicates that a total population has greater number of potential workers to support the nonworking population. In theory this looks all nice. The big problem, however, is that climate change, raising cost of resources, financial instability, risk of global conflicts, put under severe scrutiny the very concept of the adult support ratio. Yes, we need a sustainable replacement fertility rate, or the human species goes extinct. On the other hand, we have reached the limits of neoliberal growth, we need a completely new mindset of economic thinking, that also considers the emergences of AI and robotics. For example: there are 3 million truckers in the US. That’s a sizeable % of the workforce. Specialists estimate that in 10-20 years trucks will be self-driven. There will not be 3 millions new jobs to replace those lost, and 3 million new young workers will not solve the problem, they will create even more problems.

Economic growth and productivity

Thomas Piketty writes in Capital in the 21st Century:

“According to official forecasts, progress toward the demographic transition at the global level should now accelerate, leading to eventual stabilization of the planet’s population. According to a UN forecast, the demographic growth rate should fall to 0.4 percent by the 2030s and settle around 0.1 percent in the 2070s. If this forecast is correct, the world will return to the very low-growth regime of the years before 1700. The global demographic growth rate would then have followed a gigantic bell curve in the period 1700–2100, with a spectacular peak of close to 2 percent in the period 1950–1990.” See figure below.


Positive population growth is necessary for:

  • The survival of the species
  • The potential exploration of the cosmos
  • Giving meaning to evolution by natural selection

Population growth alone won’t improve retirement outcomes:

  • We have reached the limits of economic growth in the neoliberal model
  • We are approaching a zero-marginal cost society (see Jeremy Rifkin’s The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism)
  • The emergence of AI and automation will drastically reduce the amount of available jobs
  • More people will put more pressure on the planet’s limited resources

Education for economic growth and productivity?

Education starts in preschool. New generations must learn that the neoliberal model is over. They must be taught to prepare for an after-growth society, when values will emerge not from consumption and production, but from the creating knowledge and maintaining an efficient balance with the environment. The concept of growth must be replaced with the concept of prosperity. Productivity will gradually be externalized to automation and Artificial Intelligence. The new economic models must consider a shift from the obsolete neoliberal model and shift to an economy of prosperity with zero-marginal cost, with virtually unlimited productivity.

Moreover, for baby boomers, Generation X, Y (millenials) and even Z (born 1995-2012), financialized retirement is still a harsh reality. Financial education must be promoted widely, cheaply and with persistence. Education ought to show the path to prosperity by finding the right balance between consumption, savings and leisure. Finding the right spot is the key to saving capitalism and moving on to a new society.

Savings, investments, and productivity

McArdle writes: “Unfortunately, productivity isn’t growing rapidly, and we didn’t have a lot of kids. That leaves plowing a great deal of money into savings and investment, in the hopes that productivity will start to grow again.”

More money going into savings and investments will NOT spur productivity. Let’s qualify and put this into context. Jeremy Rifkin, The Zero Marginal Cost Society:

“Until very recently, economists were content to measure productivity by two factors: machine capital and labor performance. But when Robert Solow—who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1987 for his growth theory—tracked the Industrial Age, he found that machine capital and labor performance only accounted for approximately 14 percent of all of the economic growth, raising the question of what was responsible for the other 86 percent. This mystery led economist Moses Abramovitz, former president of the American Economic Association, to admit what other economists were afraid to acknowledge—that the other 86 percent is a “measure of our ignorance.” Over the past 25 years, a number of analysts, including physicist Reiner Kümmel of the University of Würzburg, Germany, and economist Robert Ayres at INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France, have gone back and retraced the economic growth of the industrial period using a three-factor analysis of machine capital, labor performance, and thermodynamic efficiency of energy use. They found that it is “the increasing thermodynamic efficiency with which energy and raw materials are converted into useful work” that accounts for most of the rest of the gains in productivity and growth in industrial economies. In other words, “energy” is the missing factor.”

The neoclassical/neoliberal model has taught that productivity means roughly to produce the same amount of goods with less capital (including labor) or to produce more goods while capital remains constant. Rifkin and many other economists have pointed out that we are on the verge of exponential increases in non-labour productivity through the emergence of new smart technologies. We are soon going to reach the limit of the human productivity. While automation, software, and artificial intelligence will take over.

In this context, what does it mean to save more and invest more? What would we do with the savings when we will be unemployed and replace by an algorithm that does the work of 100 people? What would it mean to invest in technologies? Where does this money come from, if profits will go down because there will be nobody left to buy those products, because people will not afford to spend anything? These questions are only rhetorical vehicles to properly narrow down the heart of the matter. While the current neoliberal status quo continues, trudging its feet in debt and unemployment, savings will only serve as a temporary fix. Investments will push productivity further with unemployment side-effects. While it is true that some new technologies will create jobs, these new jobs will not offset the jobs displaced. We live in a world where tech companies worth tens of billions are create in garages and end up employing hundreds, perhaps a few thousands workers. These are the new realities. We need to completely redefine productivity.

What can government do to spur productivity?

Government must make sure innovation continues unimpeded, while making sure the social costs of innovation are well accounted for. Innovation has no social benefit if it displaces millions of jobs and lets millions of people scrambling for new opportunities after they have been laid off. Who can learn computer programming in their mid 50s, after having worked for 20 years in a car manufacturing company? It’s unrealistic. Not everyone can jump professions so easily just because market economy’s dictum is “adapt or die”.

Concrete policies that might spur productivity as we currently understand it, but are not limited to the following:

  • Limit the maximum working week at 40 hours or less, with target to drop to 30 hours
  • Overtime must be paid at least 1.5x and must have a maximum cap (say 50-60 hours/week)
  • Ban employer’s interference in the off-duty personal time of the employee (France has passed laws to ban employers to email employees after-hours)
  • Establish pay equity for women, African-Americans, Latinos and all social categories
  • Establish paid maternity leave, paid sick leave (in some European countries maternity leave is at least 12 paid months. 12 months! In Romania is 24 months!)
  • Establish federal paid vacation time of at least 3 weeks per year (this is the EU average, in some countries it’s 5 weeks)
  • Close loopholes of non-traditional employment (gig economy): contracts, part-time, internships, in such a way that these workers are not excluded from all the rules above.
  • Ban unpaid internships
  • Increase minimum wage to at least $15/hour if not more to match the increases in productivity since the 1970s.

What can employers do to spur productivity?

As we understand productivity, see my definition above, employers could take the following actions, but not limited to these:

  • Comply with all government initiatives indicated above
  • Institute family assistance programs, such as daycare near places of employment
  • Invest time in the training of employees in new technologies
  • Invest in the wellbeing and mental health of the employees
  • Seriously consider feedback from the employees in regards to the workplace environment, corporate culture, power relations at work
  • Conduct informal interviews (outsourced and confidential) to better understand workplace satisfaction, what motivates employees
  • Establish transparent work relations around the internal definition of productivity
  • Measure productivity not in financial terms, but in terms of employee satisfaction and in terms or general prosperity of the employees and of the customers served
  • Prepare for the post-growth society, and the economics of prosperity

Transforming the Retirement Security

Economic cycles are getting shorter and shorter. The US economy is drowning in unprecedented amounts of both public and private debt, while at the same time, major corporations have stashed trillions in overseas tax shelters. The planet is slowly but surely running out of resources. The population is growing close to unsustainable ecological levels. Income and wealth inequality is at historical highest and growing. The GINI index of the US is also growing. The gains in productivity since in the 1970s have not been met with parallel gains in income. The new wealth has gone almost in its entirety to the top 1% and 0.01%. This Great American Theft also has a few more key points:

  • The day the market crashed in 2008, Wall Street took $18 Billion (!) in bonuses

(The Retirement Gamble – documentary written by Marcela Gaviria and Martin Smith – aired on April 23, 2013 on Frontline, PBS: )

  • Over a lifetime, 401k fees can cost a median-income two-earner family nearly $155,000 and consume nearly one-third of their investment returns. (Robert Hiltonsmith, Source:
  • Expensive active managed mutual funds have failed to outperform index funds, while the majority of 401k were invested in AMMs. The fund managers got their fees regardless of performance, while the investors (the public) lost big chunks of their retirement savings
  • 80% of financial advisors are NOT fiduciaries, meaning they look after themselves not after their investors

Professor Guy Standing describes the situation in The Precariat  – The New Dangerous Class:

By 2009, only a fifth of US employees had company-based pensions. The main reason was that American firms were trying to cut costs to adjust to the globalization crisis. In 2009, US employers still offering health insurance were paying on average US$6,700 per employee a year, twice as much as in 2001. One response has been to offer core employees ‘high-deductible health care plans’, where they must pay the first tranche of medical costs up to a specified amount. Ford dropped its ‘no deductible’ plan in 2008, requiring employees and family members to pay the first US$400 before insurance compensation started and to pay 20 per cent of most medical bills. This was dismantling part of their income.  […]

Ford claimed it switched to self-managed retirement accounts to give workers portability, claiming that younger workers ‘don’t think of a career with one company any more’. In reality, the firm was cutting labour costs and transferring the risks and costs to workers. Their lives were being made more precarious.”

And countless many more examples.

The new social class that has emerged in the US and globally, is the precariat. It consists of the structurally unemployed, victims of the 2008 crisis, low-paid workers in precarious jobs, minimum wage workers, gig workers, indebted millenials, disabled adults, educated adults with incompatible skills for the labor market, overworked workers, undocumented immigrants, underprivileged classes (mostly African-Americans and Latinos).

To transform the US retirement system to meet all these challenges requires an enormous political will, an historical engagement of the population in grassroots movements, to transfer the fundamentals of the economy.

  1. The three pillars must be redesigned to meet the requirements of a post-growth economy.
  2. Direct transfers must increase: expand Social Security, expand Medicaid.
  3. Establish universal health care
  4. Establish free public education
  5. Regulate de financialization of the economy: ban derivatives that do not create economic value that is environmentally sustainable, establish a program of inter-institutional and international debt relief program, mandate the FED to focus on full-employment rather then inflation
  6. Increase the taxes on the 1% and 0.01%
  7. Increase corporate capital taxes
  8. Increase general capital tax and reduce income tax for low-income earners
  9. Reduce the work week hours to 30 hours maximum while maintaining the wage levels
  10. Establish a UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME. I will spend some more time on this point, since I believe is the fundamental policy that may truly change the US retirement system for the better.

In a study for the Roosevelt Institute, David E. Thigpen notes:

Between 2006 and 2010, the number of part-timers rose from 4 million to 9 million, and today stands at 6 million. That’s 6 million people who want a full-time job but cannot find one.

Source: Explainer_Designed.pdf

Many studies and economists in the post-2008 era have shown how the gig economy has grown, how job insecurity soared, how wages have stagnated, how wealth has gone to the richest, how labour force participation has decreased. Thigpen:

“Between 2007 and 2011, the percentage of unemployed who went without jobs for six months or longer increased from 18 percent to 44 percent. And general labor force participation (defined as the percentage of eligible workers who are actually working) is the lowest it’s been since 1977.”

What is Universal Basic Income (UBI) and how can it address these problems?

In a nutshell, an UBI, is a monthly no-strings attached, direct cash payment from the government to all adult citizens. From a philosophical point of view, it is free money. As utopic as it sounds, this concept has deep, fundamental consequences that might transform the foundations of society and the entire economy.

Many successful projects have shown the viability of the concept. UBI has been tested on small scales and it worked: Madhya Pradesh (India), Otjivero-Omitara (Namibia), Manitoba (Canada). Ongoing experiments are underway in the Netherlands, Finland, Ontario (Canada). See this documentary: by Jozef Devillé featuring Guy Standing, Phillippe Van Parijs (philosopher, co-founder European Basic Income Network, BE), Enno Schmidt (Co-initiator of the Swiss Citizen’s Initiative on Basic Income, CH), Daniel Hani (Co-initiator of the Swiss Citizen’s Initiative on Basic Income, CH) and others.

These are the guiding principles of an UBI:

  • General wealth is created by sharing common resources: material resources, knowledge, infrastructure. Therefore, wealth must be fairly distributed in society, while preserving the principles of free enterprise, market economy, and democracy.
  • We are bound as a species to sharing one planetary environment. This serves as a natural source for global principles of solidarity and equality. All citizens of all categories must stand on an equal foundation of safety, happiness, and decent life. Therefore, an UBI would provide an income for all citizens, including the rich.
  • An UBI must allow citizens to have true bargaining power on the labor market. They should be able to say “no” to gig precarious jobs.
  • Work that does not generate income by the standard of today’s market economy must be recognized as labor and be compensated through an UBI. Such as: caring for one’s parents, caring for one’s disabled children, managing households, participating in community building, educating children to become members of an active society
  • The new economy of prosperity must recognize the natural talents that are not compensated by the market economy. Poets, artists, writers, nature lovers, explorers may not necessarily contribute to the market economy but they do contribute to the growth of the spirit of the nation. A nation without a spirit cannot live up to its potential. No nation survives its glorious history when its spirit succumbs to the trivialities of daily transactions.
  • The UBI glorifies freedom. In this way the concept appeals to both the left and the right political spectrum. The freedom conceptualized as choosing the life you truly want, and the activities you truly find willing to perform.
  • UBI would pay for the fundamentals of living and would not endorse idleness directly. However, idleness is a byproduct stigma of capitalism. Idleness may spawn great ideas. Even idleness on the verge of anti-social anarchy may be transformed towards loss of reputation but with no loss of dignity. UBI would preserve dignity but will not guarantee the preservation of reputation. In this way, the natural variances in character and personality will be truly liberalized and be out in the open square of public consideration. Moreover, the natural disposition of humans is towards activity and not prolonged idleness.
  • UBI drastically reduces the enormous bureaucracy of the welfare state. Many direct transfers can be eliminated and replaced by an UBI: unemployment, social security. In the long run, UBI may even replace the first and part of the second pillar of the retirement system.

UBI is not a new concept and is not revolutionary. It is a natural consequence of the status quo of US economy. The retirement system is fragile, the political environment is in turmoil and the population has become tired with the American Dream that resembles more of nightmare than of hope. Fundamental changes are required to change the US retirement system.


The 401(k) Problem We Refuse to Solve

The biggest flaw in the retirement plan is that no one saves enough. 

By Megan McArdle

Was the 401(k) a tragic mistake?

When you use one of those online calculators to estimate your expected income in retirement, it can sure seem so. Investment returns have proven variable, and individuals are often prone to making idiotic mistakes (like selling everything when the market crashes, which is literally the worst possible time to do so). And that’s only for people who have a 401(k); many people decline to participate in a plan, even when their employer offers matching grants. And according to the Wall Street Journal, the early boosters are turning sour on the whole idea.

“The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions,” former American Society of Pension Actuaries head Gerald Facciani told the Journal. “It was oversold.”

This is true. On the other hand, so was Social Security oversold. As was that good ol’ defined benefit pension, so beloved of editorial writers, which was available to only a minority of workers when the 401(k) sprang into being. Nor were those pensions necessarily the generous perpetual incomes of popular imagining; autoworkers and public-sector employees got a great deal, but most people were not working for either the government or General Motors. They got smaller pensions — sometimes much smaller, if their companies failed and dumped the pensions onto the government’s pension insurer.

There’s a perpetual pundit debate over the best way to provide for retirement: defined benefit plans (pensions), defined contribution plans (401(k)s, IRAs and the like) or pay-as-you-go social insurance schemes (Social Security). Most retirement experts I’ve talked to prefer a mix of these, a “three-legged stool.” But as I’ve written before, this is a bit like arguing whether the Titanic would have survived the iceberg if only its hull had been painted green. All three types of retirement savings have different costs and benefits. But these costs and benefits are not the primary reason that people in Western countries have to worry about an impoverished old age.

The funny thing is that, for all the people arguing that some dire problem in one of these three retirement systems urgently requires that we switch to another kind at once, the major problem with all three is exactly the same. It’s even a problem that’s easy to state and easy to fix — no need for extensive blue-ribbon commissions or elaborate white papers. Here’s the solution: Pick whichever system you prefer; it really doesn’t matter. Now slap a 10 to 15 percent surcharge on a worker’s wage income, and divert that money into the system for the worker’s future use. Problem basically solved, because in all three cases, the only flaw that actually matters is that they’re badly underfunded.

If you expect to spend 40 years of your life working, and then another 20 or 30 years living off the money you made during that time, then you need to save a large portion of your salary. Imagine yourself storing up food for the last 30 years of your life from the harvests made during the first 40. You might hope that when you’re older, and no longer toiling in the fields, you won’t need to eat so much. Nonetheless, you’d understand that you would need to put aside a considerable portion of your harvest — something close to what you’re eating each day — to ensure that you don’t starve to death in your old age.

Somehow, we imagine that modern society can make the math different for all the other stuff we consume, from cars to televisions to little paper umbrellas to stick in the cocktails at our retirement parties. And to be fair, to some extent, it has. If productivity is growing quickly, then it is easier to maintain our pre-retirement lifestyles with a smaller pool of savings, because that savings will buy more.

Alternatively, we can have a lot of kids. No matter how you manage your retirement system, you are ultimately expecting to depend on the labor of people younger than you. Whether that labor comes to you in the form of a dividend check or a government benefit or a saintly daughter-in-law building you a new annex in the backyard, you are still expecting someone else younger than you to make stuff, then give it to you without expecting more than gratitude in return. The more workers there are relative to retirees, the smaller the fraction of their income each worker has to give up to support each retiree, and the easier it will be to get them to do so.

Unfortunately, productivity isn’t growing rapidly, and we didn’t have a lot of kids. That leaves plowing a great deal of money into savings and investment, in the hopes that productivity will start to grow again. There is no substitute, no neat transformation we can enact to make that fundamental problem go away.

All the pundits and experts and not a few politicians have been telling us the exact same thing for decades: The retirement system doesn’t have enough money in it. Yet somehow, we are no closer to the obvious solution of putting more money in it. Arguably, in fact, we’re further away, because these endless arguments about the form that our savings should take provide us an excuse to put off doing the saving.

So why do we spend so much time complaining about some side problem with one of the systems, instead of the major problem with all three? Because none of the experts know how to get people to actually do this: to save 15 to 20 percent of their income, or sit still for a law that would make them. Nor has any clever technocrat come up with a way to sort of slip this by folks without their really noticing.

The 401(k) was not the miracle cure for our retirement problems that was promised by some of its more zealous advocates. But it wasn’t a mistake, either, or at least not the important one. The important mistake was deciding that we could spend our first 25 years in school, and our last 25 years in retirement, without cutting our consumption in between. And, at least to date, that’s one mistake we don’t seem to be able to learn from.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

URBAN DICTIONARY OF THE YEAR 2069: How to give birth as a man

(USAGE of the text: click on the number to go to the GLOSSARY, click again to come back to the main text. Multiple readings are highly recommended)

A new fashion has been remarked and promoted by the mainstream media: the portable uterus for men, colloquially known as puterus[1]. They are laced with a titanium shield. The encasing is built with strong flexible nanotubes. The interior contains amniotic fluid. The puterus expands as the foetus expands. The puterus is connected to the man’s bellybutton with an organic fiber glass cord. The wireless puterus connects via Bluetooth to the man’s Pruvia[2], brain helmet or any other smart device.

Originally developed as a game by the PenIsis Corporation for for high-achieving men, the portable uteruses have gone viral since they got endorsement from the most powerful enthusiastic feminists in the nation. Why? It is a philosophical and humanistic matter. Men have thus achieved full equality on the biological level field of life. Procreation is not being fully outsourced to men, but now becomes fully integrated with the social norms of work/life/family balance.

Supperversed[3] men with high-achieving wives have gladly attached themselves to puteruses and showcased them with pride in business meetings, on golf courses, at sport events, or on the calm lakeshore of their cottages. Competty[4] manhood is the new form of procreation, dubbed by some critics as archaean and artificial. None of these critics have went viral and they got buried soon by mainstream media, that is now flooding the nation with free advertising.

Flicing[5], glossy headlines push the puteruses as the game-changing device of the 21st century, the finalization of the global emancipation of women and the glorious end of the obsolete tradition of the bi-parental family unit, that has proven time and again challenging, depressing and basically anti-evolutinary.

Take for example the lawlessness of the oldfashioned insemination procedures that required the consent and the presence of women, the 9-month agony for the natural uterus, the mood swings and appetite rollercoaster of the carrying woman, unpredictable sex drive, the ballooning of the mammary glands followed by their disappointing reduction to their original size or to a lesser ampercup[6] with a total loss of verve. Thus, little benefits for both the woman and the disenfranchised man.

Equilibrium was needed. The first puterus models had a unious[7] feature that allowed two people to be connected to the same uterus via quantum USB ports. They had a SHIPME command, to allow one of the two people to disconnect and transfer all responsabilities to the other person. This model did not prove very successful for a very simple reason. People did not like to be stuck together for too long. The model was perceived as annoying handcuffs and it only sold 1 million units, resulting in about 10000 newborn. Hundres of lawsuits were also registered between the two individuals.

The next model that came out had a bimount[8] not for two people but for one person and one artificial caring robot, that could replace the man, in case of emergencies. The undiscarded notion of responsibility was taken by the early adopters to the level of a fantastic promise: We are going to be the mothers of the future!, these proud men said and wore on their t-shirts while walking their puteruses in the park.

These brave men have preexposed the stupidity of the critics who do not understand that mankind needs to move forward towards the next level of existence, because evolution and change is inevitable in the universe.

PenIsis Corp has expanded their line of portable uteruses with a designer model that has a super olated HD screen on the exterior. The screen shows an enhanced animation of the life of the foetus with pseudocaptive infographics and fast editing so people watching do not get bored. The screen can also display colodraked[9] advertising, but not so many men want to use this feature, mainly because advertisers cannot afford the price.

How do men carry around the portable uteruses?

All models come with the standard backpack with the standard two adjustable straps. Other options include: the frontpack that has bricals[10] instead of straps, thus giving a more natural look like that of the standard pregnant woman. Then there is the ensuitz[11]-puterus that can be worn as a side-suitcase by businessmen. This model has an executive look and goes well with business jackets.

Then there is the amendable stroller on wheels that can be pushed or pulled, more spacious, dratted[12] with storage space, pockets and a rechargeable battery. This model is popular with the upper middle-class men. Then there is the klycist[13] purse: good for weekends and nights out with the guys.

There are very few reports on the actual births from portable puteruses. We managed to go undercover to such a birth and we are now able to report.

At duedate, the puterus sends a signal to the carrying man that the time is up. It never happens during the night, or office hours. It never happens before breakfast or the morning bathroom visit.

The man packs his bag and calls a self-taxi. The self-taxi drives itself within the speed limit to the pre-ordered hospital. At the hospital, the man swipes his PenIsis card. He is welcomed by the staff and guided to the reception area for advanced births. The typinger[14]-nurse takes care of the paperwork, that is completely digital. The man is comped[15] with the PenIsis mainframe. He gets a pair of averpants[16], a prectee[17] for the puterus and vitamis for his slippiness[18].

One hour later, the man is taken to the delivery room. The roof of the delivery room is a super HD screen with the patient’s favorite movies, news channels and social media applications. This keeps the man satisfied, while the risk of non-vivability of the foetus is practically null.

During this tropopause[19] that lasts for three hours, while the medical staff downloads the foetus information, the man brazes the nicest thoughts he can produce, also helped by the mushroom soup he is being fed intravenously. The man feels counived[20] with the foetus. The man becomes emotional, often cries and calls out for his significant other. This defeats the purpose of the independence and emancipation the man has signed up for, so the calls for his significant other are denied, for the benefit of the man. Men do not like to have regrets.

When the time comes, the man is put into a deep coma, under full anesthetic, while the entire operation is recorded in 3D for his future enjoyment. The etiquist[21]-doctor supervises the delivery protocols. The gynecologist posts everything on social media in real time. The part-time nurse unzips the puterus and extracts the foetus. The assistant parttime nurse applies Rescuepuré[22] cream over the newborn, washes the newborn, staples the barcode label to the newborn’s ankles and then sits down near the man to check his vitals. The man remains heavily underplanted[23] for another hour.

When the man wakes up, the entire PenIsis staff is there to congratulate him. He receives the delivery certificate, selfies are taken and the quality of the newborn is cityly[24] distributed online. After everyone leaves, the man makes the final payment, collects the newborn and leaves the hospital in a self-taxi.



[1] puterus: post-patriarchal high-tech uterus

[2] pruvia: quantum multi-potent gadget

[3] supperversed: people with high manners at supper and capable of socializing in rhymes

[4] competty: petty and competitive at the same time

[5] flicing: flowery and sweet like 3D printed cake icing

[6] ampercup: breast cupsize with variable amperage

[7] unious: unisexual and pious

[8] bimount: mechanical adapter initially invented for bisexuals

[9] colodraked: colored, shape-shifting design invented by early 21st century vocalist Drake

[10] bricals: artificial organic muscles that can be installed on the outside of the body

[11] ensuitz: portable, executive attire that can be compressed to fit a tiny box

[12] dratted: inflated, sometimes bloated, like pregnant she-rats

[13] klycist: next generation bikes that can fly like kites

[14] typinger: person highly qualified to type with their fingers

[15] comped: connected ermetically like a pump in a cylinder

[16] averpants: pants that can cause no aversion to the genitals

[17] prectee: cautionary prosthesis to prevent rectum escapes

[18] slippiness: a form of neurological slippery sleepiness

[19] tropopause: a break inspired by the Rastafarian philosophy developed at the tropics in the 20th century

[20] counived: being united comically and verified by a 3rd party

[21] etiquist: responsible with etiquette and product labeling

[22] Rescuepuré: bestselling rescue beauty cream

[23] underplanted: unconscious like a plant

[24] cityly: city-wide but excluding the slums

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment