Will “Blank Space” Stay #1?

As Taylor Swift notches her personal best sixth week at #1 on Billboard’s Hot 100 with “Blank Space,” I can’t help but wonder whether there will be a seventh or an eighth week. “Shake It Off,” while only #1 for four weeks, was in the top two for a solid twelve weeks. Is “Blank Space” destined to be as long-lived?

I have poured through the data released by Billboard in their weekly run-downs of the Hot 100’s top ten to make projections for the four songs most likely to challenge Swift for the top spot over the next two weeks. Billboard guards its chart methodology very closely, but occasionally give us clues. On September 29th, 2013, Billboard revealed that the desired ratio of sales:airplay:streaming was 35-45%:30-40%:20-30% (40%:35%:25%). Unfortunately, Billboard has tweaked its methodology twice since then in order to maintain its desired ratio (because streaming was becoming too prominent), and has likely changed the desired ratio itself to reflect the increasing revenue that is being generated from streaming. So, I am going to run the numbers assuming that streaming is now worth 5% more of the formula at the sole expense of sales (which have been falling upwards of 13%/year) and assuming that the ratio still holds (since streaming still makes up a substantially smaller share of revenue than sales). The points spread should work with a typical hit. Taylor Swift’s “Blank Space” for the week ending December 13th, 2014 is a good candidate, except that she tends to be more sales-heavy than other artists. So, I am using 200,000 track sales as a benchmark rather than 249,000. Now for the math:

Assume: 137m radio = 35%. 12.2m streams = 30%. 200,000 track sales = 35%. 

That means that 137m radio/35 = 3.9m radio = 12.2m streams/30 = .407m streams = 200,000 sales/35 = 5714 sales= 1%. Or, 1 sale = .407m streams/5714 = 71.23 streams = 3.9m radio/5714 = 682.53 radio impressions.

Assume: 137m radio = 35%. 12.2m streams = 25%. 200,000 track sales = 40%. 

That means that 137m radio/35 = 3.9m radio = 12.2m streams/25 = .488m streams = 200,000 sales/40 = 5000 sales= 1%. Or, 1 sale = .488m streams/5000 = 97.6 streams = 3.9m radio/5000 = 780 radio impressions.

For the actual ratio in use at the time of Miley Cyrus’ Wrecking Ball last fall, assume: 38m radio = 7%. 14.3m streams = 50%. 301,000 sales = 43%. Also, compare stats from “Roar,” by Katy Perry: 159m radio = 31%, 7.3m streams = 26%, 301,000 sales = 43%. 

Wrecking Ball: 38m radio/7 = 5.43m radio = 14.3m streams/50 = .286m streams = 301,000 sales/43 = 7000 sales= 1%. Or, 1 sale = .286m streams/7000 = 40.86 streams = 5.43m radio/7000 = 775.71 radio impressions. Roar: 159m radio/31 = 5.13m radio = 7.3m streams/26 = .281m streams = 301,000 sales/43 = 7000 sales= 1%. Or, 1 sale = .281m streams/7000 = 40.14 streams = 5.13m radio/7000 = 732.86 radio impressions. Average of Wrecking Ball and Roar: 1 sale = 40.5 streams = 754.285 radio impressions. 

OK, so now we have three possible scorecards. Old ratio: 1 track sold = 40.5 streams = 754.285 radio impressions. New Ratio A: 1 sale = 71.23 streams =  682.53 radio impressions. AND New Ratio B: 1 sale = 97.6 streams = 780 radio impressions.

NOTE: These numbers are somewhat shocking because Billboard equates 1500 streams to 10 track downloads to 1 album sale (150 streams = 1 track sale) for the revamped Billboard 200 chart. Billboard explained settling on 1500 streams=1 album (as opposed to the older standard of 2000:1) in terms of the revenue generated per stream. It appears that Billboard substantially overemphasizes streaming (and perhaps radio) relative to its actual role in generating revenue for the purposes of the Hot 100. 

Finally: The Numbers!!!

Next, I poured through all of the old Billboard articles and pulled out all of the numbers relevant to the current top five hits. In parentheses underneath the actual figures, I have notated my personal estimates for future data.

~ Data is extrapolated from a statement like, “218,000, down 18% from last week.”
– Data is not accessible for a week in which other data is accessible.
* #5 on Billboard On Demand songs chart
** Rose to #1 on Billboard On Demand Songs chart (and is still #1)
*** Up 1%
**** Down 1%
^ Weekly performance (probably) temporarily boosted by performance on The Voice season finale, Grammy nomination, and/or performance at Victoria’s Secret special.

Lips Are Movin – Meghan Trainor (Currently #5)
Sales
~51,492
69,000
~107,843
110,000
116,000
152,000
(185,260)
(200,000)
(215,000)

Radio Impressions
–
–
28.6 million
36 million
44 million
50 million
(57.4 million)
(65 million)
(72 million)

Streams
~2.43 million
5.3 million
~6.5 million
7.8 million
8 million
8.6 million
(9.1 million)
(9.6 million)
(10.1 million)

Thinking Out Loud – Ed Sheeran (Currently #4)
Sales
~61,161
137,000^
214,000
(239,260)
(250,000)
(270,000)

Radio Impressions
~19.58 million
28 million^
39 million
(52 million)
(67 million)
(82 million)

Streams
~4.52 million
6.1 million^
7.4 million
(8.7 million)
(9.4 million)
(10.1 million)

Uptown Funk – Mark Ronson, ft. Bruno Mars (Currently #3)
Sales
~100,000
117,000
152,000
170,000
288,000^
(265,000)
(275,000)
(305,000)

Radio Impressions
~20.9 million
28 million
37 million
49 million
63 million^
(80 million)
(95 million)
(112 million)

Streams
~2.49 million
4.4 million
5.2 million
6.2 million
7.9 million^
(9.2 million)
(10 million)
(10.7 million)

Take me to Church – Hozier (Currently #2)
Sales
–
~131,343
176,000
~158,586
157,000
202,000^
244,000^
(230,000)
(230,000)
(225,000)

Radio Impressions
–
~43.7 million
52 million
~60 million
70 million
78 million^
91 million^
(106 million)
(118 million)
(130 million)

Streams
–
~5.79 million
7 million
~7.1 million
8.3 million
9.4 million^
9.8 million^
(10.4 million)
(10.7 million)
(10.7 million)

On Demand (Subset of Streams)
2.6 million*
3.1 million**
3.4 million
3.8 million
3.8 million***
4.5 million
5 million^
5 million^****
(4.8 million)
(4.6 million)
(4.3 million)

Blank Space – Taylor Swift (Currently #1)

Sales
–
–
328,000
302,000
342,000
254,000
249,000
228,000
(212,000)
(199,000)
(182,000)

Radio Impressions
~25.26 million
49 million
70 million
89 million
112 million
131 million
137 million
144 million
(147 million)
(147 million)
(140 million)

Streams
–
–
19.2 million
14.2 million
14.2 million
12 million
12.2 million
11.4 million
(10.8 million)
(10.4 million)
(10 million)

Old ratio: 1 track sold = 40.5 streams = 754.285 radio impressions.

Lips Are Movin – Meghan Trainor (Currently #5)
152,000 50 million 8.6 million=>212,346+66,288+152,000=430,634 TSE (Track-Sale Equivalents). #5

(185,260) (57.4 million) (9.1 million)=>185,260+76,098.56+224,691.36=486,050 TSE. #5
(200,000) (65 million) (9.6 million)=>237,037+86,174.32+200,000=523,211 TSE. #5
(215,000) (72 million) (10.1 million)=>249,383+95,455+215,000=559,837 TSE. #5
Thinking Out Loud – Ed Sheeran (Currently #4)
214,000 39 million 7.4 million=>182,716+51,705+214,000=448,420 TSE. #4

(239,260) (52 million) (8.7 million)=>214,815+68,939+239,260=523,014 TSE. #4

(250,000) (67 million) (9.4 million)=>232,099+88,826+250,000=570,925 TSE. #4
(270,000) (82 million) (10.1 million)=>249,383+108,712+270,000=628,095 TSE. #3
Uptown Funk – Mark Ronson, ft. Bruno Mars (Currently #3)
288,000 63 million 7.9 million=>195,062+83,523+288,000=566,585 TSE. #3

(265,000) (80 million) (9.2 million)=>227,160+106,061+265,000=598,221 TSE. #3
(275,000) (95 million) (10 million)=>246,914+125,947+275,000=647,861 TSE. #3
(305,000) (112 million) (10.7 million)=>264,198+148,485+305,000=717,63 TSE. #1
Take me to Church – Hozier (Currently #2)
244,000 91 million 9.8 million=>241,975+120,644+244,000=606,619 TSE. #2

(230,000) (106 million) (10.4 million)=>256,790+140,530+230,000=627,321 TSE. #2
(230,000) (118 million) (10.7 million)=>264,198+156,440+230,000=650,637 TSE. #1
(225,000) (130 million) (10.7 million)=>264,198+172,349+225,000=661,546 TSE. #2
Blank Space – Taylor Swift (Currently #1)
228,000 144 million 11.4 million=>281,481+190,909+228,000=700,391 TSE. #1

(212,000) (147 million) (10.8 million)=>266,667+194,887+212,000=673,553 TSE. #1
(199,000) (147 million) (10.4 million)=>256,790+194,887+199,000=650,677 TSE. #2
(182,000) (140 million) (10 million)=>246,914+185,606+182,000=614,520 TSE. #4

New Ratio A: 1 sale = 71.23 streams =  682.53 radio impressions.

Lips Are Movin – Meghan Trainor (Currently #5)
152,000 50 million 8.6 million=>120,736+73,257+152,000=345,992 TSE. #5

(185,260) (57.4 million) (9.1 million)=>127,755+84,099+185,260=397,114 TSE. #5
(200,000) (65 million) (9.6 million)=>134,775+95,234+200,000=430,009 TSE. #5
(215,000) (72 million) (10.1 million)=>141,794+105,490+215,000=462,284 TSE. #5
Thinking Out Loud – Ed Sheeran (Currently #4)
214,000 39 million 7.4 million=>103,889+57,140+214,000=375,029 TSE. #4

(239,260) (52 million) (8.7 million)=>122,140+76,187+239,260=437,587 TSE. #4
(250,000) (67 million) (9.4 million)=>131,967+98,164+250,000=480,131 TSE. #4
(270,000) (82 million) (10.1 million)=>141,794+120,141+270,000=531,935 TSE. #3
Uptown Funk – Mark Ronson, ft. Bruno Mars (Currently #3)
288,000 63 million 7.9 million=>110,908+92,304+288,000=491,212 TSE. #3

(265,000) (80 million) (9.2 million)=>129,159+117,211+265,000=511,370 TSE. #3
(275,000) (95 million) (10 million)=>140,390+139,188+275,000=554,578 TSE. #1
(305,000) (112 million) (10.7 million)=>150,218+164,095+305,000=619,313 TSE. #1
Take me to Church – Hozier (Currently #2)
244,000 91 million 9.8 million=>137,582+133,327+244,000=514,910 TSE. #2

(230,000) (106 million) (10.4 million)=>146,006+155,305+230,000=531,310 TSE. #2
(230,000) (118 million) (10.7 million)=>150,218+172,886+230,000=553,104 TSE. #3
(225,000) (130 million) (10.7 million)=>150,218+190,468+225,000=565,685 TSE. #2
Blank Space – Taylor Swift (Currently #1)
228,000 144 million 11.4 million=>160,045+210,980+228,000=599,025 TSE. #1

(212,000) (147 million) (10.8 million)=>151,622+215,375+212,000=578,997 TSE. #1
(199,000) (147 million) (10.4 million)=>146,006+215,375+199,000= 560,381 TSE. #2
(182,000) (140 million) (10 million)=>140,390+205,119+182,000=527,509 TSE. #4

New Ratio B: 1 sale = 97.6 streams = 780 radio impressions.

Lips Are Movin – Meghan Trainor (Currently #5)
152,000 50 million 8.6 million=>88,115+64,103+152,000=304,217 TSE. #5

(185,260) (57.4 million) (9.1 million)=>93,238+73,590+185,260=352,087 TSE. #5
(200,000) (65 million) (9.6 million)=>98,361+83,333+200,000=381,694 TSE. #5
(215,000) (72 million) (10.1 million)=>103,484+92,308+215,000=410,791 TSE. #5
Thinking Out Loud – Ed Sheeran (Currently #4)
214,000 39 million 7.4 million=>75,820+50,000+214,000=339,820 TSE. #4

(239,260) (52 million) (8.7 million)=>89,139+66,667+239,260=395,066 TSE. #4
(250,000) (67 million) (9.4 million)=>96,311+85,897+250,000=432,209 TSE. #4
(270,000) (82 million) (10.1 million)=>103,484+105,128+270,000=478,612 TSE. #3
Uptown Funk – Mark Ronson, ft. Bruno Mars (Currently #3)

288,000 63 million 7.9 million=>80,943+80,769+288,000=449,712 TSE. #3

(265,000) (80 million) (9.2 million)=>94,262+102,564+265,000=461,826 TSE. #3
(275,000) (95 million) (10 million)=>102,459+121,795+275,000=499,254 TSE.#
(305,000) (112 million) (10.7 million)=>109,631+143,590+305,000=558,221 TSE.
Take me to Church – Hozier (Currently #2)
244,000 91 million 9.8 million=>100,410+116,667+244,000=461,077 TSE. #2

(230,000) (106 million) (10.4 million)=>106,557+135,897+230,000=472,455 TSE. #2
(230,000) (118 million) (10.7 million)=>109,631+151,282+230,000=490,913 TSE. #3
(225,000) (130 million) (10.7 million)=>109,631+166,667+225,000=501,298 TSE. #2
Blank Space – Taylor Swift (Currently #1)
228,000 144 million 11.4 million=>116,803+184,615+228,000=529,419 TSE. #1

(212,000) (147 million) (10.8 million)=>110,656+188,462+212,000=511,117 TSE. #1
(199,000) (147 million) (10.4 million)=>106,557+188,462+199,000=494,019 TSE. #2
(182,000) (140 million) (10 million)=>102,459+179,487+182,000=463,946 TSE. #4

Conclusion

So, as we can see, Taylor Swift is very likely to maintain her position next week, and has close to even odds of pulling off an eighth week. However, it would probably take a miracle for her to pull off a ninth week at #1. Rather, she is very likely to drop multiple positions three weeks from now, even assuming that no new hits break into the upper rungs in that time. Short of all of the other songs peaking suddenly, “Blank Space” is not going to come close to the 12 week stay of “Shake It Off” in the Top 2. But does that mean Shake it Off was a bigger hit? Not necessarily. Keep in mind that “Shake it Off” only spent four weeks at #1, while “Blank Space” is project to spend 7-8 weeks at #1. The real difference is the competition. “Shake it Off” and “All About that Base” both peaked at almost exactly the same time and were not in competition with any other songs for months. By contrast, we now have four songs skyrocketing u the chart, each of which could soon challenge “Blank Space” in its own right (including “Lips Are Movin,” on which I might very well have been too harsh in my projection). It is sheer luck both that “Shake it Off” managed 12 weeks in the top two AND that it only managed 4 weeks at #1. You also have to consider that “Blank Space” is a bit handicapped on sales because so many people have already (or plan to) bought the album.” “Blank Space” seems to be peeking around the 149 million radio impressions of “Shake it Off.” The songs were both two of the strongest of the year.

A Few Extra Tidbits

Billboard revamped its scoring system to de-emphasize streaming for the week ending November 22nd 2014. But they also did the same thing at the end of 2013. Lady Gaga debuted at #8 with “Dope” in the week ending 11/9/14 with 8.2 million streams (good for #1 on Streaming Songs), and 31,000 track sales (good for #60 on Digital songs), with virtually no radio airplay. G.U.Y. debuted at #76 with 72% of its chart points due to 2 million US streams.

In forming my projections, I didn’t really take into account the fact that sales are peaking and should drop off substantially two weeks after Christmas. But I see no reason why that should affect any particular artist more than the others. Uptown Funk, which has the most robust sales figures, will probably be affected by the sales drop-off least, which should offset the fact that it has the most to lose.

Partisanship is Poison

Question

I vote for democrats almost exclusively. I probably will continue to do so for some time into the future. Why? Lots of reasons. They are less racist. They more accurately represent the democratic majority because the system is skewed towards the powerful, who tend to vote for Republicans. In short, the democrats need my vote. I’m also gay, so that probably biases my perspective to some extent. But, no matter how appealing I find the democratic party, there is one thing that stops me from being a partisan: about half of the country disagrees with me. Almost 61 million people voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. Did 61 million people really weigh the same question that had such a clear answer for me and come up with the wrong answer? Is the question, “Which party is most likely to maximize good for the greatest number of people if elected at this moment in time?” really such a difficult question that it is a crap shoot? If that were the question posed, and it had a clear answer, statistics tells us that there would be a decisive majority in favor of that answer when there is such a large sample size. Why then, is it so close to a crap shoot?

Answer

The first answer is that not everyone is answering the same question. Very few people make 100% of their voting decision on the basis of what is best for everyone. People are likely to weight the decision very heavily towards what is good for them, their families, friends, and communities. Someone who is gay, for example, is unlikely to be enthralled about the prospect of voting for a party that has actively sought to undermine the equality movement. Someone who owns 52% of a Fortune 500 company is unlikely to be enthralled about voting for a “socialist.” The second answer is that some people (read many people) actively seek to distort the idea spectrum in favor of the policies or positions that they support. Since the powerful have, by definition, more power, they have more ability to influence or distort (or prevent others from influencing or distorting) the ideas, thoughts, and perceptions of others in society. Theoretically, this effect could mask the “clear majority” if it were to come into existence, regardless.

Reason

I posit that the rational pursuit of self-interest drives all behavior. For a more in depth discussion, see my article on the topic. But, for our purposes here, it is sufficient to say that I don’t try to bend over backwards to say that altruistic deeds are self-interested “because they make you feel good.” They may make you feel good, but the real question is why they make you feel good. “Feeling good” is an evolutionarily adaptation that involves the secretion of specific chemicals given specific stimuli. Why did we evolve to secrete those chemicals when we do things that don’t apparently increase our likelihood of successful reproduction? The answer is that they do. It may not make us more likely to reproduce successfully if our neighbor has enough flour to bake bread for dinner and to thereby feed his kids. But, it does make him more likely to reproduce successfully, and he shares 99.99% of our genes. Further, we have a relationship with him, which entails long-term collective action, which could essentially benefit us through reciprocity. We are more likely to care about helping someone who is directly related to us than someone who lives in our community than someone who is just in our race than someone who is just human than someone who is just a primate, than someone who is merely in the same kingdom (anamalia) as us than someone who is just alive, than someone who is not alive but shares many characteristics with life, including reproductive material and evolution, than something that is not alive and shares very few characteristics with life. Essentially, I posit that the perception and characteristics of self exist in everything, just to a greater or lesser extent, and that the pursuit of self-interest therefore includes, to some extent, the pursuit of the interests of others. So, what then, is the meaning of life? Life is just an extension of self. I am life. Things that are like me are alive and are therefore worth caring about. Things that are not like me are not alive and are not worth preserving. Why do I have that attitude? Because the genes that make me who I am were more likely to be preserved if they were conducive to that attitude.

Implications

What are the implications of this perspective for the fundamental political question that we are looking at? If everyone is just a rational automaton pursuing her interest in the best way she can based on her perception of reality, then the political system we have will to some (distorted) extent inevitably and pluralistically represent the interests of everyone. There are plenty of problems. There are many opportunities for prisoners’ dilemmas to sprout, for example. Also, the system is highly biased towards the status quo, and therefore against change. But, when a broad (and passionate) consensus emerges surrounding an issue, it ceases to be a partisan issue, and it is resolved correctly in our system.

Another implication is that it may be useless to get too excited about politics. Sorry, Bernie Sanders fans. America is never going to wake up and see the light and become a socialist state. There are reasons that Americans vote the way they do and support the the things they support. If you want Americans to support your extreme ideology, you have to change the fundamental drivers behind the voting patterns. It is not so simple as winning an argument. Of course, this perspective also indicates that almost all of you will ignore me and do whatever you were going to do anyways.

Conclusion

People get so emotionally invested in their arguments. They become so focused on being vindicated as being right. They gain a religious fervor for their political positions, and they know that they are right because they have weighed the choices and have found a clear answer. But there is always someone else who knows just as fervently that their incompatible position is correct. It is obvious to me that someone is wrong about what they know. Who is wrong? How is it possible for so many people to believe that they know things that so many other people believe that they know to be false? People aren’t asking exactly the same questions. They don’t perceive reality the same way. They think they know far more than they actually do. People are extraordinarily biased in subconscious ways that they don’t even come close to recognizing. They see things through a filtered lens that automatically looks for ways to discard things that are inconsistent with their “truth,” and bends over backwards to cling to what is already solid. Why? Part of it is to stay sane. If you think too much or too carefully about the fundamental, unsolvable questions, you might go insane, and that could detriment your ability to pass on your genes to the next generation. We may be fundamentally programmed to latch on to a perception of reality and then to cling to that perception. We need logic and rationality, and we need the world to make sense. It is who we are. So we make it make sense, and we lie to ourselves about what we are doing.

So, we should all try to be a little bit more humble in our political (and religious) discussions, and recognize that we know far less than we think we do. We should do less truth-imparting and more truth-seeking in calm reflection. We should stop becoming so emotionally invested in politics, and recognize that it is just a power game. We should attack it coldly and logically and recognize what is really going on. We should stop getting upset when politicians lie to us. We should either vote them out of office or stop worrying about it. We should stop freaking out about the dishonesty of politicians, and recognize that they are only humans reacting to the circumstances we created. If we want, we can change that system, and until we are prepared to do that, we should stop complaining.

Most of all, we should just find what makes us happy and live our lives the best that we can, because that is what we are going to do anyways.

Atheism is a Belief. So What is My Belief System?

I’m an ex-Mormon. I’m an atheist; not an agnostic. I’m not polytheistic. I’m not Buddhist, or Confucian, or Muslim, or anything else. But, like Republicans on healthcare, we cannot long define ourselves solely by what we are not without at some point going insane. So I have been constructing my own belief system from the ground up, and through this blog, I will share it with you, my tiny handful of readers.

Let’s start with the three fundamental pillars. These are three things that I am pretty sure of.

Moral Nihilism – There is no good, evil, moral, or immoral.
Some people may think I am crazy at this point, and stop reading. But that would be a mistake, because there is a huge BUT coming up. There is no morality in my world, BUT, there is something that looks an awful lot like morality that drives what everyone else calls morality. It is called self-interest. That is right. You read me. Everything that can be thought of as a moral issue can instead be thought of in terms of self-interest and cost-benefit analysis. This may make more sense after you read the section on “animic nihilism” below. But, the gist of my belief is that all people are self-interested, that the idea of “self” is fluid rather than definite and more or less includes every living or non-living thing, and that morality is a kind of primal government whose purpose is solely to facilitate collective action for the benefit of the group. Thus, a thing like homosexuality or masturbation becomes immoral in a tiny Jewish tribe that is surrounded by hostile neighbors and needs all the babies it can get, but becomes less of a focal point in a great civilization like Rome, Greece, or in modern first-world countries, which may actually have an overpopulation problem.

For a more in-depth discussion of this, please visit my forthcoming article on the subject by clicking on the word article when it turns blue. Or, you could start a comment thread, to which I guarantee I will reply unless/until my site becomes so popular that it becomes unfeasible or if for some other reason I don’t reply.

Scitic Nihilism – There is no knowledge.
If you were wondering about the word, “scitic,” it is probably because I made it up. Or rather, I coined it by modifying an existing Latin verb, “scire,” which means, “to know” in the sense that I want it to mean that.

Fundamentally, all human knowledge (all human belief for that matter) is based fundamentally on a handful of fundamental laws of logic, including the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is very straightforward. It just says that there is no such thing as a contradiction. If the wall is white, then it cannot not be white. If I discover that 2+2 actually does equal 4 within the confines of the parameters I have set, then 2+2 cannot not equal 4 within those parameters. If I find out that God actually does exist, then the law of non-contradiction tells me that he actually does exist. Without the fundamental law of non-contradiction, we have nothing. That leads me to the question of why we have the fundamental law of non-contradiction. How can we know that the fundamental law of non-contradiction holds in every case without knowing every case and without further assuming the fundamental law of non-contradiction to prove that it actually holds in every case because we know that it does? The simple answer is that we cannot do that. There is no way to eliminate the possibility that we are all actually Martians experiencing a very-detailed coma-dream, for example. If things actually weren’t as they seemed, we would have no way to know. We simply assume, through an inductive generalization that since things seem to lack contradictions over a very large number of experiences, and since we have no experience of things that seem to actually contradict, that things actually don’t ever contradict. That is itself, a pretty weak justification for saying something as strong as, “I know…” But to top it off, even that weak argument is based on a faulty premise. We DO have experience of things appearing to be actual contradictions. They are called paradoxes. Paradoxes are exceptions to the fundamental laws of logic. Stated another way, they are counterexamples to the proposition that there are no paradoxes. How can we claim that there are no such things as paradoxes when there clearly are paradoxes?

This discussion could go on ad infinitum, and we could argue about whether there actually are paradoxes, or if all apparent paradoxes are actually just unsolved problems that actually have solutions. As for me, I tend toward the idea that there are actual paradoxes, and suspect that something is going on that we don’t even suspect. And, no, I don’t have an alternative to the logical system we mentally inhabit. It may well be the case that there is no possible alternative. Most of all, however, I am absolutely certain that I don’t know anything absolutely (except that), and I am pretty sure no one else does either.

Animic Nihilism – There is no life/soul.
Yes, I also coined the word, “animic” from the Latin word “anima,” which conveniently can be translated as life, soul, or movement. Don’t think “anemic.” Instead think, “animation.”

Precisely speaking, I don’t believe that there is or can be a non-arbitrary difference between life and non-life, and therefore there is no basis for thinking that some entities have “souls,” or “afterlifes,” or, in other words, that some entities have some special, magical attribute that others don’t have. Scientists have most recently drawn the line such that bacteria are “alive” and viruses and lesser entities are “not alive.” But what is the real difference between a virus and a bacteria? Both are complex creatures that are defined by the structure of their DNA (or, in the case of some viruses, RNA), reproduce, evolve, consume, change, and move. What makes the structure of a bacteria so special? Why is it so important to note that bacteria can reproduce without fate brushing them into contact with the right host cell?

Presumably, we could brush aside these considerations by simply admitting that viruses ARE alive, and drawing the line a bit lower. But more recently, science has uncovered other creatures that reproduce and evolve, but that exhibit even fewer attributes of life than viruses. Prions, for example, don’t have any DNA or RNA. Their only genetic material is is in the form of proteins. The more scientists learn, the more likely it seems that life emerged via the natural complication of chemical reactions and processes over time. Humanity is just physics, nothing more.

So, what is life? What is humanity? What is self? Imagine I am Socrates, and I am going to ask you a series of questions to make my point. Then, in parentheses, I am going to put my answer to each question as though it is your answer, for the purposes of argumentation, and I am going to use the word “arguendo,” which means, “for the sake of argument,” just because it sounds cool and is accurate.

Do you believe that you are a distinct person from everyone else? (Arguendo: Yes.)
Do you believe that you are yourself? (Arguendo: Yes.)
Do you believe that you constitutes the entity that occupied your physical body from the date of your birth until your death? (Arguendo: Yes.)
So, you are the same person as the you of yesterday? Of the day before that? Of ten years ago? It is all the same person? (Arguendo: Yes.)
What makes you the same person as the you of a year ago? You admit that there are differences…? (Arguendo: Yes, there are differences, but we share the same physical body, we have the same or similar emotions, thoughts, memories, DNA, relatives, pasts, and futures. We are comprised of the same or similar cells and physical matter. We occupy the same or similar location in space/time. We are the same or similar.)
You are the same or similar? Is that the same thing as being the same person? (Arguendo: Not precisely, I suppose.)
So, then, what is it that makes you the same person as your past and future selves, but not the same person as someone else who shares memories, emotions, and DNA with you, like a sibling, or a close friend? (Arguendo: Nobody shares my DNA precisely with me, except my past and future selves.)
Is that so? What if you had an identical twin who did share your DNA with you? Further, are you aware that your DNA is constantly bombarded by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun throughout your life, such that it mutates and is not precisely the same as the day you were born?  (Arguendo: Perhaps my DNA does change a bit, but not much. Identical twins don’t occupy the same location in space/time. They are distinct entities. I am not a distinct entity from myself in space/time.)
So, if we hypothetically constructed a time machine, and dragged you back to meet yourself, would you then be a different person? (Arguendo: There are no such things as time machines. It doesn’t make sense. It is impossible. Therefore, I don’t have to come up with an explanation to justify myself.)
Fair enough. But you still don’t occupy the same location in space/time as any of your past or future selves. By definition, they are each at a different time coordinate, and you have a tendency to move around physically. How does your location define you? (Arguendo: Ok, I guess my location in space/time can’t quite define me. But maybe it is my relationships with other people. Maybe it is the specific details of my surroundings. Maybe it is a combination of all of those factors, my thoughts, emotions, circumstances, DNA, and relationships, that make me who I am. Maybe what makes me the same person as my past and future selves is the fact that I am connected to each of them via a continuous line that makes sense.)
Bingo. You are yourself, because you are identical to yourself. You are your past and future selves because you are more or less connected to each of them through a continuous line that makes sense. But here is the problem. You are also connected to your relatives, your community, your nation, your race, and your entire species, your genus, family, order, kingdom, etc, more or less. You share all of these attributes with everything, just to a lesser or greater extent. Therefore, you are everything, to a lesser or greater extent.

So, what difference does it make that some things are more like us than others? That is the meaning of “life.” Life is me. I am life. And things that are more like me, are more likely to be classified by me as alive. By definition, I have an interest in promulgating and maintaining myself, and therefore, to the extent that Other things are me, I have an interest in promulgating and maintaining those things. That is why civilization exists. It is because rule of law benefits everyone in society immensely over the alternative of chaos. It is because our own self-interest is not defined merely by what is specifically relevant to us, but includes what is relevant to everyone else too. In this sense, there is no such thing as true altruism, because altruism is merely a decentralized version of self-interest. By doing things for the good of humanity, we increase the chance that genes like ours will be prevalent in the world, or universe of some point in the future. Understandably, the desire to help others is stronger, then, with respect to those who are “like” us, whether they be close relatives, or just people that we “see something of ourselves in.”

Conclusion
So, now we have discussed the three beliefs about which I am fairly certain (plus my affirmative belief that God doesn’t exist). It is likely that you, the reader, are confused. These are all negative beliefs. What do I believe affirmatively? What metric do I use to guide me as I live my life? How can I even think about any of this logically if I so thoroughly discredit the fundamental laws of logic?

The answer to all of these questions is simple. I am human. I live my life as humans do. I think about things logically, but always hold on, in the back of my mind, to the idea that everything I say, think, or believe is fundamentally based on a premise that is not secure. I eat when I am hungry, strive when I am ambitious, and give when I feel empathy. I am driven by the same pride, passion, respect, and desire that drives all humans. I was socially conditioned from a young age into the culture I inhabit, just as everyone else. To some extent, I probably share some subconscious biases and prejudices that permeate my community. I am not an omniscient being, or a perfect being, and I never will be. I am just a momentary complexity in the fabric of the universe, a ripple that will bounce around a bit before fading away. For those reasons, I live my life with an open mind, and am happy.

A Roadmap to Solve All our Budgetary Woes

1. Over a decade, slash military funding to, say, that of Britain, France, and China and Russia put together ($500 billion-$1 trillion annual savings).
2. Switch over to a single-payer healthcare system (and eliminate the insurance industry’s massive bureaucracy. What is that, like a 10%-20% decrease in the price of healthcare? I can’t imagine that the incremental increase in the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services would be even comparable. Essentially, we would be switching thousands of duplicate private sector bureaucracies with one centralized bureaucracy. My sense of efficiency tells me that that is good deal.).
3. Return tax rates to 1970 levels. Eliminating all loopholes and subsidies. Then start from scratch passing the loopholes and subsidies that we actually deem wise, one at a time ($500 billion – $1 trillion annually).
4. Eliminate the $107,000 cap on taxable income for social security, basically make social security a flat tax (Taxes come in three flavors: progressive, flat, and regressive. Social security is currently a regressive tax. That means that it taxes the poor at a greater percentage of their income than the rich.).

Basically, I just balanced the budget, paid off the debt, and saved up a rainy day fund in a decade or two, all without anyone making less than $107,000 a year paying a dime more in taxes, without sacrificing our capacity for self-defense, and without anyone losing their food stamps or unemployment benefits. Do these measures really seem unreasonable?

I haven’t even started digging into all of the waste and fraud that could still be eliminated from pretty much every existing government agency (because that is a much more complicated problem, albeit one that likely has some potential.). There are legitimate problems with our governmental system that should be addressed. And, in general, I think that a good solid round of automatic, across the board cuts once every decade or so would be good for government. It would help keep things slim. But the solution is not to fight for more tax cuts for precisely those people who DON’T need them, and to fight for spending cuts to precisely those programs that would hurt people the most. The solution is to simplify the problem, and to keep the bigger picture in mind.

Of course, a little bit of good, old-fashioned altruistic voting for policies that may not be in your best interest, but that are in the best interest of everyone else wouldn’t hurt…