Rittenryl

Rittenryl

  • Books
    • The Righteous Mind
  • Philosophy
    • Privacy Essays
    • • Privacy, Surveillance, Control (2): A History of Surveillance
    • • Privacy, Surveillance, Control (1): An Introduction
    • Other Essays
    • • Where Is Your Cage?
    • • Communication Is Power
    • • Would You Take an Immortality Pill?
    • • All Hands on Deck
  • Creative Writing
    • Mine to Take
  • Health
    • Posture
    • Fiber Is Underrated
  • About
  • Where is your cage?

    June 4th, 2025
    Read time 9 minutes

    Meaning begins with freedom

    I was walking high on the crown of an Aegean caldera, splitting through warm sun and cool sea breeze. I set out to venture from the towns of Oia to Fira, but allowed myself to wander wherever my eyes took me: sapphire vistas, dead ends, over rocks and brambles, and up to the edge of cliffs. I believe I smiled for three hours, even laughing to myself as my path led me through natural beauty and the beautiful ideas of the books I was reading, the friends I missed, and decisions I would soon make. 

    While descending a local peak, I came by a fence on the sea side of the caldera’s edge. Its chain links offended me. A bird rested on the metal post, singing into the crisp morning air. The fence was no barrier to her.

    Despite my joy, flowing from the deep sense of freedom I was experiencing, I was, of course, already bound before I came across the fence. I was bound by nature, and by my own nature. I was bound by gravity and the rocks beneath my feet, for which I was grateful. I was bound by my consciousness and perceptions, limited as they are, but sufficient for my enjoyment. 

    I was also bound by fear. I wouldn’t have dared walk beyond the edge of the trail despite how indigo flowers and iridescent lizards had tempted pursuit. A step towards them slid pebbles cascading down the cliff face, a 300 meter spill. I was content with this limitation too. 

    But until the fence, I had not felt confinement. The fence was imposed on me, by others; by the will of man.

    Farther down the trail, the fence had collapsed from the erosion of the cliff. How apt: the barriers of man are arbitrary and ephemeral. Unlike the bounds of the natural world, which define the world of freedom I seek, the bounds imposed by man are abstract, artificial, and subject to change.

    There is no singular meaning of life, but life is not meaningless. Human life is full of meaning, because it is our nature to create it. Whether it be to love, create, learn, pursue virtue, or follow the many idiosyncratic desires that fuel our lives, there is a common prerequisite. 

    Humans must be free. 

    My anecdote is a simple metaphor, framed by reflections I had already begun writing. Before that, the theme had emerged in recent conversations. I began seeing confinement everywhere: legal, financial, mental, material, relational, chemical. Those around me were tormented by their prisons, if only they could recognize their cell and address it as such. If only I could…

    Some people are literally confined. Slaves and prisoners experience a true restriction in their freedom, and in the extreme we can see its effects more clearly. The slave is stripped of all meaning, and as a result, their humanity. They are not permitted to love or to learn, to pursue any of the true desires of their soul. If they do find purpose it is like a diamond in the desert of their suffering. It may placate or excite them briefly but insufficiently, and they continue to die of thirst, deprived of their ability to imbue and enjoy full meaning. As with the man in the desert, the ultimate purpose for the slave should be freedom. No distraction can be afforded. This becomes the meaning of their life; to reach the bridge to meaning. 

    An influential book for me was Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, and those who have read it can reasonably challenge my claim. In the book, Frankl describes how purpose is critical to survival, and more relevantly, that meaning is not given by circumstances, but discovered or created by the individual. 

    Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear almost any ‘how’

    – Victor Frankl

    I believe this to be true, and it does not invalidate my claim. Frankl was interned in Auschwitz, effectively a slave sentenced to death in a Nazi concentration camp. However, in these most evil and deprived conditions, he managed a freedom of the mind. A person can choose their attitude, and through that, find meaning. That Frankl found meaning in his hellish environment is a testament to the resilience of the human mind and an indication of the necessity of meaning for human existence. But that he was able to find meaning at all resulted from an incredible inner freedom. Left with no other avenues, Frankl discovered that he could, in the solace of his mind, find liberty. The implications are profound. Frankl would eventually be freed from the physical confines of the concentration camp, and with this additional freedom, continued to pursue his purpose to a higher level – by developing the field of logotherapy and spreading his lessons to the world. The search for meaning should not be thought of as contingent on freedom from physical constraint, but as requiring freedom in some essential form. After all, one must first be free to search.

    In fact, the most insidious prisons we are subject to are not always so concrete and obvious. Some people may exist in a prison of the psyche, rapt by fear and anxiety that confines their actions. Is medication a cure, a freedom from psychic shackles, or a palliative from the suffering? Others are trapped by work, tormented by the unceasing stresses of employment but unable to leave. Some are confined by their political environment: allowed to go outside and enjoy the sun, but unable to demonstrate (and therefore even think) critically against the ruling regime. Even a relationship, often the source of the highest human joy, can be a prison as in the case of an abusive partner or damaging familial environment. William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” depicts such a family environment, and the noble escape of a boy trapped within it.

    A prison can take many forms, but they share distinct commonalities; a restriction in freedom, and a barrier to escape. 

    Search for and think carefully about your prison, it must be recognized consciously because it will torment your subconscious nonetheless. 

    A trapped lion fights ferociously for its freedom. Only after its will is broken does it submit to confinement. Eventually, it becomes placated by abundant food and cheap entertainment. Its cubs, tragically born into captivity, know even less of what was lost. The prison is their entire world. Despite their ignorant bliss, the lion cub is stunted, unable to develop physically or mentally to the potential offered in their natural environment. It has no conscious memory of an unbounded existence, and yet it is still damaged subconsciously by the anti-natural circumstances of its imprisonment. The lion has been robbed of its nature, stripped of its meaning, subjugated to serving the meaning of its human captors. It is no longer a lion, but the cellular husk of one.  

    Animals characterized by intelligence and mobility, such as Orcas and Elephants, often begin to deteriorate noticeably in captivity at a zoo, despite access to food and medical technology. Humans are animals of this kind as well. 

    Though some prisons may be more tolerable than others, what is true for the slave is true for all: you must strive for your freedom. The meaning of life is what guides our behavior, and our behaviors are what compose our life. This life is all we have. To accept tyranny, to allow life to be diminished, should never be acceptable.

    This is not to say that we can aspire to be limitless. There are true boundaries to existence which form the framework for our nature. We exist within necessary social boundaries as well, having agreed to the social contract with our society and exchanging freedom for order. This is a worthy transaction. However, the barriers which are formed by mankind — be it external or even internal— that do not serve us fairly have no requirement to exist. 

    There can be no compromise or placation. Free yourself. If you can see your prison, and notice how it diminishes you, it is your obligation to break free. The escape will not be easy, but the reward will be in proportion to the challenge. To be your true self, filled with soul to the brim, you must first be unbound. From there, from the basis of your true and free nature, you will be able to imbue the manifold meaning of life that awaits you, and enjoy its rewards. 

    To live a life rich with meaning, we must first be free. 

    Until then, the meaning of life is freedom. 

  • Communication is Power

    May 1st, 2025
    Read time: 10 minutes

    Introduction:

    This idea, the power and resulting ethics of effective communication, is dear to me; it is what inspired the creation of this website. 

    My original title for this project was, “Communication is a virtue”, but that is not quite right. Communication, by itself, is simply the process by which information is transmitted between nodes. However, for humans there is an emergent property: communication has power.  

    This power can be leveraged to create harmony just as easily as havoc. Deception and hate can destroy just as quickly as honesty and love can build. However, ambiguity—or the failure to communicate clearly and effectively— is not a neutral middle ground; it can be just as destructive as malicious intent.

    Here is the implication; even if an individual is perfectly guided by virtue, if they are ineffective at communicating, their efforts are occasionally voided. No good is wrought onto the world. In some circumstances, the miscommunication can even be negative. 

    In a networked society, how goodness spreads is just as important as what goodness is.

    1. Virtue and Society
    2. Why does virtue matter?
    3. Mechanics of Communication
    4. Network Dynamics and their Human Analogs
    5. Practical steps to improve communication
    6. Conclusion

    Virtue and Society:

    Virtue is worth pursuing. Virtues are behaviors that a society deems “good” because they promote the health, stability, and flourishing of the group. These behaviors are defined, reinforced, and incentivized by the culture they serve—embedded in our stories, our laws, and the institutions we rely on to hold society together. Actions that benefit only the individual, while harming or neglecting the collective, are typically labeled as evil, or at very least, taboo.

    When we understand society as a network, a system of interconnected individuals, we can begin to see virtue not just as a moral edict, as a but strategically optimal choice. From a game theory perspective, aligning with the values of the network increases trust, opportunity, and stability for all, including the individual.

    Because the network is made up of individuals—or as I will soon frame them, nodes— the benefits of virtue are reflexive. What strengthens the network strengthens each node within it. To be virtuous is not just to serve others, but to participate in the very system that makes individual thriving possible. This goodness compounds over time. Much of what we enjoy today is the product of the virtuous choices made by those who came before us.

    This connection is why communication, especially communication that is clear, empathetic, and responsive, is central to virtue. Virtue only matters insofar as it produces real effects in the world, and communication is the medium through which those effects travel.

    Why does virtue matter?:

    Humans are a distinctly social species, and one of the few that evolved with social altruism: the ability to act in the interest of others, even at personal cost. Other creatures that have developed this adaption, like ants and termites, also enjoy tremendous success in their ecological domains. It is this trait, not opposable thumbs or mystical “consciousness”, that has enabled the crowning achievements of our species. 

    John Donne famously wrote in his 1624 poem, For Whom the Bell Tolls, “No man is an Island, entire of itself.” We exist under an illusion of individuality. The reality is that we humans exist as an invisible network, of which we “individuals” are mere nodes. We are constantly and ceaselessly influenced by this network. The health of this network determines our individual outcomes far more than our individual choices (if we have the ability to make free-will choices at all). 

    The common thread for moral philosophy, as I see it, is that which maximizes the long-term success of our species.

    “Long-term”, in this case, means in perpetuity. “Success” encompasses not only survival, but prosperity. 

    Goodness, then, is not arbitrary. It describes the patterns of behavior that promote enduring, communal prosperity. Evil, by contrast, works against this end; short sighted and selfish actions that undermine the group, fracture trust, and degrade the conditions of life. 

    Communication is therefore not just relevant to morality, it is central to it. Good communication is a virtue in itself. It strengthens human networks, reduces error, builds trust, and enhances adaptability. In doing so, it directly contributes to the prosperity of our species. In a very real sense, good communication makes our world a better place. 

    Mechanics of Communication:

    Communication, whether it be for computers or humans, works as a path of information from a sender to a receiver. In the human case, it is the structured movement of meaning between minds. The first challenge is for us to be able to project our thoughts, feelings, and emotions into language— a process which induces some degree of loss inherently. We are, even with a “perfect” vocabulary, limited in our ability to map our complex emotions to words with simple definitions. In person, we can rely on how our emotions manifest through our body to communicate more deeply than words can describe. This is the most effective way humans communicate. 

    Once the thoughts are imperfectly encoded into words, they are transmitted across space. Here they are subject to noise, meaning a distortion of the communication. In practicality this can be ambient noise, poor phone quality, or typos in writing. It can be more than this though. Disruptive noise can include psychological duress, cultural bias, emotional reactivity, and semantic confusion (vague terms, jargon, or differing definitions). We are up against tremendous barriers in communication. 

    Clarity is critical, and it starts with intentionality. You must refine the idea to its core in your mind before transmission. Simplicity is a noble goal. Language should be appropriately accessible and free of jargon or excess complexity. Too often writers or speakers will embellish their communication with words or ideas to satisfy their own ego, to display their intelligence or worldliness. This is poor communication because the intention has shifted from clarity to pride. I have been guilty of this. 

    Communication should follow a structure that is logical, or at least predictable. Consider your audience who has limited time, energy, or interest— we are all similar this way. Make the load easier on your audience, it is the respectful thing to do. 

    Finally, your communication should be feedback seeking. You must focus that your message is being transmitted and received as intended. This attention to feedback is an act of empathy.

    Communication should be engaged with no intent to deceive, harm, or manipulate. Virtuous communication should be rooted in goodwill, and recipients should be treated with respect to their humanity. As Immanuel Kant put it, humans should be regarded as an end in themselves, not as a means to an end.

    To willingly withhold communication, especially in the face of conflict, is itself a form of harm. Silence is often used as a strategy in conflict. The strategy is flawed. Though it may give you a machiavellian leverage, by making the other party reasonably desperate for your information, it is still corrosive to the health of the network. This strategy should not be deployed in high stakes situations, or in situations where you genuinely care about a successful outcome.

    Network Dynamics and their Human Analogs:

    With the emergence of the internet and telecommunication technology, scientists have begun to understand networks as complex systems with their own properties, rules, and dynamics. Reading, understanding, and then abstracting these discoveries can give insights into optimizing our human relationships.

    Let’s address the situation of a node that is unresponsive, or uncommunicative. Nodes (people) that are downstream are diminished because of this unresponsiveness. They are not being given information that could be made available to them for appropriate decision making. In this situation, the flow of information will eventually bypass the bad node rendering it obsolete, and neutralizing its damage.

    Communication failures are not always malicious, in fact they occur more often from fear, shame, or unexpressed conflict. However, if communicativeness is indeed virtuous, facing these difficulties is worth the challenge.

    Beyond the moral imperative, effective communication can also yield economic benefits by positioning yourself within a robust and expansive network. You should be aware that there are incentives to be gained by being a good communicator, and this should further inspire a drive to engage in communication.

    There are situations where a single node, perhaps a family member or business founder, is a critical point in the communication network. This structure, while lending some efficiency, makes the network more vulnerable to failure. Decentralizing the network, by empowering multiple voices, keeps the system resilient.

    Feedback is also an important aspect of a network. As humans we want to focus on reciprocal communication, rather than broadcasting. In a healthy network, information is shared as a feedback loop which refines its strength and fidelity in the system. Ideas are able to become better developed and more broadly propagated by their refinement in these loops. By only broadcasting, the source node is never changed or adapted, seeding incorrect or destructive information into the system until the nefarious node is eventually discovered and ignored.

    Finally, a network is more than the sum of its parts. A brain too is a network of nodes, individual neurons, which has the incredible emergent property of consciousness. Any individual neuron is fairly inconsequential, but its position in a network allows it to perform tasks far beyond its individual capabilities. A neuron receives signal and if a threshold is reached, it fires in an all-or-nothing manner. That’s all it does. However, in conjunction with its network it’s capable of memory, abstraction, and perception. Just like human networks, the brain’s network of neurons is capable of adaption by way of “plasticity”. Plasticity is the basis of learning at the cellular level, by strengthening pathways that are used repeatedly (“Neurons that fire together wire together”) , and pruning connections that are neglected. Even after damage to the brain, or in cases of various disabilities both physical and mental, the brain’s plasticity can find more efficient pathways to regain function.

    Communication does not mean incessant talking, there is still value to silence. Incessant broadcasting is a form of noise. Just as a seizure is the uncontrolled firing of neurons— signal without structure, feedback, or purpose— so too is unceasing, unresponsive talking a breakdown of communicative function. It may feel like connection, but in truth, it bypasses empathy and drowns out clarity.

    Again, communication should be done with intentionality. Frivolous talk has a place, particularly amongst friends and with levity. However, silence can be a virtue if it prevents the transmission of noise or misunderstanding.

    Practical steps to improve communication:

    • Turn on read-receipts on your phone. It automatically communicates that a text has been read, which can be useful information for the sender. I can think of very few reasons why you would want to hide that information. An extension of this is simply acknowledging messages, even if you do not have an answer yet– simply communicate that you’ve received the message and you are thinking on it.
    • Avoid using silence as a punishment. If you need time or space, say so. Intentionally weaponizing silence is manipulative, and damages connection.
    • Use precise language. Avoid using vague language when clear language is needed. Set an exact time and place for a meeting, or communicate your exact intentions.
    • There is tremendous utility to politeness and good manners. By being polite you are essentially being proactive with your respect. In return, your conversational partner feels willing to reciprocate. With the many difficulties associated with complex emotional communication, having your partner biased towards giving you the benefit of the doubt is very powerful. Using polite language helps towards this end.
    • Be generous in interpretation, particularly over text. Give the benefit of the doubt and assume good intent. Miscommunication is much more common than malice.
    • Respond at the pace you would expect from others. Slowness can signal disengagement, and times passing can degrade signal transmission. Match urgency to the context and person.
    • Say what you mean, not what you think sounds smart. Simplicity is not “dumbing down”, it’s an impressive skill that provides clarity. Avoid language that performs more than it informs.
    • Attempt to end loops that others open. Make a good effort to not “ghost” people in communication. Even a brief reply brings closure to threads and strengthens the signal integrity of the network.
    • Own and communicate your mistakes. If you’ve done something that you know is a mistake or is bad, it is better to communicate this mistake than to hide it. This allows your network to adapt to the error faster, and is the first step towards resolution and restoration.
    • Feel comfortable putting yourself and your ideas out there. They will be refined by your audience, improving both them and you. Good information should not be kept secret, and bad information must be combated in the open. This can be in conversations with your friends or over social media, which is an extension of that friend network.
    • Be comfortable reaching out first. It sometimes feels like the inferior position to be the one reaching out to friends or acquaintances first. Cast away this prideful discomfort with the knowledge that you’re doing a service to the network by extending a connection.
    • Say what is true. Use your discretion if truth can cause harm. In those circumstances silence becomes more valuable. However, intentional lying is almost never excusable.

    Conclusion:

    Ultimately, good communication is not just a soft skill to be tucked into a corner of a resume. It is a power that shapes not just our personal relationships, but the health and resilience of our broader social networks. Practicing clear, empathetic, and responsive communication is more than good advice; it is a moral imperative if we truly value human flourishing.

  • Privacy, Surveillance, Control (2): A History of Surveillance

    March 21st, 2025

    Continuation of Privacy, Surveillance, Control (1): An Introduction.

    Read time: 17 minutes

    At the heart of this discussion lies a simple truth: government is a necessary evil. This is a maxim that I believe is worth remembering, all the way down to a homeowners association. 

    Why government is necessary is fairly obvious; it is impossible to imagine a sophisticated society without centralized leadership to enforce rules fairly, maintain the peace, and provide services that would be infeasible at the individual level. 

    Why it is evil is less apparent; power corrupts. 

    The following chart shows the instances of political killings from 1946 to 2022. For this data, a targeted mass killing refers to the deliberate killing of at least 25 noncombatant civilians within a country during a given year, carried out by organized armed forces or groups, intended to destroy or intimidate a specific political, ethnic, or religious group.

    The data does not quite capture the magnitude of the damage wrought. Depending on the definition, the sum of the targeted mass killings within a domestic population ranges from 100 million to 262 million over the past century. To put that in perspective, the estimates for the total sum of war casualties in this period ranges from 108 million to 150 million.

    Butcher, Charles, Benjamin E. Goldsmith, and Sascha Nanlohy. (2024). “Targeted Mass Killing Dataset, Version 1.2.” Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Australian National University, and University of Sydney.

    Admittedly, many of these killings take place in totalitarian regimes, and very few occur in democracies. However, recall that the Nazi party became the largest party in the Reichstag (German Parliament) in the July 1932 election. Hitler’s rise to power from that point was a series of legal and political maneuvers that culminated in dictatorship. Democracy is not immune to tyranny.

    As R.J. Rommel, a political scientist who has done extensive research on democide, put it:

    “The closer to absolute power, the more a regime’s disposition to murder one’s subjects or foreigners multiplies. As far as this work is concerned, it is empirically true that Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely. “

    This philosophical foundation was critical to the creation of the United States, born under the tyranny of the British monarchy. The American Constitution, the oldest still in use, is among the greatest pieces of writing in history. It has proven itself excellent because of its adaptability, acknowledgment of unalienable human rights, and its underlying skepticism of government. 

    The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are particularly important to the topic of this article.

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

    ”…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    In 2013 Edward Snowden exposed the NSA surveillance of Americans through the PRISM program. My naive initial reaction was to assume it was simply too much data to store or process. This was not the case then and it is certainly not the case now. Like many, I initially saw Edward Snowden as a traitor. I had animosity for him.

    As I grew older, my opinion changed. I now see Snowden as a hero who acted in the interest of the American people, as a patriot ultimately should. His so-called treason was not against his country, but against a subsection of the government— unelected officials abusing illegal powers.

    I separately support the mission of the NSA and the broader American intelligence community in their efforts to keep American citizen’s safe and prosperous. However, inherent to any modern intelligence agency is the ability to do indiscriminate and unchecked harm. 

    “I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss.”

    — Church Committee Hearings, 1975

    Intelligence agencies are, in the scheme of political history, extremely young. Though intelligence—such as the deployment of spies—has been critical in military history for thousands of years, the expansion of surveillance abilities has gone parabolic in lockstep with technological growth since World War II.

     The brutal history of the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet NKVD may hardly need mention. The Gestapo was utilized to suppress opposition, round up Jews, and enforce Nazi ideology through torture, extrajudicial killings, and concentration camp deportations. The NKVD was likely more destructive, with an estimated 750,000 people executed in just two years of the Great Purge (1936-1938), many of them shot in the back of the head in NKVD basements. They maintained files on every soviet citizen, deeply scrutinizing them for anti-Soviet activities —often erroneously. 

    The East German Stasi (1950-1990) is considered to have enacted the greatest surveillance state in history. Roughly 1 in 6 East Germans was either full-time employees of the Stasi or informants. At their peak they maintained 1 billion pages of records on East Germans, including interactions, letters, and conversations. They effectively implemented Zersetzung, which directly translates to decomposition or decay in English, as a form of psychological warfare — blackmail, gaslighting, and social sabotage— designed to destroy a person, slowly and often imperceptibly, by leveraging intelligence against them.

    It could be argued that these regimes were inherently repressive and destructive. However, the key point is that their evil was facilitated by an intelligence apparatus that was turned against a domestic population with no means to defend itself.

    Fast forward to the post-Cold war era, where we see the development of electronic surveillance. This is such a monumental shift that it is arguably a difference in kind, not in degree. While intercepting letters, wiretapping, and espionage existed previously, mass surveilling, algorithmic and predictive decision making, and nearly ubiquitous access to our electronic lives is a paradigm shift. What the internet was to the global economy, it is too to the surveillance state. 

    Though similar issues are pervasive across the world, I will now focus only on America.

    After 9/11 the United States became weaponized against the ambiguous threat of terror. There was justifiable fear in the country, which created the conditions for the rushed and under scrutinized Patriot Act to pass through the House (357-66) and the Senate (98-1).

    • Section 215 allowed the government to collect phone records of millions of Americans without individualized suspicion.
      • It broadened the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) making it easier to obtain secret surveillance warrants on individuals suspected of terrorism.
    • Section 505 granted the FBI authority to demand records from businesses without court approval, preventing them from informing the target.
    • Section 802 broadened what qualifies as domestic terrorism.

    The potential abuses of such laws, and the creeping expansion of power they enable, should be apparent after the historical review above. 

    The programs uncovered by Edward Snowden in 2013 had operated unobstructed from 2007 to 2015.

    • PRISM program allowed the NSA to collect user data directly from major U.S. tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. The data included emails, chats, photos, videos, and stored files.

    If the paranoia surrounding TikTok’s ascendence in America confused you, this should be enough context to understand why. Given China’s extensive surveillance state, I would posit that it is very likely that TikTok operates as a surveillance tool of the Chinese Communist Party.

    • The NSA was collecting records of all phone calls made within the United States, including phone numbers, call durations, time stamps, and routing information.
    • XKEYSCORE, described as the NSA’s most powerful surveillance tool, allowed analysts to search emails, browsing history, online chats, and social media activity. This program had famously little oversight, with NSA analysts able to search for individuals without prior approval.
    • Cryptocurrency transactions were monitored and de-anonymized. Even applications such as Angry Birds, or Google Maps, were used to monitor location data and personal information.
    • Journalists, activists, lawyers, and even world leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel was monitored and surveilled. Merkel’s response to the Obama administration for monitoring her personal phone was blunt:, “Spying on friends is not acceptable”. I agree.

    In 2015, in the wake of the fallout from Snowden’s leaks, the USA FREEDOM ACT was passed, officially reigning in many of these programs. Automatic bulk data collection was stopped, replaced with a corporate partnership, where data could still be accessed with specific government requests.

    However, corporate surveillance is just as insidious. Cloaked behind convenience and user experience, it operates without the checks and balances, however flawed, that constrain government.

    Personal data is being mined like a raw material, and the supply is growing exponentially. User behavior data is critical to modern tech companies, beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service. As described in Shoshana Zuboff’s book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, you are not their customer, but instead their product. The real customers are businesses, advertisers, and governments buying access to predictive data.

    It’s worse than that though. The predictive capabilities allow surveillance capitalists to not only predict behavior but to shape and modify it. Your social media algorithm does not only show you what you like— it tells you what to like.

    As it stands now, society is at a worryingly vulnerable position to the power of these technology companies. Personal data is extracted through opaque, non-consensual, and often impossible-to-opt-out-of processes.

    This power has already been wielded to influence democratic elections, such as when Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of Facebook users to build psychological profiles and micro-target them with political ads aimed at manipulating their voting behavior.

    These are companies seeking to maximize profits, not societal welfare.

    This asymmetry between the tech companies and the public will only increase across time unless there is sufficient pushback from the public. The utilization of technology cannot be avoided; it is part of modern life, not something one can reasonably opt out of. Being subject to surveillance and manipulation for using technology should not become acceptable.

    Again, as stated in the previous post, resistance begins with awareness. Yet even among those who are aware of the extent of surveillance, there is often apathy. Some believe naively that they are immune to manipulation; others argue that they have nothing to hide. Neither are reasonable positions on the matter.

    “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” – Edward Snowden

    Society will slowly wake up to this reality—perhaps only after the implicit dangers are fully experienced. It will create a demand for privacy as a commodity, a response to the growing technological asymmetry favoring today’s surveillance capitalists. Much later, the democratic process may implement better legal safeguards to protect citizens and their proprietary data.

    The choice we face is not only between privacy and surveillance, but also between autonomy and control. If we value freedom, we must always defend it—not just from governments, but from corporations that have quietly inherited the power of surveillance once reserved for states. Government is a necessary evil, and in today’s world, digital technology is too. Both must be treated with cautious respect, with full awareness of the power they possess and the corruption that is inherent in them.

    Surveillance is control. Privacy is freedom.

  • Privacy, surveillance, control (1): An Introduction

    March 13th, 2025
    Read Time: 3 Minutes

                      If you are reading this, you are being surveilled. 

                      The author of this paper has access to when you visited this page, which country you visited from, and the media platform that brought you here. 

                      Does that make you uncomfortable? Perhaps not. 

                      Unfortunately for you, this is likely the minimum surveillance that you are subject to. Some of this monitoring you may be distantly aware of. It is safely assumed that Instagram knows that you clicked this link, Google tracks what you searched for, and WordPress keeps track of your activity beyond what I have access to. Any node along the information path of the internet has potential access to a user’s data traffic. 

                      Does that make you uncomfortable? It should, if you think enough about it. 

                      However, most insidiously, we are both under deeper surveillance that we are completely unaware of. This unknown surveillance is from both private and public interests, and the extent of the capabilities can only be speculated about by leaks and conjecture.  

                      Here is a telling example, both extreme and worryingly obscure. 

                      In August 2013, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal that National Security Agency officers had, “on several occasions… channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests.” Apparently, this practice is common enough that it had been dubbed “LOVEINT”, a playful spycraft label, derivative of “SIGNINT”, which means signals intelligence. According to the government, which leaked the story to get ahead of public fallout, the abuses were “very rare”. However, that it happened at all is indicative of how loose the agency’s control is of such powerful tools. In fact, in June 2013 Edward Snowden, who worked as a third party contractor to the agency, said to the Guardian:

                “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email.”

                      These stories were published over 10 years ago. Records from the past decade are much sparser. Given the proliferation of electronic communication in that time, you could deduce for yourself where this trend has gone.

                      Privacy has long been relevant in philosophy; it is connected to thought, behavior, and control.  We are living in the “information age”, and appropriately this subject is coming into practical relevancy. Now, more than ever, privacy is truly in jeopardy. The implications will be severe. 

    There is a solution.

    The first step is to be aware.

    Part 2: A History of Surveillance 3/21/25

  • Would you take an immortality pill?

    January 23rd, 2025
    Read time: 7 minutes

    Should you?

    The idea of immortality is transcendental, ingrained in some way into every human. It is evidently vital to our survival that our ego craves permanence. This drive is why we cautiously guard our lives, but also why we sacrifice for others; while personal immortality is impossible, there is an understanding of the immortality of the species that is critical.

    In the current era of scientific advancement, aided by the creation of mechanical cognition, we are closer than ever to learning the secrets of biological aging. As it turns out, slowing or reversing biological aging is a scientific possibility. There is incredible demand, worth trillions of dollars, to make such a thing a reality, not only to satisfy the vanity of the individual but also to reduce the societal cost of senility. These factors should make a discovery inevitable.

    Let’s imagine that such a breakthrough happens in the next 30 years, and that you are recruited for the late-stage trials of a drug that’s early trials showed tremendous success in halting the signs of biological aging.

    Do you take the pill?

    Your instinct is to perhaps say yes. Reasonable. This is a desire, a craving, fundamental to your being. Perhaps you envision how many books you can read, or how you could travel the world for the next thousand years. The power is immense.

    You pause for a moment, the pill resting in your palm. You stare into it, beyond it, and see something.

    You see the grief of saying goodbye to your friends and family, some of whom cannot afford the luxury pill, as they age past you and fade away.

    Time doesn’t feel the same anymore, and decades blink past like hours of the day. You make new friends, you laugh and have fun, but when you disclose your immortality you sometimes see a flash of discomfort on their face. Mortal people hesitate–perhaps subconsciously– to form deep connections with you. It is difficult to engage romantically with a person who can’t come with you.

    You feel as if you are in a glass cage in Time Square; occasionally you make eye contact amid the bustle only to lose them to the current. You are alone.

    You suffer from unbearable ennui. In your mortal life you had occasional blue days, but now the purpose of life has become almost entirely extinguished. You once heard a ticking timer spurring you to seize the day. Now the sun rises, and it rises, and it rises.

    And yet you hang on.

    And you hang on for a thousand years, meeting new best friends every 20 years. Some are amazed by you; for the past five centuries you have been an international consultant, negotiating peace between countries. You have become wise over time; you have learned and actually lived much of history, you are polite and charismatic to strangers, and have gained excellent perspective in how to navigate everyday problems.

    Nevertheless, when you meet a person your biological senior, you get a sense that they know something you can’t grasp—that their perspective is beyond what you can understand. There is a level of humility, a trait you have come to revere, that has become unachievable to you.

    And another thousand years passes, and the species has moved on from where it once was. It is a common misconception that humans are beyond evolutionary pressure. Instead, the sheer number and diversity of potential mates available to modern people may be accelerating natural selection. You notice that within a dozen generations you are viewed as physically, mentally, and most importantly, aesthetically inferior. Despite your incredible level of maturity, there are biases in the hardwiring of your ancient brain that make you more prone to brutish and uncivil behavior compared to your contemporaries. Future humans have no purpose for you, a relic of a bygone era, except as an object of curious fascination.

    Soon after, technology develops to allow a human consciousness to be uploaded to a mechanical system. You are permitted to be included in the project because of your historical experience, yet you see more tangibly now the danger of the choice.

    The human mind is not meant to live in a computer, you protest. The desire to extend your lifespan is a trap. You live exactly as long as you are supposed to, any more would be an aberration that comes at a cost, and this cost is inconceivable to us now.

    This vision of yours doesn’t even take into account the amount of social chaos (the resentment, frustration, and envy) that would arise if there were a class of society that exclusivly had access to this pill.

    The hunger for immortality is like that for fat, salt, and sugar. A thousand years ago a person would wish for a mountain of these substances, and yet they would surely destroy themselves with it in short order. People today live with such mountains and do the same.

    There may be some who, after hearing all of this, may think that they could handle this burden. Such an individual, if possible at all, would have to be more intrepid, noble, and sacrificial than any hero in our history. In every sense this person would have to be inhuman, and that would be their fate either way.

    Despite the temptation, being finite is fundamental to our existence– and thats okay. In fact, it’s not only okay; it’s beautiful. To rebuke this would be cancerous to society and degrading to the individual. Nothing in nature is designed to be infinite, and instead resilience arises from adaptability. Nature favors the dynamic over the static.

    Humans sometimes have an arrogant idea of the limitlessness of our consciousness. There is a false conception that, given enough time, a human brain can learn enough to ascend to godliness. While the capacity of our brains is magnitudes beyond what we understand currently, it is still bounded by the environment that has created it. We are limited by a hardware that filters our perception of the universe into familiar frameworks, one of which is a finite life. Changing this would create catastrophic psychic trauma in our software. A human mind is only equipped for a human life (a problem that will bias our understanding of artificial intelligence). If, or when, our species is meant to have individual immortality, it will arise out of the fabric of our being not spring from our ambition.

    Consider The Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest known stories, dating back perhaps 5,000 years. Gilgamesh, who is two-thirds god, rules the city-state of Uruk with incredible strength but also cruelty. In one story he is shaken by the death of a close friend, becomes consumed with his own mortality, and grows terrified of dying .

    He journeys to find a mythical sage who had been granted immortality by the gods for surviving a great flood. The sage explains that immortality is reserved for the gods, but challenges Gilgamesh to stay awake for seven days to prove that he is worthy of such a privilege. Gilgamesh fails this trial. The sage’s wife then offers Gilgamesh a herb to restore his youth, but a serpent steals it away symbolizing the inevitability of aging and death.

    Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, realizing that immortality lies not in an endless life, but in the enduring legacy of one’s deeds. The wisdom of ancient texts continues to astonish.

    I aspire to be healthy, functional, and to live a very long, happy life. I look forward to each phase of life, eager for the different joys and perspectives they may bring. Every day, I do what I can to live as long as possible. But in the end, after a lifetime of playing with my beloved friends and family, I also want to die. I would not have it any other way.

    It is the finitude that makes it all precious. Embrace it.

  • Fiber is Underrated

    January 15th, 2025

    Given the confirmed benefits of consumption, it is surprising that dietary fiber is not well appreciated in the health and fitness community.

    Out of all nutrient groups, the least “nutritious” may really be the most underrated.

    Read about the many reasons why, here.

  • Posture

    December 1st, 2024

    Posture is a subject mired in historic controversy and scientific uncertainty, making an already complicated dynamic truly enigmatic.

    Unfortunately, it’s also something that has a significant effect on people’s lives, particularly over time.

    If posture is something you’re curious about, as it is for me, read my observations and strategies here.

  • All Hands on Deck

    November 4th, 2024

    As America concludes the most turbulent presidential race in recent history, it is important to remember that we are all on the same ship.

    Despite fashionable rhetoric, it is not fair to characterize those who do not have the same political philosophy as you as evil demons. Such characterization undermines the humanity of others, discounting their individuality and opening the door to acts of violence. Few things could be more destructive to our collective fate.

    Before we proceed, it may be worth it to click here to read my summary of The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Great books have a tendency to find their readers at the right time.

    A healthy discourse is critical to the functioning of a democracy. A healthy discourse requires honest, respectful, and abundant communication. Your opinion really matters, and so does your neighbor’s, but most importantly so does your political rival’s. Let me explain why.

    Plinko!

    As frustrating as it may be, humans can rarely do much better than “plinko-ing” through time.

    Bear with me.

    We can only arrive at the efficient long term equilibrium from the fair and constant battle of ideas and their corresponding policies. This connects to the wisdom of crowds, the “invisible hand“, and spontaneous order. By casting your vote, if not literally then just by your actions, you interact with the system and exert important influence.

    This is the competitive advantage of a healthy democracy over any form of top-down rule; our system leverages dynamics that exist in nature to remain adaptive in an incomprehensibly complex world.

    I plan to talk about the human Plinko more in the future, but for now think of an idea as the ball and each individual as a peg. The idea (or policy) deterministically navigates through time buffeting against its environment until it settles into its utility equilibrium: either embraced or rejected in aggregate. As the idea interacts with its human environment, it is subtly influenced by that interaction and goes through a process of iterative improvement (or deletion) similar to natural selection.

    Law, economy, and culture are emergent properties of the human societies that spawn them. Exerting conscious control over these domains, let’s say as a tyrant forcing a change and stifling resistance, can only last briefly or catastrophically (and often both).

    From this perspective, as long as we agree to participate in honorable and respectful discourse everything will sort itself out in time.

    Well, of course there’s the problem.

    Distrust

    Okay, yes, it may be too much to ask for humans to always avoid our natural proclivity toward violence. But there seems to be other factors that are increasing political discord.

    America is in a period of historically low trust in its government.

    If belief in the system of order is sufficiently undermined, whether by corruption or incompetence, we collectively nudge our plinko ball toward finding a new option. This action comes with costs, and is understandably chaotic. Might this be a source of the political animosity we are seeing today?

    Source: Pew Research

    Distrust is not inherently a bad thing. It is actually a patriotic thing to be skeptical of our government, what American philosopher Thomas Paine called the necessary evil. One just hopes that it can prove itself more necessary than evil.

    In the data collected above we see the trust of the post World War era rapidly degraded during the calamities of the Vietnam war, and deservedly so. This was a period characterized by confirmed government lies (see Pentagon Papers), abuse (see Watergate), and dishonor (no citation needed). We see a spike in 2001 as the country rapidly coalesced in the aftermath of 9/11, but this was squandered in the mismanagement of a long term occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Déjà vu.

    So the political contention we are seeing today may be a natural response to a dysfunctional system. The individuals are doing their part to find a solution: jockeying ideas and evaluating options. Playing plinko.

    Channeling this energy toward the system in order to refine it is a good thing. However, in this period of stress, to direct acrimony against other participants is to lose sight of the goal and potentially damage the process.

    Danger Close

    Here we are today. Trust is low, animosity is high: conditions feel ripe for upheaval.

    Therefore, it may be surprising that political violence in the West has been declining over the past four years. This data may be skewed by the pandemic, an event which has a historical tendency to increase political instability. Either way, if 2020 was an exceptional period of political stress, maybe our democracy is more robust than it seems.

    Further, the most vitriolic political anger is concentrated in a minority of partisans. The majority, on both sides of the aisle, appear to be far more reasonable and tolerant of differences.

    So America is perhaps more stable and tolerant than it is commonly perceived. This is not so surprising, but it may be problematic. The perception of instability itself can have a causal effect, thereby manifesting conflict that didn’t previously exist. Why does this misperception exist then?

    One theory, of many, is that polarizing forces may be inherent to the information age. The communicativeness of people has greatly increased in the past twenty years. Individuals can easily interact with a much larger audience and form widespread communities. This has even spawned an “influencer” class of citizens, who can grow their networks, and therefore their wealth, by producing content that is favored by their platform. Content proliferation tends to favor drama and extremes, because:

    1. That is what humans actually have an appetite for, over the banal and typical.
    2. It is easier to group such content into a specific bucket for algorithmic sorting and dispersion.

    Then, because humans actually do have more appetite for such content, it creates a positive feedback loop of consumption.

    The resulting distortions are becoming increasingly well documented. As it stands, it may continue to radicalize outliers of the population, but I do not think media proliferation (even by nefarious actors) could reach a critical mass alone and destabilize the country. So everything is alright in reality.

    Not quite.

    Despite the relative peace America has enjoyed, global violence has been increasing over the past 4 years. Though this year-to-date data shows a slight decline in violence, the ACLED noted that there has been an increase in the number of countries experiencing sustained or increasing conflict. Indeed even countries that are not currently in conflict are posturing to be. So although the instances of violence are down, the potential remains very high.

    Volatility begets volatility.

    Source: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED); www.acleddata.com Data accessed: November 4, 2024 Data coverage: Events targeting civilians from 115 countries with consistent reporting (2018-2024) Filters applied: “Violence against civilians” event type Data manipulation: Event-level data aggregated by country and year; analysis normalized to include only countries with complete reporting across the full time period; 2024 projection calculated using monthly average from January through October 25, 2024 and extrapolated to full year

    I bring this up because I do not mean to trivialize the gravity of the moment; I believe we are indeed headed for a period of increased geopolitical instability. I believe that it will require our utmost vigilance to navigate this era successfully. However, much more so, I believe it will require our cooperation.

    Conclusion

    I am an American skeptic, and an American exceptionalist. The United States is a special place in the world, not because of the federal regimes that have led it but because of the people who have composed it. The American Abraham Lincoln said,

    “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

    Too often recently I have heard casual talk of civil war – God forbid it comes to that again. If it may, and in a millennium it may, one could only hope it be for the preservation of individual freedom and liberty. It is the only way we can plinko our way to a happy future for all.

    There is no greater cause.

    We are all on the same ship, and it can only navigate through rough waters if we each plunge our oars in unison. It will require all hands on deck.

    The Economist just produced an essay titled “The anti-politics eating the west”- funny how this idea has itself become emergent recently. The essay concludes true to their stylistic form:

    The idea that the vote in America on November 5th could determine the path of history is the sort of grandiose claim you would expect from partisans trying to stir up their base. This time it might just be true.

    It’s nice to end an essay with a dramatic line, but part of me disagrees with the sentiment. The election will indeed determine the path of history, as they all do.

    Though perhaps not as much as you.

    • Share on Mail (Opens in new window)Mail

  • Privacy, truth, and individuality

    October 29th, 2024

    Never before has it been so easy to control so many humans. Plato would not be surprised. What does this trend mean for the future?

 

Loading Comments...
 

    • Subscribe Subscribed
      • Rittenryl
      • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
      • Rittenryl
      • Subscribe Subscribed
      • Sign up
      • Log in
      • Report this content
      • View site in Reader
      • Manage subscriptions
      • Collapse this bar